Last month, I participated in two events with distinct purposes on the international climate agenda: the Bonn Conference on Climate Change, which brought together the sessions of the subsidiary bodies of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and London Climate Action Week, one of the largest independent climate action weeks in the world.
In Bonn, the prevailing perception was of a slow-moving multilateral agenda, still bogged down in old disputes and lacking clarity on how to translate commitments into implementation. In London, on the other hand, the conversations were more practical and receptive to solutions for transforming global food systems, including when the topic was protein production for human consumption.
Bonn Conference on Climate Change
Held annually, the conference brings together the subsidiary bodies of the UNFCCC to prepare decisions, deepen technical discussions, and advance topics that will be negotiated at the Conferences of the Parties (COPs). Agriculture, mitigation, adaptation, implementation, and climate finance are among the recurring issues.
London Climate Action Week
The week brings together governments, businesses, investors, civil society organizations, researchers, and other stakeholders to discuss climate solutions, mobilize resources, and form coalitions. While not a formal negotiation forum, it has gained relevance by bringing together different sectors and stimulating initiatives aimed at implementation.
In the Bonn negotiations, discussions on agriculture, adaptation, and food systems made little progress. On some topics, there was even a perception of regression. The conversations remained focused on disagreements about language, scope, and responsibilities, without sufficient answers on how to support countries, producers, businesses, and consumers during the transition to more sustainable food systems.
This difficulty is particularly noteworthy because food systems occupy a central position in the climate crisis. Even so, in formal negotiation spaces, food and the transformation of traditional production models continue to be treated with caution. Often, more time is spent building textual consensus than defining concrete implementation instruments.
At London Climate Action Week, the debate seemed more mature and connected to practical challenges. Alternative proteins and plant-based proteins were discussed as part of a broader agenda of productive diversification, agricultural innovation, and climate resilience. In different events, discussions about protein transition shared space with themes such as regenerative agriculture, sustainable financing, production chains, and the valorization of traditional foods, such as beans, lentils, peas, and other legumes.
For the alternative protein sector, this movement is significant. The agenda is beginning to transcend the boundaries of a specialized community and engage with stakeholders working in climate, agriculture, investment, nutrition, and development. At the same time, this rapprochement highlights that the sector needs concrete conditions to integrate into existing food production structures.
This involves investments in research and development, scaling-up infrastructure, pilot plants, industrial policies, clear regulatory frameworks, robust data, and appropriate financial instruments.
It also requires recognizing that alternative proteins are not merely a matter of individual choice or consumer behavior. They are part of a strategic discussion about how to produce food with less pressure on land, water, forests, and the climate, without sacrificing food security, economic development, and productive inclusion.
Alternative proteins are among the agri-food solutions with the greatest potential for climate mitigation. Estimates indicate that they can:
- avoid even 6,1 billion tons of CO₂ equivalent per year;
- reduce methane emissions by up to 1,2 billion tons of CO₂ equivalent per year;
- reduce by up to 91% land use, 93% of water consumption e 94% of emissions, in the case of plant-based food production;
- free up an area equivalent to twice the size of India, if 50% of the protein from beef, pork, chicken, and milk is replaced with plant-based alternatives;
- generate up to US$686 billion in added value to the economy, to create 83 million jobs and provide US$5,5 trillion in climate benefits.
In this context, philanthropy plays a decisive role. In emerging sectors, philanthropic resources can take risks that the market and public authorities still avoid. They can finance pre-competitive research, bring science and public policy closer together, strengthen coalitions, and contribute to transforming good ideas into accessible and scalable solutions.
Read also: "All climate plans must consider the food sector. Learn what different sectors can do to contribute."
In the case of alternative proteins, this support is crucial to ensure that the sector's development is guided by public objectives such as climate, health, biodiversity, food security, and sustainable development, and not just by cycles of market enthusiasm and contraction.
How much investment is needed?
According to the Global Innovation Needs Assessment: Food System Methane report, the development of alternative proteins and the generation of environmental and global health benefits would require annual investments of US$10,1 billion. Of this total, US$4,4 billion would be allocated to research and development and US$5,7 billion to incentives for the private sector.
Brazil as a leader in alternative proteins.
It also became evident, especially in London, that Brazil has much to offer to this discussion. At events dedicated to Brazilian agriculture, climate finance, and innovation for a low-carbon economy, the country emerged as a central player on the climate and agribusiness agenda.
This position is not surprising. Brazil has a powerful agricultural base, extensive biodiversity, scientific capacity, a tradition of consuming legumes, and a growing agenda for bioeconomy and decarbonization.
That's precisely why alternative proteins shouldn't remain on the sidelines of this debate. They don't compete with Brazilian agriculture. On the contrary, they can represent a new frontier of development for the sector.
This agenda can open opportunities for the use of national ingredients, the diversification of value chains, the addition of value to agricultural waste and by-products, industrial innovation, and the creation of new markets. It can also reinforce something that Brazil knows well: the importance of nutritious, accessible, and culturally relevant plant-based foods, such as beans.
For GFI Brazil, alternative proteins are not a separate issue from national agriculture. They are part of the next frontier of the bioeconomy, green industrial policy, and the country's sustainable development.
Brazil combines biodiversity, scientific capacity, an agricultural base, a food tradition, and a significant consumer market. With coordination between government, research institutions, the private sector, impact investors, and civil society, the country can lead a sustainable protein agenda that combines innovation, economic development, and climate resilience.
The paths to new food systems beyond multilateral negotiations.
The contrast between Bonn and London offers an important lesson. Multilateral negotiations remain fundamental in defining the language, commitments, and mandates that guide international climate action. However, the transformation of food systems will not happen solely in the negotiating room.
Implementation depends on national policies, funding instruments, laboratories, factories, field activities, and, above all, the products that will be available to the population.
The climate agenda still focuses much of its attention on the energy, transport, and forestry sectors. All are essential, but we also need to talk about food. And within that discussion, we need to address the production and consumption of protein more urgently.
There is no single solution to transforming food systems. It will be necessary to reduce losses and waste at different stages of the production chains, support farmers, protect forests, restore soils, diversify crops, expand access to reliable information about food, improve labeling practices, increase the supply of nutritious food, and reduce emissions.
The expectation now is that this agenda will gain more traction at upcoming international meetings, especially the New York Climate Summit and COP31. These events will be important opportunities to move beyond recognizing the problem to more concrete commitments capable of integrating food systems, climate finance, innovation, and protein diversification into mitigation and adaptation strategies. To achieve this, it will be crucial to increase the presence of this issue at the decision-making table and bring together governments, science, the productive sector, investors, and civil society. Food systems can no longer be treated as a peripheral issue in climate action, and alternative proteins need to be recognized as part of a set of solutions necessary to reduce emissions, strengthen food security, and build more resilient economies.
Check out our latest releases
18/12/25
