Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that 20th-century infrastructure paradigms are ill-suited for 21st-century climate extremes and that current 'sustainable' infrastructure efforts focus too heavily on low-carbon goals while neglecting nature-based resilience. It highlights a critical gap in 'upstream' strategic planning, where natural capital is often ignored until the project approval stage. Through case studies in Mozambique, Mexico, Myanmar, and South Africa, the report demonstrates the value of integrating ecosystem services and climate scenarios into land-use planning. It introduces the 'Visioning Futures' framework, which emphasizes defining spatial scope, identifying future objectives, and performing sensitivity testing under various climate scenarios to avoid environmental risks and optimize infrastructure siting.

The document categorises natural capital tools into six technical groups: biodiversity footprint, mapping, qualitative/quantitative, monetary, absolute ecological performance, and integrated accounting. It distinguishes between tools oriented toward economic performance (utilitarian interests) and those oriented toward ecological performance (strong sustainability), advocating for the latter to ensure activities remain within planetary boundaries.

The document examines the material risks climate change poses to global supply chains and the current state of private sector adaptation. It argues that while companies recognize climate risks, they often misdiagnose them by focusing on exposure rather than underlying vulnerability. Using the cotton industry as a detailed example, the paper proposes a resilience framework based on six capital assets—natural, human, social, physical, financial, and political—and provides recommendations for companies to commit to science-based resilience strategies and gender-transformative empowerment of women workers.

The document argues that the natural environment is fundamental to economic resilience and that Nature-based Solutions (NbS) offer cost-effective, flexible alternatives or complements to engineered infrastructure for adapting to climate change. It details the dependencies of key economic sectors on ecosystem services and provides evidence that NbS can mitigate risks from coastal hazards, intense precipitation, drought, and heat while providing co-benefits such as carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation. The authors identify significant barriers to the adoption of NbS, including lack of awareness, limited finance, and technical capacity gaps, and recommend integrating nature into climate vulnerability assessments and procurement policies.

The report examines the failure of current conservation finance to meet global needs, noting that only USD 50-53.4 billion is raised annually against a need of USD 150-440 billion. It identifies structural barriers such as low returns, high risk, and financial short-termism (the 'Tragedy of the Horizon'). The author proposes a systemic shift using natural capital accounting, mandatory corporate disclosures, and the active involvement of central banks and state investment banks to internalize environmental externalities and redirect capital toward sustainable activities.

The report explores how blockchain technology and 'impact tokens' can overcome systemic barriers in impact investing to better support the UN Sustainable Development Goals. It identifies five primary barriers to scaling impact investing—including lack of appropriate capital and insufficient impact measurement—and proposes that impact tokens can increase trust, promote inclusion, improve data collection, and incentivize sustainable behaviors.

The authors examine the 'financialization of nature,' arguing that securitizing ecosystem services creates incentives to maximize a narrow set of commodifiable outputs at the expense of overall ecosystem health. They contend that the fungibility required for financial markets ignores the complex, location-specific nature of ecosystems. While they identify limited exceptions—such as tradable permits for widely-dispersed gases (e.g., CO2 and SOx) and socially responsible investing (SRI) for already-managed lands—they warn that most environmental credits and offsets fail to protect biodiversity or ensure genuine additionality.

The report argues that wealth and wellbeing depend on natural capital—the stock of renewable and non-renewable resources that provide essential ecosystem services. It highlights that natural capital can account for 30% to 50% of national wealth in various countries, yet traditional GDP measures fail to capture this value. The document outlines how governments can generate societal returns (e.g., poverty reduction and public health), economic returns (e.g., business resilience and green infrastructure), and environmental returns (e.g., ecological resilience). To scale these benefits, the report proposes twelve specific levers for government action, ranging from implementing UN-SEEA accounting frameworks and creating public-private partnerships to mainstreaming natural capital into macro indicators and implementing mandatory non-financial disclosures.

The Green Economy Coalition (GEC) convened a global meeting in Cape Town from January 8-10, 2019, bringing together over 130 participants to address the question of how everyone can get a stake in the green economy. The event resulted in five core findings, a set of policy recommendations for the UN-PAGE Ministerial, and a framework for the GEC's next ten-year strategy. The report highlights a global trend toward green investment—noting over 9 trillion of private investment since 2007—while warning that biodiversity is in crisis and the global financial system is structurally unfit for the environmental crisis. It also provides status updates on green economy initiatives in several GEC hub countries, including South Africa, India, Mongolia, Peru, Senegal, and Uganda.

