Connect with us

Published

on

On a sultry afternoon in Tomé-Açu, the agricultural heart of northern Brazil, farmer Zé Maria Pantoja strolls beneath the canopy of his 50 hectares of forested land. Tall açaí palms and hulking Brazil nut trees tower overhead, while cacao and cupuaçu bushes crowd the leaf-strewn ground below; the air thick with the scent of tropical growth and alive with bird chatter.

Three decades ago, this plot in the Amazon Basin state of Pará was a failing pepper monoculture owned by Zé Maria’s father. When Zé Maria proposed replanting it as a diverse forest of crops, his father balked. “Pepper had to be pepper, cacao was cacao… It would never work to plant them together,” Zé Maria recalls.

Today, that once-barren land is a technicolour abundance of cacao pods, açaí berries, Brazil nuts, passion fruit and cassava. Instead of a single annual pepper harvest, Zé Maria brings in different crops year-round – a shift he says has doubled production and income, reshaping his family’s prospects. Even his father has come around: “Today everything is fine. He agrees with it, and I know he is happy about it,” Zé Maria says.

Zé Maria has built what is known as an “agroforestry” system – integrating diverse trees and crops on the same land. It is approach rooted in Indigenous farming knowledge and practised in different forms around the world for millennia.

By blurring the line between farm and forest, agroforestry can store carbon, rebuild soils and habitat, and diversify farm incomes – making it a compelling route to decarbonise agriculture without hollowing out rural communities.

    In recent years, Zé Maria has partnered with Belterra, a Brazilian agroforestry enterprise set up in 2019. Belterra has provided technical support and seedlings to help farmers expand and connected them to markets – helping to prove that a family farm in the Amazon can be both profitable and ecologically sustainable. In 2023, Belterra was selected as an Earthshot Prize finalist for its approach.

    Across the tropics, where deforestation and land degradation drive a large share of emissions, agroforestry is being touted as a rare climate solution that can also be a livelihood strategy – as long as it is built with the people who farm the land. According to Marcelo Ferronato, president of Brazilian environmental NGO Ecoporé, “agroforestry is the best option the world has to support climate, the environment and farmers all at once.”

    Cacao (left) and Açaí (right) are a highly productive combination for agroforestry systems in Brazil. (Photo: Oliver Gordon/JUST Stories)

    Cacao (left) and Açaí (right) are a highly productive combination for agroforestry systems in Brazil. (Photo: Oliver Gordon/JUST Stories)

    The problem: A broken rural model

    Brazil’s rural development has long been driven by clearing forest for cattle and commodity crops – a frontier model that rewarded extraction and land concentration. In the Amazon Basin, official policy encouraged settlers to convert “unproductive” forest into ranches and farms.

    The result has been vast forest loss. Over the past half-century, more than 700,000 km² of Amazon rainforest has been deforested, with a further 6% heavily degraded. Scientists warn the Amazon may tip into irreversible die-back if it loses around 20% of its forest cover; estimates put losses already near 17%. Around 63% of Brazil’s roughly 160 million hectares of pasture, meanwhile, are degraded – an area roughly the size of Egypt left infertile and overrun with weeds.



    The social dynamics are equally corrosive. Brazil has one of the most unequal land distributions on Earth: just 2.8% of landowners control over 56% of arable land, while the poorest 50% of small farms own only 2.5%. With weak land registries, opportunists can grab land by clear-cutting it; local leaders who resist have faced threats, violence and even murder.

    Brazil is an extreme case, but not a unique one. Across the tropics, commodity monocultures and extensive cattle systems are major drivers of deforestation, while degraded farmland spreads as soils are mined and abandoned. Globally, agriculture – livestock and crops – has devoured roughly 50% of habitable land and left over one billion hectares of fields degraded.

    Agroforestry – an ancient solution with modern science

    Agroforestry – often categorised as ‘regenerative agriculture’ – mixes woody perennials with crops or livestock in designs intended to imitate natural ecosystems. By replacing monocultures with polycultures, agroforests can restore soil health, conserve water and support biodiversity – while keeping land in production.

    Integrating trees into farms also turns fields into carbon sinks. The UN climate body estimates that, if scaled up to its potential globally, agroforestry could sequester 1.8–4.1 gigatonnes of CO₂ every year – roughly 4-10% of annual global emissions.

    Rosivam’s farm, a multiplier in the Marajó Resiliente project of the Belterra Institute, Brazil (Photo: Oliver Gordon/JUST Stories)

    Rosivam’s farm, a multiplier in the Marajó Resiliente project of the Belterra Institute, Brazil (Photo: Oliver Gordon/JUST Stories)

    And agroforestry can also boost livelihoods. Trial sites in Zambia integrating Faidherbia albida trees yielded 88–190% more maize than sites without trees, while diversified harvests can spread risk and create multiple income streams.

