SKN | Why the Amazon Must Become an Exclusion Zone for Fossil Fuel Finance

The destruction of the Amazon rainforest is no longer a distant environmental concern—it is a direct consequence of financial decisions made far from its rivers and communities. Across Latin America, oil spills, deforestation, and pipeline projects have shown that once fossil fuel activity reaches sensitive ecosystems, the damage cannot be undone. This reality places banks and financial institutions at the center of a global responsibility that extends beyond balance sheets and quarterly returns.

Recent history illustrates the scale of the problem. Since the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2016, banks have provided more than $15 billion in direct financing to oil and gas projects in the Amazon region, according to environmental research groups. Each loan, bond, or credit facility enables drilling, road construction, and pipeline expansion—often without the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous communities, a principle protected under international human rights standards.

The Hidden Cost of Fossil Fuel Financing

For banks, fossil fuel financing is typically framed in terms of credit exposure, interest income, and portfolio diversification. What is often overlooked is the irreversible cost attached to these activities. Oil spills contaminate water sources, destroy biodiversity, and undermine food security. No amount of remediation funding can fully restore ecosystems once they collapse.

These consequences do not remain local. The Amazon plays a critical role in regulating global climate patterns and sustaining agricultural systems worldwide. Continued degradation increases climate volatility, which in turn affects inflation, interest rate stability, and credit risk across the global financial system. In this sense, fossil fuel financing in the Amazon ultimately feeds back into the very risks banks seek to manage.

Banks and the Energy Transition

Some financial institutions have begun to acknowledge this responsibility. Geographic exclusion policies—where banks commit not to finance extractive activities in specific high-risk regions—have emerged as one tool for managing environmental and reputational risk. BNP Paribas has adopted such an exclusion policy for the Amazon, demonstrating that a more cautious approach is feasible within mainstream banking.

Other banks have introduced restrictions or enhanced policies around Indigenous rights and environmental safeguards. While these steps signal progress, they often stop short of meaningful transformation. Partial measures and conditional lending frameworks still allow capital to flow into fossil fuel expansion, delaying the transition to sustainable alternatives.

Why Exclusion Zones Matter for Finance

Designating the Amazon as a full exclusion zone for fossil fuel finance would represent a decisive shift. For banks, this would reduce long-term credit risk tied to stranded assets, regulatory backlash, and climate-related financial instability. It would also align lending practices with global climate commitments and growing investor scrutiny around environmental, social, and governance standards.

More broadly, exclusion zones would help redirect capital toward renewable energy, sustainable infrastructure, and inclusive economic development—areas where banks can generate returns without fueling irreversible harm.

Looking Ahead

The Amazon stands at a tipping point, and financial institutions have the power to influence its future. Ending fossil fuel financing in one of the world’s most biodiverse regions is not only an ethical imperative—it is a prudent banking decision. In an era of climate risk and heightened regulatory oversight, protecting the Amazon means protecting the stability of the global financial system itself.

Previous Post SKN | Nordic Central Banks Hold Interest Rates as Courts Reshape Banking Risk

Next Post SKN | Zürcher Kantonalbank Discloses Stake in Cicor Technologies Ltd