Search Climate Insights Directory

The report, produced by an international expert group convened by the Forum on Trade, Environment, & the SDGs (TESS), examines the environmental impacts of agricultural subsidies and proposes pathways for defining and addressing those that are environmentally harmful. It aims to facilitate cooperative international action through mechanisms such as new disciplines, soft law guidance, voluntary commitments, or transparency tools, targeting influence on international production and consumption patterns.

The document analyzes global agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, noting that the sector accounted for approximately 20% of global anthropogenic emissions in 2022. It identifies ruminant livestock and deforestation as the primary drivers of these emissions and highlights significant regional variations in emission intensities. The author argues that coupled subsidies and market price supports incentivize environmentally harmful practices and recommends repurposing these funds toward sustainable management, innovation, and uncoupled payments to reduce the sector's carbon footprint while balancing food security and livelihoods.

The report examines the environmental impacts of agricultural subsidies, noting that total global support ranges from $610 to $842 billion per year. It argues that while production-linked supports—such as market price support and input subsidies—are often the most harmful, impacts are highly context-specific. The authors propose several frameworks for identifying harmful subsidies, including the use of meta-analyses of farming practices and the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model. To address these issues internationally, the report suggests options such as enhanced transparency, the use of 'rebuttable presumptions' to shift the burden of proof to subsidizing countries, and special and differential treatment for developing nations to balance environmental goals with food security and livelihoods.

The document analyzes how climate change disrupts agricultural yields and trade flows, particularly in developing regions, while contributing significantly to global GHG emissions. It highlights the risks of food insecurity and the potential for trade-related climate measures to marginalize vulnerable economies. The author argues for a comprehensive international cooperation agenda focused on reducing trade tensions, reforming harmful subsidies, facilitating technology transfer, and securing global food stocks to ensure a fair transition to sustainable agriculture.

The 2030 Global Forest Vision provides a framework for governments to accelerate progress toward 2030 forest goals through actions in national planning, trade, finance, land rights, and governance. It emphasizes the need for integrated climate and biodiversity plans, the scaling of finance via mechanisms like the Tropical Forest Finance Facility (TFFF) and REDD+, and the recognition of Indigenous and local community land rights. The report also calls for financial regulators to address forest-related risks, the repurposing of harmful agricultural subsidies, and the restructuring of sovereign debt to value natural capital.

The report identifies systemic failures in the global financial architecture that drive deforestation and proposes five priority actions: reforming multilateral public finance, overhauling sovereign debt, scaling high-impact funding mechanisms like the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, repurposing harmful agricultural subsidies, and embedding nature-related risks into financial regulatory frameworks.

The report identifies a 'triple gap'—planning, finance, and data—in the transition of global agrifood systems. Top-down analysis estimates an annual need of USD 1.1 trillion to align with a 1.5°C pathway, while bottom-up estimates from NDCs total only USD 201.5 billion. Current annual climate finance flows of USD 28.5 billion are severely insufficient, requiring a 40-fold increase to meet top-down needs. The report highlights significant underestimations in national planning and a critical lack of granular data, particularly regarding adaptation and private finance.

The document argues that environmentally harmful subsidies (EHS) exceed USD 2 trillion annually, creating perverse incentives that drive biodiversity loss and climate change. It proposes a theory of change based on the 'Multiple Streams and Policy Windows Framework'—defining the problem, identifying solutions, and creating political support—to catalyze reform. The playbook outlines 25 specific opportunities for philanthropic engagement, ranging from independent national assessments and technical support for Global South governments to the creation of 'first-mover clubs' of governments. It emphasizes that transparency alone is insufficient and that durable reform requires the co-development of repurposing strategies to support vulnerable groups and businesses transitioning away from harmful subsidies.

The document contains technical appendices for a report on reforming environmentally harmful subsidies (EHS). It introduces a 'Fiscal Pressure' indicator to identify countries where high debt and deficits create strong incentives for subsidy reform, and provides a stakeholder analysis mapping the influence and attitudes of businesses, governments, consumers, and civil society toward EHS reform.

The text details the increase in overexploited aquifers in Mexico from 35 in 1975 to 123 in 2009, with a total deficit of 5,490 million cubic meters. In Hermosillo, the Costa de Hermosillo and Mesa del Seri-La Victoria aquifers support a population of over 700,000 and 65,000 hectares of irrigation. Despite the 2013 opening of the Acueducto Independencia to transport 75 million cubic meters from the Yaqui river basin, agricultural consumption in the municipality exceeds 570 million cubic meters annually, driven largely by subsidies.

