Search Climate Insights Directory

The report advocates for the G20 to replace GDP as the primary measure of national progress with a framework that accounts for economic, environmental, social, and human assets. It notes that GDP growth often masks the deterioration of natural and social capital, which are essential for long-term wellbeing.

The document argues that Africa faces an annual financing gap of over $100 billion to preserve its natural capital, which is critical for global climate and biodiversity goals. It proposes a 'triple bottom line' approach—combining financial returns, environmental impact, and community benefits—applied through landscape financing, restorative agriculture, and sustainable supply chains. The paper identifies green bonds, carbon credits, and impact investing as key financial mechanisms and calls for stronger regulatory frameworks, such as the adoption of Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) guidelines, to attract private capital and prevent 'nature-washing'.

ClientEarth submits that while ELMS has potential, it cannot replace mandatory agri-environmental regulations. The organization warns that withdrawing 'cross compliance' without a successor framework will create significant protection gaps in soil and water quality, as the voluntary nature of ELMS and the poor enforcement record of the Environment Agency are unlikely to maintain basic environmental standards.

The report demonstrates that nature-related risks are material for African financial institutions, particularly in the agriculture and extractives sectors. Using the TNFD's LEAP approach, it finds that ambitious nature-positive transitions could lead to equity value changes between +2% and -5% and loan book changes between +0.3% and -0.6% by 2030. While aggregate portfolio impacts appear small due to limited sector exposure, specific risks in agriculture and extractives could double expected credit losses for some portfolios. The report highlights critical physical risks, such as water stress affecting 25% of African countries and habitat loss threatening ecotourism in Eastern and Southern Africa. It concludes that African financial institutions face significant capacity and data gaps in implementing nature-related disclosures and recommends an integrated approach that combines climate and nature risk management.

The document examines the limitations of GDP as a measure of progress, noting that the pursuit of material gain leads to social inequity and environmental degradation. It identifies systemic roadblocks to redefining prosperity—including national reliance on GDP for revenue, cultural associations of success with consumption, and business models based on consumerism. The authors propose a suite of actions, such as the adoption of complementary well-being indicators, the potential introduction of wealth taxes to decouple growth from resource use, and a shift in corporate marketing to reshape societal values. Case studies from countries like Bhutan, Australia, and the UK illustrate various ways beyond-GDP indicators have been implemented.

The report finds that most pandemic recovery plans in Brazil, France, India, and Uganda missed the opportunity to invest in natural capital, often prioritizing business-as-usual practices. In Brazil, 87.3% of the reviewed budget for the Legal Amazon region had a negative impact, primarily due to agricultural subsidies. France's recovery plan showed a mixed impact, with 27% positive and 25% negative, largely due to corporate tax reductions. India's package was similarly mixed, with 18% positive and 24% negative, including significant funding for coal mining infrastructure. Uganda showed the most positive trend, with 34% of its 2020/21 budget having a positive impact, though this declined in the 2021/22 budget. The report recommends that governments implement environmental conditionality for corporate support, strengthen natural capital accounting, and align national strategies to ensure long-term economic stability through nature-positive investments.

The document outlines the conceptual and practical framework for moving beyond Gross Domestic Product (GDP) toward comprehensive/inclusive wealth (C/IW) measurement. It argues that GDP is biased toward short-term market growth and ignores critical determinants of well-being, such as environmental degradation and social capital. C/IW is presented as a portfolio of human, natural, social, produced, and financial capital that allows countries to determine if their development is sustainable. The briefing provides a three-step implementation strategy: informing decision-makers through tailored briefings, compiling official estimates via national statistical offices, and integrating these measures into ex ante and ex post policy analysis.

FSD Africa's 2022 Impact Report details the agency's efforts to deepen African capital markets and transition toward a green economy. Key achievements include mobilising £1.9 billion in long-term capital, supporting the issuance of pioneering gender bonds in Tanzania and Morocco, and expanding green finance initiatives. The report highlights the agency's 'green strategy' target to have 70% of its portfolio be green by 2025, alongside specific interventions in geothermal risk transfer, carbon markets, and COVID-19 emergency job protection in Ethiopia.

FSD Africa's 2022 Impact Report highlights the organization's shift toward green financing, with a goal of 70% of its portfolio being green. Key achievements include facilitating green bonds in 20 African countries, investing $0.25bn via the African Local Currency Bond Fund to support renewable energy, and launching the African Natural Capital Alliance to manage nature-related financial risks. The organization has increased its green financing commitment from £23 million in 2020 to approximately £52 million in 2022, with a target of over £122 million by 2025.

The report examines the systemic risks posed by the 'new planetary reality' of the Anthropocene, where climate instability and biosphere depletion create non-linear financial risks. It argues that current ESG metrics and macroeconomic indicators (like GDP) are insufficient because they fail to account for planetary boundaries and natural capital. The authors highlight the disproportionate responsibility of high-income countries for ecological breakdown and the role of 'keystone actors'—including transnational corporations and 'Big Three' asset managers (BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street)—in driving or mitigating these risks. The document proposes a shift toward a precautionary approach to financial regulation, the adoption of impact accounting, and the use of social norm shifts to accelerate a just transition.