    Belterra’s model: Business meets regeneration

    A former environmental official in Pará, Valmir Ortega left government in 2019 to set up Belterra. He established a private company, Belterra Agroflorestas, alongside a sister non-profit, the Belterra Institute. The company focuses on projects that can return revenue; the institute works with smaller subsistence farmers, including Indigenous and Quilombola communities, who are too small to make any discernible margins.

    Belterra Agroflorestas works through two basic arrangements: smallholder partnerships and landowner leases. In smallholder partnerships, farmers contribute land and labour (and sometimes co-investment), while Belterra provides capital and knowhow – seedlings, inputs, training and market access – under a revenue-sharing agreement. Belterra’s agronomists help the farmer design a crop mix so the system can start paying back quickly (often with fast-growing staples such as cassava and banana) while longer-term crops like cacao, açaí and timber establish.

    In the landowner leasing model, Belterra partners with owners of degraded pasture that has become unprofitable. Belterra rents the land, establishes an agroforest, and returns it after a defined period (often 10–20 years), earning revenue from the produce in the meantime.

    Deep in the Amazon, forest protection cash must vie with glitter of illegal gold

    But establishing agroforests isn’t cheap: Belterra estimates upfront investment of around US$10,000 per hectare over the first three years. To finance this, it uses blended capital – philanthropic and public funding to absorb early risk, and longer-term private finance to support scale.

    Belterra says projects can become cash-positive after around three years once early yielding crops begin producing. It also models that a mature agroforest can generate roughly US$7,000–$20,000 per hectare a year in gross harvest revenue at year 10. By contrast, a small producer who raises cattle might earn only 1,000 to 2,000 reais (US$185-$371) per hectare per year, Ferronato notes.

    The catch is time. Trees take years to bear, and agroforestry can face a long delay before the main returns arrive. Belterra tries to bridge that gap by frontloading support and intercropping fast-growing food crops early. “The farmer needs food and income in year one,” Ortega says.

    Belterra also sells carbon credits as an additional revenue stream. Belterra estimates that each hectare will sequester 250–300 tonnes of carbon over a 25 to 30-year cycle – which it aggregates and certifies for sale, helping repay investors and reward farmers. Overall Belterra’s existing projects will sequester 500,000-600,000 tonnes of carbon.



    Scaling with corporates: the supply chain shift

    Belterra isn’t only working from the bottom up. Large companies are increasingly looking to integrate agroforestry into supply chains and climate strategies – bringing capital, procurement and, potentially, scale.

    It has worked with agribusiness behemoth Cargill and Brazil’s cosmetics brand Natura on agroforestry approaches linked to supply-chain emissions, and with other buyers seeking ‘insetting’ – cutting emissions within their own sourcing rather than purchasing offsets from external projects.

    But Belterra’s most high-profile tie-up is a 2023 agreement with US e-commerce giant Amazon, which committed 90 million reais (US$18m) to fund agroforestry in Pará. The initial three-year pilot aims to restore 3,000 hectares of degraded land by planting native trees alongside cash crops such as cacao, working with around 1,000 producers. Amazon says it expects to claim around 750,000 tonnes of carbon credits over 30 years, certified under Verra’s ABACUS standard.

    “Agroforestry is right at the top of our list of scalable, catalytic climate solutions,” says Jamey Mulligan, Amazon’s head of carbon neutralisation science and strategy. “It’s a nascent space that needs nurturing, like the solar industry pre-2008.”

    What ITA Farm in Santa Isabel do Pará looked like (left) before Belterra leased it and established a burgeoning agroforestry system (right) 18 months ago. (Photo: Oliver Gordon/JUST Stories)

    What ITA Farm in Santa Isabel do Pará looked like (left) before Belterra leased it and established a burgeoning agroforestry system (right) 18 months ago. (Photo: Oliver Gordon/JUST Stories)

    In the Acará municipality of Pará, that partnership shows up as the Carbon Sequestration Producers Association: 16 farming families managing their own agroforestry plots across a now-verdant mix of açaí, cacao, andiroba and more. The association aggregates dispersed agroforests so smallholders can access carbon finance collectively – without surrendering land, autonomy or crop choices. For Amazon it offers scale and traceability; for farmers it offers bargaining power and a bridge through the years before trees mature.

    If the deals work, corporates can supply finance and reliable demand, while farmers get training, stable markets and a viable alternative to cattle or soy on degraded land. The risk, critics warn, is that agroforestry becomes a green fig leaf – which is why who controls the land and the terms of trade matters.

