Analysis of 22 on-farm interventions to address livestock climate and nature risks finds nature-based rather than tech-based solutions offer greater emissions-reduction potential and benefits to biodiversity and planetary health.
Nature-based interventions1 associated with greater positive impact across five planetary boundaries, relative to just three for tech-based interventions.2
Nature-based interventions have fewer negative externalities compared to tech-based interventions – which may pose significant climate and nature risks – with evidence of significant negative trade-offs in 7/10 cases.
Despite this, nature-based interventions receive less public investment globally (US$127 million) than tech-based interventions (US$157 million) – together representing just 0.1% of total climate-related public finance1, despite livestock contributing up to 19.6% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
“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.” Jeremy Coller, Founder, FAIRR.
As global average annual temperatures breach 1.5°C for the first time and 6/9 planetary boundaries are crossed, a first-of-its-kind report from the $75 trillion-backed FAIRR investor network charts a path towards reducing the negative impact of livestock production – finding nature-based interventions are better for emissions reductions, biodiversity and overall planetary health than those relying on technology.
The report was produced by the FAIRR Initiative with support of the Planetary Guardians who want to partner with industries to help get back to a safe operating space, in collaboration with the Climate Policy Initiative and Vibrant Data Labs with support from The Omidyar Group and Planetary Guardians, including Hiro Mizuno and Paul Polman.
The report assesses the mitigation potential and viability of 22 interventions frequently cited by the agri-food sector as a way of addressing climate and nature risks from intensive livestock production – scoring each against the Stockholm Resilience Centre’s planetary boundaries framework and tracking how much private and public capital they receive.
Of the 22 on-farm interventions assessed, 12 are nature-based and 10 are 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.
This is concerning 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.
Further, 7/10 tech-based solutions show evidence of significant negative trade-offs against other planetary boundaries – with the strongest evidence against large-scale anaerobic digesters for animal waste, synthetic animal feed additives and GHG-focused livestock breeding and genetic selection.
On average, and ignoring negative trade-offs, each nature-based intervention positively impacts 5/7 boundaries compared to just 3/7 for tech-based.
Six nature-based interventions (biobased fertilisers, crop rotations, grazing optimisation, hedgerows, silvopasture and tree intercropping) are market-ready, 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.
Despite livestock production being responsible for up to 19.6% of global GHG emissions and being the leading driver of deforestation and land use change – the report finds these 22 interventions receive just 0.1% (US$284.5 million) of climate-related public finance globally.3
Analysis of private-sector funding in the United States4 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.
Investors need to understand the effectiveness and viability of climate- and nature-focused interventions and consider this in their decision-making. It is hoped that this research can help investors understand and integrate nature-based solutions into portfolios to meet climate and nature goals more effectively.
Jeremy Coller, Chair and Founder of FAIRR, said:
“We are feeding 80 billion animals a year for 8 billion humans. The harms of intensive animal agriculture to people, planet and portfolios are too great to be ignored in the net-zero and nature transition. Climate change is a significant accelerating risk, but with business-as-usual intensive livestock production posing a systemic risk to investor portfolios across seven planetary boundaries – investments in decarbonisation must be taken with an eye on the bigger picture.”
Randy Newcomb, Senior Advisor, The Omidyar Group, said:
"FAIRR’s research highlights a crucial opportunity to align investment strategies with solutions that not only reduce emissions, but also regenerate ecosystems and promote long-term planetary health. Nature-based interventions offer a clear pathway to address the systemic risks of intensive livestock production, delivering benefits that extend far beyond immediate climate goals. It’s time to rebalance our investments and unlock opportunities for a more sustainable and resilient future that benefits people, the planet and the global economy."
Hiro Mizuno, said:
“As we face the urgent challenge of climate change, it’s clear that more capital from both public and private sectors must flow towards nature-based climate solutions.
“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.”
Paul Polman, said:
“To meet our net-zero and nature-positive goals, we need a holistic approach that integrates both supply- and demand-side interventions to achieve sustainable transformation in the livestock sector – a key driver pushing the world beyond the safe operating zones of planetary boundaries.
“By aligning the interests of producers, consumers, investors and policymakers, we can drive the systemic change needed to balance economic growth with the health of our planet.”
Sajeev Mohankumar, report author and Senior Technical Specialist, Climate and Biodiversity at FAIRR, said:
“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.”
Notes to editor
[1] Nature-based interventions leverage the Earth’s natural capital and functionality to deliver greenhouse gas emissions reductions, removals and nature benefits.
[2] Tech-based interventions use engineered methods, built infrastructure or advancements in technology to reduce emissions and potentially mitigate nature impacts.
[3] The Climate Policy Initiative does not account for public subsidies within the capital flows tracked to prevent double counting. The data only tracks financial commitments that represent new money targeting climate-specific outcomes. As such, policy instruments such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are not included in the dataset. This can lead to an underestimation of the financial flows to the interventions identified in the FAIRR classification. Despite efforts to improve the coverage of data collected, significant gaps exist for public domestic financial flows – a gap especially apparent in the livestock sector. This is largely due to a lack of standardised disclosure practices and transparency on projects. The findings presented should be interpreted with these data constraints.
[4] Private capital flows are limited to venture and philanthropic capital allocated to on-farm interventions addressing climate and nature impacts of the livestock sector in the US.
Media contact
For more information, including interviews and further comment, please contact:
Georgia Dalton, ESG Communications
Contact number: +44 (0)7798 751 529 | e: georgia@esgcomms.com
About FAIRR
The FAIRR Initiative is a global investor network, founded by Jeremy Coller, with a membership representing $75 trillion in assets under management. FAIRR works with institutional investors to define the material risks and opportunities linked to intensive animal agriculture and provides investor members with the research, tools and engagements necessary to integrate this information into their asset stewardship and investment decisions. This includes the Coller FAIRR Protein Producer Index, the world’s only comprehensive assessment of the largest global animal protein companies. Visit www.fairr.org.