The 2025 Plowprint Report shifts its focus from annual data analysis to identifying strategic opportunities and policy solutions for grassland conservation in North America. Due to changes in government data, the author has paused its typical analysis of grassland conversion in the Great Plains. The document highlights several collaborative initiatives, such as the Central Grasslands Roadmap and the JV8 Central Grasslands Initiative, and advocates for policy reforms including the expansion of the Sodsaver program, strengthening the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and reforming biofuels policy to prevent further cropland expansion. It also emphasizes the role of Tribal food sovereignty and bison restoration in maintaining ecosystem health.

The paper examines India's agricultural subsidy regime, focusing on the Minimum Support Price (MSP) and input subsidies for fertilizer, power, and irrigation. It highlights their role in achieving self-sufficiency in rice and wheat and protecting 650 million beneficiaries through the Public Distribution System. While acknowledging criticisms regarding inequity, budget pressure, and environmental degradation, the author argues that these subsidies are critical for small farmers and rural poverty alleviation, especially given global market volatility and trade pressures from developed-country subsidies.

The authors examine Uganda's agricultural subsidy landscape, noting that while initiatives like NAADS and insurance subsidies have increased input access and risk mitigation, they are often hampered by top-down design, poor implementation, and a lack of extension services. The paper argues that current subsidies often benefit large-scale farmers over smallholders and can cause environmental harm through the promotion of monoculture and agrochemicals. It recommends a value-chain approach to subsidy design with greater stakeholder participation and improved funding and monitoring.

The report examines Uganda's agricultural subsidy landscape, highlighting a gap between the government's development priorities and its actual budget allocation, which falls below the 10% public spending target set in the Malabo Declaration. While initiatives like NAADS and Operation Wealth Creation have improved access to inputs and increased coffee exports, the authors argue that subsidies are often poorly timed, top-down, and favor large-scale farmers. Environmental concerns are raised regarding the promotion of monocultures and agrochemicals, and the authors recommend a value-chain approach to subsidy design that includes stakeholder participation and better extension services.

The paper examines Uganda's agricultural subsidy landscape, highlighting a gap between government priorities and actual budget allocations. While initiatives like NAADS and insurance subsidies have increased production—notably in coffee—the authors argue that subsidies often benefit large-scale farmers over smallholders, suffer from poor implementation, and encourage environmentally harmful practices like monoculture and chemical use. They recommend a bottom-up redesign of subsidies that supports entire value chains and simplifies access for small farmers.

The paper analyzes India's agricultural subsidy regime, focusing on the Minimum Support Price (MSP) and input subsidies for fertilizers, electricity, and irrigation. It highlights their role in ensuring food security and supporting small farmers while acknowledging criticisms regarding inefficiency, market distortion, and environmental degradation. The author argues that while rationalization is needed, abrupt removal of these subsidies—which represent 21% of agricultural income—could exacerbate rural poverty.

The paper examines India's agricultural subsidy regime, highlighting the role of the Minimum Support Price (MSP) and the Public Distribution System (PDS) in ensuring food security for millions. It details the growth of input subsidies for fertilizers, electricity, and irrigation, which reached USD 48 billion in 2022-2023. While acknowledging criticisms regarding market distortion, budget pressure, and environmental degradation, the author argues that these subsidies are vital for small farmers and rural stability, especially given the pressures of global trade and the limitations of current banking infrastructure for direct income transfers.

The report argues that China's agri-food system requires significant investment to achieve net-zero emissions and climate resilience, but currently faces a massive funding gap and a mismatch between existing green finance policies and the sector's needs. It advocates for the use of transition finance—including sustainability-linked loans, bonds, and blended finance—to mobilize private capital. The authors emphasize that a 'just transition' is essential to protect vulnerable smallholder farmers. Key barriers identified include poor climate information disclosure by companies and a lack of credible transition plans. The report recommends that regulators standardize GHG accounting for agriculture, mandate climate disclosures for large firms, and align agricultural subsidies with climate goals.

The report identifies a significant funding gap in China's agri-food climate transition, noting that global climate finance for the sector is only one-seventh of what is required. It argues that while public funds currently dominate, mobilising private capital through transition finance—including sustainability-linked loans, bonds, and blended finance—is essential. The document highlights barriers such as inadequate GHG emission disclosure among Chinese agri-food companies and a lack of credible transition plans. It recommends that regulators establish standardised accounting for agri-food emissions, support the development of entity-level transition plans, and align agricultural subsidies with climate goals to ensure a just transition for smallholders and SMEs.

The document argues that while WTO rules provide significant policy space for LDCs to invest in agriculture through 'Green Box' and 'Development' categories, these countries are primarily constrained by fiscal limitations rather than trade rules. It suggests that food security in LDCs can be improved by reducing trade-distorting 'Amber Box' subsidies in developed nations for key products like cotton and rice, and by easing non-tariff barriers and import duties to stimulate LDC exports.