    A just transition grown from the ground

    There is vast potential in scaling up agroforestry across the world. In Brazil, for example, the size of the agroforestry market is predicted to roughly double to $9.7 billion by 2032.

    Globally, there are currently around 1.2 billion people practicing some form of agroforestry on roughly 1 billion hectares of land – from shade-grown coffee in Asia to alley-cropping in Africa. “We did a survey and found agroforestry systems in 83 countries, comprising over 1,000 tree species and roughly 300 crops,” says Susan Cook-Patton, lead reforestation scientist for The Nature Conservancy (TNC). “There’s a lot of agroforestry out there and a lot of potential to expand.”

    Agroforestry’s promise goes beyond crops and carbon. Done well, it can bridge decarbonisation, biodiversity and livelihoods – but it only becomes part of a just transition if it strengthens, rather than erodes, the rights and incomes of the people on the ground, experts say.

    Agroforestry farmer Zé Maria Pantoja on his agroforestry farm in Tomé Açu, Brazil. (Credit: Oliver Gordon/JUST Stories)

    Agroforestry farmer Zé Maria Pantoja on his agroforestry farm in Tomé Açu, Brazil. (Credit: Oliver Gordon/JUST Stories)

    For Zé Maria, the approach has worked well. His abundant agroforest now earns enough to send his daughter to college and buy a small apartment in the city – opportunities his parents could hardly imagine.

    His success has inspired neighbours to adopt similar methods, and he credits those who taught him. They say it’s a two-way process.

    Emanuel Oliveira, agricultural consultant for Belterra – which has partnered with Zé Maria for three years now – smiles as he describes the farmer’s influence. “We’ve learned so much from him; he’s like a professor to me,” says Oliveira. “We pass on the lessons to other farmers, and we often bring them here to learn directly from him.”

    This is an abridged version of original reporting by Oliver Gordon for JUST Stories – a global project from the Institute for Human Rights and Business dedicated to finding and telling stories of people working together to advance just transitions.

    The post A just agricultural transition takes root in Brazil appeared first on Climate Home News.

    A just agricultural transition takes root in Brazil

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    In a Years-Long Fight, the Illinois Environmental Justice Movement Gets a Win

    Published

    on

    A bill, newly passed by legislators, will expand the state’s capacity to enforce limits on health-harming emissions in overburdened communities.

    After years of fighting to curb toxic pollution in communities of color, Illinois activists are celebrating a step forward.

    In a Years-Long Fight, the Illinois Environmental Justice Movement Gets a Win

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Youth Climate Case Against Trump

    Published

    on

    The lead attorney for the 22 plaintiffs said the court has “slammed the courthouse doors on children fighting for their lives.”

    A federal appeals court has sided with the Trump administration and 19 Republican-led states in a constitutional challenge to several of President Donald Trump’s executive orders designed to boost fossil fuels, concluding that the youth plaintiffs failed to bring a viable case against the federal government. In affirming a lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, called Lighthiser v. Trump, the appeals court said that it was not the role of the judiciary to supervise government energy policy.

    Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Youth Climate Case Against Trump

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    Investor climate group closes down, blaming “limits” of shareholder activism

    Published

    on

    In 2021, amidst a wave of corporate net-zero targets, a campaign group called Investors for Paris Compliance was set up in British Columbia, aiming to use investor pressure to hold Canadian companies to account on their climate promises.

    In the five years since, the group has notched up several wins: pressuring National Bank into providing $20 billion of finance to renewable energy, getting Royal Bank of Canada to improve its green finance labels and persuading 20-25% of investors to regularly back climate proposals at annual general meetings (AGMs) for shareholders.

    But last month, the group’s then executive director Matt Price put out a statement saying it was shutting down. Despite some progress, Price explained, his organisation had concluded that “investor accountability has reached its limits”.

    Companies and their investors often understand that climate change threatens the economic system, Price said. But, he added, they do not respond adequately because they are worried that, if they do, their competitors will not put in as much effort and could therefore gain a financial advantage.

      This “tragedy of the commons” situation cannot be fixed by shareholder advocacy, Price said, but instead needs litigation, regulatory action and accountability mechanisms. “Some of our team will take those things on in new initiatives,” he said.

      Price’s words echo the findings of a London School of Economics (LSE) report published last month, based on workshops with asset owners and managers in New York, Amsterdam, London and Singapore.

      Government policy key

      The LSE report noted that “action by investors on climate change is severely constrained by their duties, the limited tools at their disposal and the pathways of technology development”. To be effective, pressure from climate-conscious investors must be coupled with government policy that incentivises green investment and technological innovation, the authors concluded.

