Why Regenerative Climate Solutions Fail to Get Funded

What’s holding back natural climate solutions? Natural climate solutions (NCS)—from reforestation and agroforestry to wetland restoration—have long been championed as low-cost, high-benefit pathways for reducing greenhouse gases. In theory, they could provide over a third of the climate mitigation needed by 2030 to stay under 2°C of warming. But in practice, progress is stalling. A sweeping new PNAS Nexus study reveals why. Drawing on 352 peer-reviewed papers across 135 countries, researchers led by Hilary Brumberg cataloged 2,480 documented barriers to implementing NCS. The obstacles are not ecological. Rather, they are human: insufficient funding, patchy information, ineffective policies, and public skepticism. The result is a vast “implementation gap” between what is technically possible and what is politically, economically, or socially feasible. The analysis found that “lack of funding” was the most commonly cited constraint globally—identified in nearly half of all countries surveyed. Yet it rarely stood alone. Most regions face a tangle of interconnected hurdles. Constraints from different categories often co-occur, compounding difficulties: poor governance erodes trust; disinterest stems from unclear benefits; technical know-how is stymied by bureaucratic confusion. These patterns vary by region and type of intervention. Reforestation projects, for instance, face particularly high scrutiny over equity concerns—especially in the Global South, where land tenure insecurity and historical injustices run deep. Agroforestry and wetland restoration often struggle with the complexity of design and monitoring. Meanwhile, grassland and peatland pathways remain understudied, despite their importance. The study’s most striking insight may be spatial. Countries within the same UN subregion tend to share a similar profile of constraints—more so than across broader development regions. This geographic clustering suggests an opportunity: Supranational collaboration, if properly resourced and attuned to local context, could address shared challenges more efficiently than isolated national efforts. Crucially, the authors argue that piecemeal fixes will not suffice. Because most countries face an average of seven distinct constraints, many from different domains, effective solutions must be integrated and cross-sectoral. Adaptive management—a flexible, feedback-based approach—could help. By identifying which barriers arise at each stage of an NCS project’s lifecycle, it may be possible to design interventions that are not just technically sound, but socially and politically viable. Natural climate solutions still hold vast potential. But unlocking it will require less focus on where trees grow best—and more on where people can make them thrive. 🔬 Brumberg et al 2025. Global analysis of constraints to natural climate solution implementation. PNAS Nexus. https://lnkd.in/gDmYJEph

🌍 How is public money still flowing into industries that fuel the climate crisis, while crucial climate solutions struggle to get the funding they need? What does this imbalance mean for the future of the Global South? These are some of the critical questions tackled in ActionAid’s new report, "How the Finance Flows: Corporate Capture of Public Finance Fuelling the Climate Crisis in the Global South". This in-depth analysis uncovers the disturbing trend of public finances being funnelled into sectors like fossil fuels and industrial agriculture—both major contributors to the climate emergency—while support for sustainable solutions remains alarmingly low. Here are the key findings: 1️⃣ Corporate Capture of Public Finance:Public finance in the Global South is being used to subsidize the very industries causing the climate crisis. Fossil fuel and industrial agriculture sectors receive an average of US$ 677 billion in subsidies annually—an amount that could fund primary school education for all sub-Saharan African children more than 3.5 times over. 2️⃣ Imbalance in Subsidies: The industrial agriculture sector alone received US$ 238 billion annually between 2016 and 2021. Meanwhile, fossil fuels received US$ 438.6 billion a year, with subsidies rising steadily to US$ 495.3 billion in 2023. 3️⃣ Lack of Real Climate Finance: Climate finance grants from the Global North for climate-hit countries are grossly insufficient, amounting to just 1/20th of the public finance going to fossil fuels and industrial agriculture in the Global South. This results in renewable energy receiving 40 times less public finance than fossil fuels. 4️⃣ Decline in Renewable Energy Investment: Public investment in renewable energy in the Global South is critically low, averaging just US$ 10.3 billion annually and decreasing from US$ 15 billion in 2016 to US$ 7 billion in 2021, even as debt distress increases. 5️⃣ The Need for a Just Transition: Fossil fuel and industrial agriculture industries maintain an iron grip on the economies and public finances of Global South countries, preventing an equitable and just transition to renewable energy and agroecology, both essential for addressing the climate crisis. 🌱 It’s clear that urgent reforms in global finance are needed to redirect funds toward sustainable and equitable climate solutions. I encourage everyone to read this report and reflect on how we can all push for a financial system that supports climate action and social justice. #ClimateJustice #Sustainability #FinanceForClimate #GlobalSouth #ESG #RenewableEnergy 📖 Read the full report here: https://lnkd.in/eqaAXiaJ

The growing momentum for regenerative land use is essential — but the financing model matters. In this Forbes article by Felicia Jackson, I reflect on the deep flaws of voluntary carbon markets and why so many countries are turning to them — not because they are effective, but because the international community has failed to provide the real financing needed for sustainable land use and development. 👉 https://lnkd.in/gpUz7m4A For individual countries or communities, carbon markets may seem like the only available pathway to access finance. But globally, this model guarantees collective failure — undermining our ability to meet climate goals and harming the very communities these projects are meant to support. Conservation, regenerative agriculture, and ecosystem restoration are essential for climate change mitigation, climate resilience, biodiversity preservation, food security, and improving rural livelihoods. That’s precisely why they must be financed on their own terms, through mechanisms that ensure broad integration into national and regional development strategies with long-term, adequate and sustainable financing. Voluntary carbon markets not only fail to deliver those integrated outcomes, but critically they also rest on the fiction that complex emissions in one place can be “neutralized” by carbon-only removals elsewhere. Worse, many projects funded by credits are not even removals, meaning they allow for net emissions growth (+ continuation of other local pollutants). The credit markets also regularly over-credit and under-deliver, and divert scarce finance toward project developers, brokers, verifiers, and data platforms instead of the actual activities that need financing. What’s exciting is that real, transformative pathways do exist. With the right combination of technology, policy, and public finance, we can really achieve systemic land-use transformation. New tools — like Soil in Formation, PBC's real-time, self-operating, multi-parameter soil sensors; in situ weather forecasting apps to inform planting/harvesting timing; and digital diagnostic & treatment plans for failing crops; among others — offer game-changing insights for farmers and policymakers, helping to improve on-farm practices AND to allow tailored, responsive extension services, subsidies, etc.. for improved land use management. The argument that carbon markets are necessary “because nothing else works” often reflects a lack of vision and an overly simplistic understanding of what constitutes political will. In reality, systems solutions are possible — and already emerging across so many sectors and at many levels of governance (local, national, regional), with the support of diverse public and private actors. It is both possible and necessary to design and invest in the integrated, systemic solutions that will deliver the transformations we urgently need.

The way we grow food today is unsustainable and costs us $20 trillion annually in hidden environmental and health damages. Regenerative agriculture offers a solution through healthier soils, resilient supply chains, and thriving communities. But funding isn’t flowing upstream to the producers who need it most. Outdated policies, data gaps, and short-term financial models stand in the way. It’s time for innovative finance to step up. Tools like blended finance, sustainability-linked loans, and ecosystem service incentives can de-risk regenerative agriculture and scale impact. Clearly, this isn’t just a moral imperative— it’s a chance to future-proof portfolios while driving measurable change. A shift in how we think about food, finance, and the future is a positive change that will allow us to adapt and thrive to build stronger and healthier communities. To learn more, read the full report linked in the comments.