How Investors can Accelerate the Food and Agriculture Revolution

Dr Henning Stein, Finance Fellow at Cambridge Judge Business School, and Ariel Barack, CEO of Ordway Selections, explain why the drivers of change – and the roles of the public and private markets – are evolving.

Efforts to build a genuinely sustainable food and agriculture system have now been under way for a number of years. On the whole, the story so far has reflected an uncomfortable truth: revolutions are messy.

There have been few exceptions to this rule throughout history. Political, social and even scientific upheaval has almost always proved tumultuous, for the simple reason that radical change is seldom easily achieved.

Given this, we should not be surprised that the global transformation of how we produce and consume food has been neither flawless nor swift. Equally, we should not shy away from its imperfect path to date.

There is no denying that some of the setbacks have been jarring. There is also no denying that many investors’ faith in the quest to feed humanity while safeguarding the environment has been undermined.

Other stakeholders have also been left disenchanted. By way of illustration, consider all those who have ‘bet the farm’ – sometimes literally as well as figuratively – on novel technologies whose promise has not yet translated into tangible results.

Yet none of this means we are in the midst of a revolution that is doomed to fail. Rather, it means we are still on a steep learning curve.

As investors, we have to understand what has happened, recognise where errors have been made and rethink our approaches. In public and private markets alike, there are important lessons to digest.

The irrefutable case for change

It is first imperative to appreciate why, in spite of limited progress, the investment attractions of sustainable food and agriculture not only remain strong but have arguably increased. This obliges us to see the bigger picture.

The most significant point here is that this is a transition that absolutely has to take place. The policies and practices that have dominated food production and consumption for the past three quarters of a century are no longer fit for purpose.

Incorporating farming, processing and distribution, the food system in its entirety is responsible for around a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions. In turn, the dire effects of climate change – including extreme weather events, ecological decline and dwindling biodiversity – are ravaging landscapes and

EU Sparks Controversy on Energy Charter Treaty Drop

European Union will withdraw from ‘anti-green’ treaty on environmental grounds, but sources warn of impact on renewable investments.

The European Parliament’s vote last week to withdraw from the controversial Energy Charter Treaty has been interpreted as a near-certain ‘death blow’ to a decades-old agreement that is widely perceived as outdated and anti-green.

But the decision, which lawmakers say is necessary to protect the European Union’s climate policies against litigation from fossil fuel companies, may not be as positive for the energy transition as some believe.

James Rogers, an international arbitration lawyer and partner at law firm Jenner & Block, said the EU’s withdrawal – which he said left the treaty “dead” – could inadvertently harm the bloc’s green energy ambitions by reducing investor protections against policy changes.

Set up in 1994 in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union, in part to open up gas imports from Russia and eastern Europe, the ECT provides energy investors with legal protection against the policy whims of national governments. Governments that expropriate assets or arbitrarily change rules may be taken to arbitration under the treaty. More than 50 countries across Europe and Asia have signed up to the treaty since, with Japan its easternmost member.

But as climate change became a key policy concern in Europe in subsequent years, the ECT progressively turned into a weapon for fossil fuel companies to fight against green policies that harmed their interests. It was under the ECT that German utilities RWE and Uniper, for example, sued the Dutch government for €2.4 billion over its plan to phase out coal-fired power back in 2021.

Critics say the threat of a legal challenge under the ECT alone has a “chilling effect” on green policy – which is real but difficult to quantify.

Some of its members pushed to modernise the framework. But these efforts largely failed, and a growing number of European signatories have already left or plan to leave the treaty, including the UK, France, Germany, Spain and Poland. The EU’s departure now turbo-charges that trend.

“Finally, the fossil dinosaur treaty is no longer standing in the way of consistent climate protection, as we no longer have to fear corporate lawsuits demanding billions of euro in compensation brought before private arbitration tribunals,” Anna Cavazzini, Member of the European Parliament and Rapporteur for the Trade Committee, said following the vote last week.

Not anti-green

According to

Concerns mount over Coutts’ plans to move £2bn of client funds out of UK

The portfolio allocation changes will target six Coutts portfolios, with combined assets under management of £9.8bn split across 62% equities and 38% bonds. Broker Peel Hunt has estimated that the largest asset transfers will affect the Ambitious and Balanced funds, with £928m and £612m pulled out of UK stocks respectively. The Managed Equity portfolio will also face high levels of UK divestment, with £227m worth of outflows, while the Adventurous fund, Coutts’ highest risk strategy with 90% invested in equities, is expected to recalibrate £89m away from the market.  UK investors a…