Tech interventions receive more funding as they can “deliver immediate climate benefits”, says the report, citing examples such as feed additives being added to livestock feed to reduce methane emissions.
But analysis of 22 on-farm interventions to address livestock climate and nature risks found that nature-based solutions – such as biobased fertilisers, crop rotations, grazing optimisation, hedgerows, silvopasture and tree intercropping – rather than tech-based ones offer greater emissions-reduction potential and benefits to biodiversity and planetary health.
Of the 22 on-farm interventions assessed, 12 are nature-based and 10 were tech-based. Overall, nature-based solutions had a greater positive impact on GHG reductions and removals, biodiversity, freshwater use, chemical inputs and the flow of nutrients across ecosystems than tech-based solutions.
Contrary to this evidence, the report found that only 45% (US$127 million) of climate-focused annual public funding for these 22 interventions globally (US$284 million) flows towards nature-based solutions relative to tech-based.
Analysis of private-sector funding in the US also found that the intensive livestock industry received US$120 million for these interventions, only 0.2% of US-specific climate mitigation investment tracked across all sectors.
This is concerning, the report said, because tech-based climate interventions are more likely to be aligned with intensive livestock production practices, and lead only to incremental emissions reductions relative to the long-term systemic changes from implementing nature-based interventions.
“The harms of intensive animal agriculture to people, planet and portfolios are too great to be ignored in the quest for net-zero and nature transition,” said Jeremy Coller, founder of Fairr, which is backed by investors representing $75 trillion in assets under management.
Market-ready solutions
Six nature-based interventions (biobased fertilisers, crop rotations, grazing optimisation, hedgerows, silvopasture and tree intercropping) are market-ready, the report claimed.
These could deliver a net return on investment within five years and show no evidence of significant negative trade-offs – versus just three tech-based (animal health and performance management, farm irrigation efficiency and improved livestock infrastructure).
Both tech- and nature-based interventions have the potential to be profitable with the adoption of carbon and nature-based credit markets, the report added.
“It’s clear that more capital from both public and private sectors must flow towards nature-based climate solutions,” contended Hiro Mizuno, former chief investment officer of the Japan Government Pension Investment Fund, the largest asset owner in the world.
“These solutions remain underfunded and underutilised, despite their potential to deliver substantial environmental and economic benefits. It is critical that we align our financial systems and investment priorities to drive these initiatives forward and make them central to the global effort against climate change and nature loss.”
Sajeev Mohankumar, report author and senior technical specialist at FAIRR, added: “While tech-based interventions are generally less risky to implement and can deliver immediate climate benefits, reliance on these creates a lock-in with intensive livestock production practices.
“This will delay our ability to meet long-term climate and nature targets. Nature-based interventions alone can deliver 37% of the mitigation required to meet 2030 climate targets, along with significant benefits to nature.”