      An investigation by the Guardian recently found that, despite overwhelming shareholder support for its climate action plan, Australian mining company BHP has carried on buying polluting diesel trucks instead of electric ones. The Australian government subsidises diesel, saving BHP hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

      As EU acts to stop greenwash, funds drop climate claims from their names

      Lindsey Stewart, director of institutional insights for investment research firm Morningstar, told Climate Home News that investor activism does work but it “doesn’t do everything that people expected it to do towards the beginning of the 2020s”.

      “There is a limit to what can be achieved by minority shareholders exercising their votes and engaging with companies. Quite a lot, it does seem, is reliant on the legal and regulatory framework,” he said, adding that the closure of Investors for Paris Compliance shows this “realisation is sinking in a lot more than perhaps it was in 2020, 2021, 2022”.

      Decline of investor activism

      Stewart said that in the early 2020s, investor activists were pushing companies for “things that were sort of already on the regulatory conveyor belt anyway”, like companies setting targets for their operational (Scope 1 and 2) emissions, disclosing their carbon footprints, and assessing their exposure to risk from climate change.

      With this low-hanging fruit picked, green-minded investors have moved on to make demands that are more controversial and have received less support from other investors, he said. He gave examples of just transition reporting, green capital expenditure financing ratios for banks and disclosing emissions from the use of products a company sells, known as Scope 3 emissions.

      On top of this, Stewart said, there has been pressure from the “right-wing political establishment in the US” against investors taking climate change into consideration. BlackRock, which manages $9.5 trillion of assets, has walked back its climate commitments after pressure from US Republicans.

      More fundamentally, Stewart described the idea that fossil fuel majors would dismantle their oil and gas business and transform into renewables companies as a “pipe dream on the part of environmentalists”. “Why would they have the skill or capability, or even the stakeholder backing, to completely transform a business of that size?” he asked.

      Shareholder activism is only possible at privately owned and listed companies, while most investment in oil and gas is now coming from state-owned companies, like Saudi Arabia’s Aramco. In 2025, less than a quarter of investment was from oil majors like BP and Shell.

      Business backlash shows power

      Yet despite the uphill climb, Mark van Baal defends shareholder activism. He runs an Amsterdam-based campaign group called Follow This, which has tried to get investors to vote for pro-climate resolutions at the AGMs of oil and gas multinationals.

      He accepts that success peaked around 2021, but says the effort oil and gas firms are now putting into winning over shareholders and discouraging pro-climate resolutions – which he characterised as “the Empire Strikes Back” – shows the power of shareholder activism, which was previously underestimated.

      Mark van Baal is the head of Follow This (Photo: Follow This)

      In January 2024, ExxonMobil sued Follow This, aiming to block the group’s climate resolution. Fearing the case would end up in the Supreme Court, where conservative judges could set an anti-climate precedent, Follow This withdrew the resolution.

      But, said van Baal, although the legal battle created a “chilling effect among investors”, it is a “proof point that shareholder pressure works and that they’re really afraid of the shareholders”.

      Vote, don’t sell

      Stewart and van Baal both agreed that selling, or threatening to sell off shares is not an effective way to change a company’s behaviour.

      It allows less climate-conscious investors to buy the shares, they said, adding that there is no evidence that threats to sell shares and therefore lower the valuation over climate concerns have influenced company management.

      Van Baal said the share price is set by short-term traders, not long-term shareholders like the pension funds he works with.

      How Shell is still benefiting from offloaded Niger Delta oil assets

      Nonetheless, investors’ engagement should be forceful, van Baal insisted – and not just within their comfort zone of talking to management about sustainability behind closed doors without voting for it at AGMs. “Shareholder democracy is the only democracy where voting is called escalation,” he said.

      The Follow This website says that only investors can stop fossil fuel companies destroying the planet. “Marches didn’t change their minds. Lawsuits didn’t stop them. But shareholders can,” it trumpets.

      But van Baal told Climate Home News this wording is “too strong” and may have to be revised, adding that shareholder activism just “fits me more than gluing myself to roads” and is a tactic he “stumbled on” 11 years ago.

      Legal, political and investor activism can reinforce each other, he added. When Friends of the Earth sued Shell alleging inadequate climate action, for example, the green group’s lawyers cited the company’s rejection of a Follow This resolution as evidence. “The pressure needs to come from all sides,” van Baal said.

      The post Investor climate group closes down, blaming “limits” of shareholder activism appeared first on Climate Home News.

      Investor climate group closes down, blaming “limits” of shareholder activism

      Continue Reading

      Trending

      Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com