The report finds that Canada's comprehensive wealth grew by only 7 per cent per person between 1980 and 2013, a rate significantly lower than the 54 per cent growth in individual consumption over the same period. While Canada remains the wealthiest G7 nation per capita, it has the lowest growth rate in comprehensive wealth among that group. The analysis reveals a stark decline in market natural capital, stagnant human capital, and produced capital growth that is dangerously concentrated in housing and oil and gas extraction. The document advocates for the federal government to fund Statistics Canada to regularly report comprehensive wealth measures to guide a transition toward a low-carbon, diversified economy.

The report maps 103 multistakeholder initiatives (MIs) to demonstrate how transnational corporations and philanthropic entities are displacing state-led multilateralism. It argues that the 'multistakeholder' rhetoric masks deep power imbalances, allowing the private sector to set global agendas, define standards, and implement market-based solutions that often undermine human rights and democratic accountability. The analysis highlights the central role of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in driving this trend, particularly through the instrumentalization of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The report maps 103 multistakeholder initiatives (MSIs) to demonstrate how transnational corporations and mega-philanthropies are displacing traditional state-led multilateralism. It identifies a pattern where the World Economic Forum (WEF) and large foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation drive a 'stakeholder capitalism' agenda, often using the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as legitimacy. The analysis reveals a significant democratic deficit, with affected communities and Global South governments largely excluded from decision-making, while the UN system often acts as a strategic partner that legitimises these corporate-led mechanisms.

The report finds that France's Plan de relance largely neglects natural capital, with 47% of its budget categorized as neutral or impossible to assess regarding biodiversity. While 28% of the budget is expected to have a positive impact—primarily through climate mitigation—25% is expected to have a negative impact due to support for environmentally damaging industries and company tax reductions. The authors recommend implementing environmental conditionality for funds and adopting nature-based solutions to ensure long-term economic resilience.

The document outlines the role of nature-based solutions (NBS) in enhancing infrastructure resilience and cost-effectiveness in Latin America and the Caribbean, detailing the Inter-American Development Bank's (IDB) strategy to mainstream these solutions through its 2020 Mainstreaming Action Plan for Environmental and Social Sustainability.

ClientEarth argues that the UK government's proposed 'Better Regulation' framework, informed by the TIGGR report, risks a deregulatory shift that would threaten environmental protections. The organization specifically opposes the adoption of a 'common law approach' to regulation and a 'new' proportionality principle, warning that these could erode the precautionary principle and lead to 'death by a thousand cuts' for the environment. ClientEarth also cautions against delegating excessive discretion to regulators through guidance rather than legislation, citing failures in oil and gas and agricultural pollution enforcement. Instead, it advocates for a prescriptive, government-led approach that integrates the value of natural capital into regulatory impact assessments.

The report evaluates India's post-pandemic economic recovery through the lens of natural capital, analyzing budgetary allocations in agriculture, MSMEs, power, mining, and the social sector. It finds that while the Union Budget 2021-22 showed more positive natural capital alignment than the initial COVID recovery package, significant gaps remain, particularly a lack of capital expenditure for green infrastructure and a heavy reliance on monetary rather than fiscal instruments to incentivize green practices.

The Measuring Wealth to Promote Sustainable Development Project argues that GDP is an inefficient measure of national well-being and economic health, particularly during the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. The project promotes a 'comprehensive wealth' approach that accounts for natural, produced, human, financial, and social capital. This framework has influenced Canada's Ministry of Finance in developing a Quality-of-Life Framework. The project is currently expanding its research partnerships to Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Trinidad and Tobago to advance expanded wealth measures within their specific socio-economic contexts.

The report argues that GDP is an insufficient measure of national well-being because it ignores the depletion of assets and favors short-term gains. It advocates for 'comprehensive wealth' measurement, which tracks five capital types: produced, financial, natural, human, and social capital. The document reviews global initiatives from organizations like the World Bank, UNEP, and OECD, noting that while human and produced capital have generally grown, natural capital is declining globally, particularly in developing countries. It concludes that comprehensive wealth accounts are essential for building resilience to climate change and achieving the UN 2030 Agenda's Sustainable Development Goals, specifically SDG 17.

The assessment finds that the Kakono Hydropower Plant (HPP) is the most sustainable and cost-effective energy option for northwestern Tanzania, demonstrating high climate resilience and the highest net societal benefits. Compared to a utility-scale diesel plant and a gas-solar PV portfolio, the HPP offers the lowest levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and the most attractive net present value (NPV), particularly when environmental and social externalities are internalized. While the HPP causes some habitat loss and carbon emissions during construction and reservoir operation, these are offset by significant employment generation and the avoidance of high fossil fuel emissions. The report concludes that the HPP is a viable investment for multilateral banks like the African Development Bank, provided that mitigation strategies for GHG emissions and habitat loss are implemented.