{"id":72094,"date":"2021-06-16T14:14:48","date_gmt":"2021-06-16T14:14:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/chinadialogue.net\/?p=72094"},"modified":"2021-06-16T14:15:21","modified_gmt":"2021-06-16T14:15:21","slug":"redirecting-subsidies-for-the-good-of-nature","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/en\/nature\/redirecting-subsidies-for-the-good-of-nature\/","title":{"rendered":"Redirecting subsidies for the good of nature"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A lot of money is needed to prevent spiralling biodiversity loss; somewhere between US$598 billion and US$824 billion a year<\/a>, according to the Nature Conservancy and Paulson Institute. The good news is that around half of that could be met with<\/a> existing finance, redirected from activities that damage nature to those that enhance it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bad news is countries already agreed to do this in 2010, but most failed to even identify<\/a> what subsidies they were promoting that caused problems, never mind reform them. The value of subsidies that harm biodiversity has been estimated to be<\/a> five or six times higher than finance for promoting conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The issue is still very much alive. The draft text of the Kunming agreement \u2013 the successor to the failed 2010 Aichi targets \u2013 includes a target to reform subsidies, and eliminate those that are most harmful to biodiversity so that incentives are positive or at least neutral for biodiversity by 2030. The EU\u2019s 2030 Biodiversity Strategy<\/a> published last year also supports phasing out subsidies that harm biodiversity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>
Recommended<\/span><\/span><\/div><\/a>\n\n\n\n

Several recent major reports have stressed the importance of reforming subsidies. In January, an overview of biodiversity finance<\/a> by environmental think-tank Global Canopy warned that even with increased investment from the private sector, the biodiversity funding gap would likely not be filled unless harmful subsidies estimated at US$1 trillion were redirected to nature-positive activities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Dasgupta review<\/a>, commissioned by the UK Treasury, also argued for subsidy reform aimed at protecting nature, noting that current government subsidies for agriculture, fisheries, forestry and mining encouraged overexploitation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Subsidies can take many forms, including lowering the cost of production, raising prices producers can set and  lowering prices paid by consumers. They can include direct funds, tax benefits, favourable loan rates and funding for research and development. Incentives can also come from various sources, such as governments, international financial institutions and regional development banks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These complexities make subsidy values hard to estimate. Dasgupta cites annual global support for energy, agriculture, water and fisheries at more than US$4-6 trillion. While Global Canopy estimates them at $274-542 billion, rising to $670-1,020 billion if including fossil fuel subsidies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n