Countries meeting the UN Convention on Biodiversity propose a target of eliminating harmful subsidies to biodiversity as part of the next global biodiversity agreement, expected to be signed by the end of the year in China.
Historic, the debate on subsidies gained strength this week after having marked the failure of the COP26 on Climate Change last November.
In the final plenary of COP26, India and China blocked what would be a historic mention of the “elimination of subsidies to fossil fuels”, leading to the exchange of the text for “reduction of subsidies”.
In the UN Convention on Biodiversity, countries signal their willingness to continue with a more committed language, citing the elimination of harmful subsidies to biodiversity – which, in theory, would include fossil fuels and even go further, including subsidies to conventional agriculture. , dependent on pesticides.
As the criteria on what can be considered harmful to biodiversity remain open, there are still more doubts and gaps than certainties in the text, which is undergoing a round of negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland.
After two years of online meetings due to the pandemic, the negotiators of the UN Convention on Biodiversity, signed by 193 countries, met again in person in the last two weeks.
The main obstacle to advancing the negotiations is the lack of money to finance conservation activities. The actions foreseen in the new global biodiversity agreement – which includes the protection of at least 30% of the planet’s biodiverse areas – could cost US$ 967 billion (R$ 4.6 trillion), according to a study by TNC, Tobin and Paulson Institute.
For donor countries, a target on subsidies could ease the bill for grants for conservation in developing countries — whose national plans can cost around US$200 billion (R$958 billion) a year.
To this end, the developed bloc defends that subsidies are not only eliminated, but reallocated in positive activities for nature conservation. Developing countries would have, at home, a source of resources to fulfill their goals in the new agreement.
According to the assessment of observers of the negotiations, the reallocation could maintain the incentives within the same sectors of the economy, adding environmental conditions for their access.
However, developing countries do not accept the proposal for reallocation — or “reuse”, another term suggested in the negotiation.
The argument is that the destination of the resource must be defined according to national contexts, for political and practical reasons: once the subsidy goes back to the government’s cash, there may be other priorities for its use.
For Jeremy Eppel, a member of the expert panel of the UN Convention on Biodiversity, the proposal on subsidies contributes to reducing the costs of financing the agreement, even if it does not deal with relocation.
“The elimination of harmful subsidies reduces the destructive impact on biodiversity, making its regeneration cheaper”, evaluates Eppel.
Still, there is mutual distrust between blocs over how national governments should define, monitor and report on their efforts.
Developing countries fear that the European Union will disguise its conventional agricultural subsidies under the guise of “positive incentives for biodiversity”.
The Europeans, in turn, suspect that agricultural economies such as Brazil and Argentina may mask their subsidies under other definitions, raising suspicion about the payment for environmental services, a mechanism that Brazil seeks to include in several articles of the agreement being negotiated.
According to a report by the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), the world invests US$ 536 billion (R$ 2.57 trillion) in agricultural subsidies — including OECD, Union and European countries and 12 more emerging economies.
When other sectors are considered, the value can reach US$ 1.8 trillion (R$ 8.6 trillion) per year, as calculated by The B Team and Business for Nature organizations.
They accounted for the resources allocated to various sectors around the world and concluded that 80% are concentrated in three economies: agriculture (US$ 520 billion —R$ 2.49 billion), fossil fuels (US$ 640 billion — R$ 3, 06 billion) and industries linked to water and sewage structures (US$ 350 billion — R$ 1.67 billion).
Although countries seem to accept the term “elimination” of subsidies, there is still dispute over whether to refer to “all subsidies” or just the “most harmful” – which would open a gap that takes advantage of the lack of definition of clear criteria on which subsidies will be eliminated in each country.
One version of the text proposes that countries identify harmful subsidies by 2024 and start eliminating them by 2030.
While recognizing the instrument’s power to redirect economies towards sustainable development, countries from different blocs fear that the transition will require more time.
In 2010, the countries had already signed, in Japan, an agreement that provided for the elimination of subsidies. With validity until 2020, the Aichi Targets precisely established the elimination or reform of incentives and subsidies harmful to biodiversity, in addition to the creation of positive incentives for biodiversity.
According to a UN report, the signatory countries failed to complete any of the 20 Aichi targets.
Since then, however, the integration of environmental criteria into economic policy has grown globally, especially since the signing of the Paris Agreement to combat climate change in 2015.
The willingness of countries to negotiate proposals that impact the directions of development takes on more pragmatic contours, as Europeans, Americans and Chinese consider banning imports linked to deforestation.
Another goal of the agreement under negotiation also foresees the integration of biodiversity values in policies, regulations and planning at all levels of government and throughout the private sector.
The meeting in Geneva runs until this Tuesday (29). However, due to the slow progress of the texts, the Convention announced a next round of negotiations in Nairobi, Kenya, between 21 and 26 June. The forecast is that the COP-15 on Biodiversity, where the agreement is expected to be signed, will take place in September in Kunming, China.
* The journalist traveled at the invitation of Avaaz
