Search Climate Insights Directory

The report analyzes the economic drivers of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, comparing land price dynamics and cattle production inside and outside the Amazon biome. It finds that while cattle growth outside the Amazon is driven by meat and milk demand (increasing land prices), growth within the Amazon is strongly linked to land grabbing, which increases the supply of land and reduces its price. The authors argue that policies focusing solely on cattle productivity are insufficient for the Amazon; instead, addressing land grabbing and improving land security are critical to decoupling beef production from deforestation.

The report demonstrates that deforestation in the Amazon, specifically within the Xingu River Basin, significantly reduces rainfall in Mato Grosso. A counterfactual scenario where all Xingu Indigenous Territories are deforested predicts an average annual precipitation decrease of 7%, with more severe reductions during the dry season. These changes threaten agricultural productivity, urban water supplies, and hydroelectric power generation, with the center and north of the state being most vulnerable.

The GFCR Investment Window is a proposed $500 million fund, with $125 million requested from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as a first-loss equity position. Managed by Pegasus Capital Advisors, the fund targets 'climate refugia'—reefs most likely to survive warming oceans—by investing in sustainable ocean production, ecotourism, and sustainable infrastructure to reduce local stressors. The program aims to protect 29,000 hectares of reef, create over 12,700 direct jobs, and benefit over 35 million people indirectly. It utilizes a dual-window model, pairing the Investment Window with a Grant Window to provide technical assistance and pipeline incubation.

The report argues that methane emissions from livestock are a critical 'blind spot' in climate policies. It finds that neither the 18 largest producing countries nor the 20 largest industry companies have set sufficient targets to reduce methane, often ignoring the necessity of reducing livestock numbers and meat consumption to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The report identifies a critical 'blind spot' in climate policy regarding livestock methane, finding that neither the largest producing nations nor the biggest meat and dairy companies have set targets aligned with the 45% reduction required by 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5°C. While some countries report emissions, most lack concrete action plans to transform food production and consumption. Similarly, an analysis of 20 global meat and dairy giants revealed poor performance, with none reporting methane emissions separately or establishing specific methane reduction targets.

The report identifies the livestock sector as a critical 'blind spot' in climate policy, noting that neither the largest meat and dairy producing nations nor the top 20 global corporations in these industries have set targets consistent with a 45% methane reduction by 2030. While some governments report emissions, few have concrete action plans to transform food production and consumption. Among the 20 largest companies, none report methane emissions separately, and only three include Scope 3 emissions in their targets. The document argues that technical fixes are insufficient and that a systemic transition toward healthier diets with fewer animal products is essential to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The report highlights a critical failure by major livestock-producing nations and corporations to address methane emissions, despite the gas's high potency and short atmospheric lifespan. It finds that most assessed countries lack absolute methane reduction targets and that the largest meat and dairy companies fail to report methane emissions separately or implement concrete abatement plans. The document advocates for a systemic transition toward plant-rich diets and the implementation of both technical and behavioral mitigation measures to meet Paris Agreement goals.

This report by CPI/PUC-Rio uses an atmospheric transport model to demonstrate that deforestation in the Amazon rainforest reduces rainfall in Mato Grosso. A counterfactual analysis of the total deforestation of indigenous territories in the Xingu River Basin suggests a 7% reduction in average annual precipitation, with more severe impacts during the dry season. The study highlights the critical role of protected forest areas in sustaining agricultural productivity, hydroelectric power generation, and urban water supplies.

The report argues that deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is primarily driven by land grabbing rather than food demand. This is evidenced by a negative correlation between cattle herd growth and land prices in the Amazon, contrasting with the positive correlation found in other Brazilian regions. The authors conclude that policies focusing solely on productivity are insufficient and that land tenure security is essential to decouple cattle production from deforestation.

The document analyzes three case studies from the Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance to demonstrate how linking financial instruments to policy tools—such as national land-use regulations, insurance subsidies, and subsidized rural credit—can stimulate demand, identify project pipelines, and attract private capital. It provides specific design considerations to mitigate risks like market distortion, political instability, and 'leakage' of deforestation.

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) rejects Nature-based Solutions (NbS), characterizing the term as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing.' The organization contends that NbS is too vague, allowing harmful practices like industrial monoculture plantations to be labeled as 'natural.' FoEI argues that NbS serves as a greenwashing tool for fossil fuel and agro-industrial companies to justify 'net zero' claims through carbon offsetting rather than actual emission reductions. The document warns that the scale of land required for these projects leads to land grabbing and violates the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly in the Global South. Instead of NbS, FoEI advocates for systemic change through agroecology, community forest management, and a coordinated phase-out of fossil fuels.

Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) rejects Nature Based Solutions (NBS), characterizing it as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' that instrumentalizes nature to serve corporate profits and 'net-zero' offsetting schemes. The document contends that NBS promotes monoculture plantations, enables the financialization of nature, and threatens the sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. FOEI argues that NBS distracts from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels and instead advocates for systemic changes such as agroecology and Community Forest Management (CFM).

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) rejects Nature-based Solutions (NbS), characterizing the term as a "wolf in sheep's clothing" that masks neocolonialism and corporate greenwashing. The document contends that NbS promotes industrial monoculture plantations and the financialization of nature, which threatens the land rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, particularly in the Global South. FoEI argues that NbS serves as a distraction from the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels and instead advocates for systemic changes through agroecology and community forest management.

The report finds that while the Paris Agreement has integrated forests into the international climate agenda, national ambitions in NDCs remain insufficient and often lack quantitative targets. Public finance for forest climate goals is a small fraction of the required amount, with 'grey' finance for deforestation-driving sectors vastly outweighing 'green' investments. While many countries have established REDD+ programs and robust monitoring systems, implementation is hindered by weak governance, widespread illegality, and a lack of secure land tenure for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs). The report recommends scaling up domestic and international finance, strengthening land rights, and expanding demand-side regulations in consumer countries to curb illegal deforestation.

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 report identifies five key Water-Smart Agriculture (WSA) innovation clusters in South Africa: irrigation systems, smart farming, undercover farming, sustainable practices, and drought-tolerant crops. While commercial farms have adopted many of these technologies due to economies of scale, adoption remains low among smallholder and emerging farmers. The analysis estimates significant market sizes for high-tech greenhouses (R11.78 billion) and no-till machinery (R4.48 billion), while identifying remote sensing services as a high-growth area. Major barriers include high upfront costs, limited technical skills, and an unfriendly regulatory environment. The report recommends developing innovative financing models, increasing farmer awareness, and strengthening government support through tax rebates and policy integration.

The document examines the trade-offs between universal and targeted Basic Income Guarantees (BIG) for South Africans aged 18-59. It argues that targeting creates administrative burdens, high exclusion errors, and social stigma, whereas a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) ensures broader coverage and social cohesion. The brief contends that a UBIG is fiscally feasible through progressive taxation, such as a Social Security Tax, and provides superior poverty reduction by allowing households to pool resources. It specifically critiques the use of employment status or household-level targeting, noting that the latter can exacerbate gender inequalities. The brief recommends a universal BIG as the most efficient path to economic recovery and social stability.

The report analyzes the energy portfolios of ten major private equity firms, finding that 80% of their energy assets are in fossil fuels. It highlights that these investments often yield low returns and disproportionately impact communities of color, while the industry's private nature allows these activities to avoid the public scrutiny faced by publicly traded oil majors.

The document argues that to meet the 1.5°C climate goal, new coal infrastructure must stop immediately and most existing plants must be retired by 2030. It provides a framework for financial institutions to assess corporate coal exit plans, emphasizing that credible plans must include facility-by-facility closure dates, a prohibition on selling assets to new owners, and a ban on converting plants to other fossil fuels or biomass. The briefing also highlights the necessity of funded just transition plans and the cessation of anti-climate lobbying and legal challenges via investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.

The report finds that most G20 and Eurosystem central banks lack credible sustainable investment policies for their non-policy portfolios, often relying on opacity or weak ESG criteria to mask continued support for fossil fuel companies. While the Banque de France is highlighted as a leader for its fossil fuel restrictions, the majority of analyzed banks either have no public SRI policy or use 'tricks' such as investing in green bonds without excluding major polluters. The document recommends that central banks adopt strict exclusion policies for coal and new fossil fuel projects to align with a 1.5°C warming trajectory.