The document outlines Uganda's green economy efforts, noting the development of the Third National Development Plan and a Draft Climate Change Bill. It emphasizes the economic risk of climate inaction, which could cost between US$ 3.2 and 5.9 billion over ten years, and details the degradation of the River Rwizi catchment due to farming and mining.

The report establishes a framework for understanding nature-related risk to business (NRR), defining it as risks arising when changes in a company's impacts on or dependencies on nature become threats due to exposure and vulnerability. It categorizes these risks into five types: physical, regulatory and legal, market, reputational, and financial. Through a review of over 70 sources and four case studies (BP, Vale, German exporters in South Africa, and PG&E), the document demonstrates how environmental degradation can lead to severe financial losses, operational disruptions, and bankruptcy. It emphasizes that nature-related risks and climate risks are 'twin emergencies' that are mutually reinforcing.

The report establishes a framework for nature-related risk (NRR), defining it as the result of changes in a business's dependencies on or impacts on nature that become threats due to the company's exposure and vulnerability. It identifies five primary risk types: physical, regulatory & legal, market, reputational, and financial. Through a review of over 70 sources, the report highlights that sectors such as food and beverage, metals and mining, and oil and gas face the highest risks. Case studies of BP, Vale, PG&E, and German exporters illustrate how these risks materialize into multi-billion dollar liabilities, bankruptcy, or lost revenue.

The report examines the 'Blue Economy' of the Arctic, categorizing its resources into extractive, renewable, biological, connective, and experiential types. It highlights the immense investment potential—estimated up to US$1 trillion—and the accompanying risks of ecological collapse and social vulnerability. Through a SWOT analysis, the document identifies rapid climate change and a reliance on fossil fuel extraction as primary threats, while noting opportunities in the 'Blue Bio-Economy' and the potential to build sustainable infrastructure from the start. It concludes with six key recommendations for governments, investors, and Indigenous Peoples to ensure long-term ecosystem resilience and inclusive governance.

The report argues that GDP is an insufficient measure of national progress and advocates for the use of comprehensive wealth measures. Analysis of Canadian data from 1980 to 2015 reveals several sustainability risks, including rising household debt, declining lifetime earning potential, heavy reliance on foreign investment, and a significant drop in the market value of the oil sands. The author emphasizes that Canada's comprehensive wealth portfolio is vulnerable to climate change impacts.

The report finds that Canada's development has been unsustainable for significant periods since 2008, as comprehensive wealth declined or grew on a fragile basis despite GDP growth. Key vulnerabilities include stagnant per capita human capital, produced capital concentrated in housing and oil and gas, and the physical depletion of most market natural assets. While financial capital grew recently due to foreign stock market gains, household debt has reached unprecedented levels, increasing financial fragility.

The report finds that while Canada's GDP has grown, its comprehensive wealth—comprising produced, natural, human, financial, and social capital—has grown much more slowly and shows signs of fragility. Key concerns include a lack of growth in human capital, the depletion of market natural assets, and an increasing concentration of produced capital in housing and oil and gas infrastructure. The document advocates for the regular measurement of comprehensive wealth by Statistics Canada to better guide long-term policy decisions and address threats like climate change.

The report argues that Canada's long-term prosperity is fragile, as its comprehensive wealth has grown significantly slower than its GDP. While Canada possesses high levels of natural capital, it faces risks from household debt, climate change, and an over-concentration of produced capital in housing and oil and gas infrastructure. The authors advocate for the official adoption of comprehensive wealth measurement to shift policy focus from short-term gains to long-term sustainability.

The GEC Steering Group approved the Organization of American States (OAS) as a member and discussed the 'Measure what matters' (MWM) brand, which focuses on alternative ways of measuring success for green and fair economies. The group also reviewed the structure of an upcoming global meeting centered on the question 'how does everyone get a stake?' and noted plans for a global SME plan and a Partner Growth strategy to be developed by September 2018.

The Uganda Green Economy Barometer 2018 argues that while Uganda has a conducive policy environment and significant natural capital, the transition to a green economy is hindered by poor policy implementation, high initial costs, and a financing gap. It highlights the potential for green growth to create 4 million jobs and boost GDP by 10%, provided there is political commitment, economic reform, and increased private sector investment in sectors like agriculture, renewable energy, and sustainable transport.

The India Green Economy Barometer 2018 finds that while India has high potential for a green transition and has made significant strides in renewable energy and social inclusion, the overall progress is slow and insufficient. The report identifies key blockages, including the perception that environmental protection hinders economic growth and a lack of mature green financial markets. It highlights successes in solar capacity expansion and corporate social responsibility but warns that a 'business-as-usual' approach threatens long-term wellbeing due to natural resource overuse and rising inequality.