Nature-friendly farming subsidies can improve health, wealth and the environment. So what are we waiting for?

Imagine farms and fields teeming with multiple species in the air and soil, production systems that are more resistant to pests and diseases and extreme weather conditions, forests and woodlands protected from clearance for agriculture that replenish watersheds and cool surrounding areas. Farms that provide decent income and jobs, healthy food, and clean air and nature to people locally and far beyond.  

This is within our reach if we harness the resources that we have at our collective fingertips. We have global commitments to conserve and restore biodiversity; and, even in an era of fiscal constraints, there is a large sum of money that governments are directing to the agriculture sector that could be retargeted to drive production practices and land use change towards restoring nature. Governments around the world support the agri-food sector – through budgetary payments, tax exemptions or discounted credit rates – to the tune of USD850 billion per year, potentially reaching USD1.8 trillion by 2030.  There is a growing body of evidence and analysis that some of this support does not deliver value for money or equitable social development, and can have unintended environmental consequences.  

Recognising the need for progress on biodiversity conservation and restoration – and the potential for using public funds differently to achieve that – 188 governments signed up to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) targets for 2030 in 2022, which include a specific target (Target 18) on identifying and reducing environmentally harmful subsidies and scaling up positive incentives for biodiversity. The sixteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16 CBD) aims to get the money flowing to countries and turn these targets into concrete action. This is a huge opportunity for governments to move towards nature-friendly farming subsidies that improve health, wealth and the environment. 

How do we see these commitments on biodiversity and repurposing subsidies toward positive incentives translated from negotiating texts, into plans and strategies, and to real-world impact in fields and farms? Signs are mixed that we are getting the progress we need.  

Slow progress 

Despite Target 18, and growing evidence of the need to realign public support with climate and biodiversity goals, the annual meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) in May – the body that advises the Conference of the Parties (COP) on the implementation of the convention – came and went with no reference to repurposing subsidies in recommendations of scientific and technical needs to support the implementation of the GBF. As the body that negotiates some draft decisions in preparation of the subsequent meeting of the COP and sets up the agenda, sustained discussion and action on this topic can provide a strong signal to governments to move forwards.  

Of the 26 parties that have submitted their updated National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) in the lead-up to the October 21 deadline, only six (Austria, Malta, Slovenia, South Korea,  Spain and Suriname) make any substantive reference to identifying and reforming subsidies harmful for biodiversity. Two – Japan and Indonesia – make only partial references.  

One of the problems is that many governments don’t even know how much of what they are spending harms or protects biodiversity. An OECD review in 2022 of existing national-level assessments covering 12 countries and two regions concluded that very few countries had taken the initial step of identifying and assessing the types and scale of incentives in place at national level which are harmful for biodiversity or the broader environment.  

But some positive examples 

In the absence of a clear pathway towards action that is followed through to achieve on Target 18, we risk subsidy reform surviving only in the negotiating rooms. But there are beacons of hope against this backdrop, and opportunities that governments and the nature community can grasp and spin into concrete action on repurposing agri-food subsidies.  

The United Kingdom government’s Agri-Environment Schemes (AES), such as the Environmental Land Management (ELM) Programme, have boosted wildlife, such as butterflies, bees, bats and birds. These schemes pay farmers and other landowners to manage their land in a way that protects and enhances the environment, following a mantra of “public money for public goods”.  

Other examples of such payments for environmental services that could serve as a model for other countries include the United States’ government’s Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and instead plant species to help improve environmental quality. In Mexico, the government offers cash payments to land owners for watershed services and payments for biodiversity conservation using revenues from water tax, annual budget allocations, and contributions from local governments and the private sector. 

And help is on the way to support governments to move towards Target 18. The UNDP BIOFIN initiative  is working with over 100 governments to identify and assess subsidies likely to have harmful impacts on nature and how to realign them for positive impact. The World Bank has carried out – or is planning – agricultural policy and public expenditure reviews in 36 countries, including big hitters like China and India, to inform programmes supporting agricultural reform.  

Moving from Talk to Action  

As we approach COP16 in Colombia, what is needed to turn high-ambition talk about repurposing into high-impact action to meet Target 18 by 2030?  

Governments need to take the initial step of putting this target into NBSAPs to demonstrate their commitment to Target 18 and confirm the actions that they will take to reach that target. First amongst these actions is taking stock of current agri-food policies and public expenditure to identify those that harm the environment, where that information doesn’t already exist.  

Perhaps more importantly is that governments identify the positive outcomes they want to achieve with agri-food subsidies and how they will get there – actions that benefit nature, address climate change needs, and catalyze fair and equitable social outcomes to achieve a triple win, or at least minimise trade-offs between different goals. This will require an inclusive process that brings farmers and businesses to the table and treats them as equal partners. Governments will need to bring together Ministries dealing with Agriculture, Environment and Finance so that NBSAPs reflect coordinated sectoral action.  

National governments also need a supportive international framework and funding. Many of the world’s biodiversity hotspots are in places where governments provide little public support to agriculture or even fossil fuels. More substantial resources need to be channeled between governments across the globe to reach those who are charged with protecting biodiversity and carbon stock hotspots – governments, indigenous people and local communities. Building common language and approaches to repurposing across the three Rio Conventions and other international agreements would reinforce the commitment to allocate public funds to achieve more positive nature, climate and development outcomes.  

The Global Policy Dialogue for Sustainable Agriculture creates a safe space for governments to exchange experiences of what works and the challenges they face. And we have a strategic coalition of government champions showcasing ‘whole of government’ approaches to inspire others to go further, faster.   

Implementing Target 18 is a huge opportunity for governments to transform the way they support farmers and others in the agri-food system and improve health, wealth and the environment. What are we waiting for? 

Share: