Welcome to Carbon Brief’s Cropped.
We handpick and explain the most important stories at the intersection of climate, land, food and nature over the past fortnight.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s fortnightly Cropped email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
Key developments
Bankrolling meat and dairy
LIVESTOCK GROWTH: Banks provide “billion-dollar support” for the “unsustainable” expansion of meat and dairy production around the world, according to a new report covered by the Guardian. Over 2015-22, financiers provided the world’s top 55 industrial livestock companies with “average annual credit injections of $77bn (£60bn)”, found the report produced by Feedback, a campaign group in the Netherlands and UK. Some banks “appeared to compromise their own anti-deforestation policies to do so”, the newspaper said. This credit “is designed to help companies expand”, the report noted, adding that meat production rose by 9% globally and dairy by 13%, between 2015 and 2021.
AGRI ROADMAP CRITIQUE: A 2023 UN roadmap to end hunger while limiting agricultural emissions lacked transparency in how it was produced and did not include recommendations to “reduc[e] animal-sourced food production and intake”, according to a Nature Food comment article by a group of researchers. The roadmap, released by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) last December, is a “welcome step” towards food system changes, the article said, but it did not include a list of authors and lacked information around the reasons for its recommendations. David Laborde, the director of the FAO’s agrifood economics and policy division, told the Guardian that the report emphasises the “importance of dietary shifts” and said a methodology and author list are in the full version of the report, which is not yet available online.
‘CLIMATE-FRIENDLY’ BEEF?: Sentient, a not-for-profit news outlet focused on intensive farming, looked at a range of ongoing efforts to “make beef more climate-friendly” – such as seaweed feed for cows and the use of “regenerative agriculture”. The outlet noted that research into feeding cows “a type of red kelp” in an attempt to cut methane emissions received “plenty of media attention”, but it “isn’t as effective” as some initial reports claimed. The piece also analysed “holistic grazing” techniques, a “methane mask” to convert cow burps into other gases and a US “climate-friendly” label for beef.
Forest clearing
TICKET TO RIDE: More than 7m trees were felled between 2019 and 2023 to build the Maya Train, a railway in the Yucatán peninsula in south-east Mexico, according to news website Animal Politico. The controversial train project connecting tourist sites has been “criticised by environmental groups for its damage to caves, cenotes [natural sinkholes] and aquifers”, the outlet said. Last year, the website reported that at least 3.4m trees had been removed. Fonatur Tren Maya, the country’s tourism agency responsible for the project, said at the time that each tree and more would be re-planted. Fonatur did not respond to a new request for comment before publication, Animal Politico said.
TAKING FLIGHT: Meanwhile, Mongabay reported on concerns from experts and locals in south-east Peru regarding the paving over of a famous bird-watching “winding dirt road” to allow more traffic to pass through. The Manu Road is a “once-in-a-lifetime experience for many bird-watchers who come here for the rich biodiversity”, according to the outlet. It passes along the edge of the Manu National Park – one of the world’s most biodiverse protected areas. Last year, authorities “quickly paved the road, allowing for greater motor vehicle traffic”, Mongabay said. Experts and locals now believe that the area’s “wildlife, its ecotourism industry, and even bird-watchers” are at risk due to increased vehicle speeds and road accidents.
BRAZIL DEFORESTATION: A separate Mongabay piece looked at the details of a new report showing that deforestation from soy is ongoing in Brazil’s Cerrado and Amazon rainforest. The report from Mighty Earth, an environmental group, found evidence of almost 27,000 hectares of deforestation and forest degradation in the Cerrado biome between September and December 2023, Mongabay said. In the Amazon, around 30,000 hectares were affected during this time. Mongabay said the deforestation was “located near grain silos used by the seven biggest soy traders in Brazil”. The report used satellite imagery to monitor short-term deforestation and degradation linked to soy and cattle ranching. Meanwhile, the presidents of Brazil and France launched an Amazon “green investment plan” to raise €1bn in public and private funds over the next four years, Le Monde said.
World water roundup
DRY DAYS: Zimbabwe’s maize harvest is expected to be 70% less than last season – and the lowest since 2016 – after an El Niño-induced drought “decimated crops”, newZwire reported. As 2.7m Zimbabweans face hunger, DeutscheWelle reported that national authorities have declared the 2024 farming season “a total failure” and have urged families to conserve food. The World Food Programme (WFP) said it “might not be able to assist families in Zimbabwe facing food insecurity”, DW added, even as locals in rural areas pin their hopes on WFP aid, according to allAfrica. As Zimbabwe mulls declaring a state of emergency, Malawi and Zambia have both declared a state of disaster over drought, the Press Trust of India reported. It noted that, according to the WFP, last month was the “driest February in 40 years for Zambia and Zimbabwe”, while Malawi, Mozambique and parts of Angola had “severe rainfall deficits”. Voice of America News reported that Russia donated 25,000 tonnes of grain and 23,000 tonnes of fertiliser to Zimbabwe, but “the fertilisers may not work…as most crops have been dried out by a lack of rain”.
WATER FOR PEACE?: As drought and conflicts rage on, women and girls are the “first to suffer” when drought impacts poor or rural areas across the world, the UN said “in a plea to countries to mend conflicts over water resources, the Guardian reported. As climate change, pollution and over-use are exacerbating conflicts over water, the benefits of including cooperation over water in peace strategies are “often overlooked”, according to the UN’s annual report on water and development covered in the story. The report did not delve into “politically sensitive” conflicts, despite its “water for peace” theme, the outlet noted. Elsewhere, a comment article in the New Humanitarian called on the international community to “take a stand against weaponising water”, and the Financial Times ran a special series on the future of water.
URGENT CONFLUENCE: Climate change needs to be “the urgent catalyst for collaboration” for three major river basins in Asia and the future of a billion people and the ecosystems on which they depend, said the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). Along with the Australian Water Partnership, the eight-nation Hindu Kush Himalaya body released three major new studies on the Ganga, Indus and Brahmaputra basins. Researchers called on governments to “build fresh consensus” and focus on shared challenges, despite collective action being fraught and “mistrust and power asymmetry among countries” being high. “The humanitarian, economic and environmental cost of our failing to embrace these new approaches now hugely outweighs the risks: and this is one arena in which science can galvanise action,” ICIMOD’s Arun Shrestha told Carbon Brief.
News and views
GAZA FAMINE: On 18 March, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) warned that famine in the Gaza Strip was “imminent”, the Middle East Eye reported, citing new analysis by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) global initiative. According to the report, Gaza’s entire population of 2.3m people was “enduring acute food insecurity”, while over half were experiencing hunger levels classified as catastrophic. FAO’s deputy director general Beth Bechdol told the Washington Post: “This is 100% a man-made crisis. There’s no hurricane, there’s no cyclone, there’s no 100-year flood. There’s no protracted year-on-year drought.” According to Al Jazeera, a new Oxfam report found that Israel was “deliberately” blocking food and other aid, while EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borell accused Tel Aviv of using “famine as a weapon of war”. UN chief António Guterres – who described the IPC report as an “appalling indictment” – called once again for a humanitarian ceasefire “amid urgent efforts to avert famine”, the Guardian reported.
NATURE STANDSTILL: A final vote by EU ministers on the bloc’s embattled nature restoration law was shelved after growing pushback from individual countries, Euronews reported. The law, detailed in a Carbon Brief Q&A, was approved by the European parliament in February. The EU council vote – which requires a “qualified majority” to pass – is usually a straightforward next step, but governments in Sweden, Italy, Finland, Austria, Hungary, Poland, the Netherlands and Belgium indicated they would oppose or abstain from the vote, which was due to take place on 25 March, the outlet reported. Hungary, whose newly raised opposition led to the deadlock, said it was concerned about a “lack of leeway to pursue national policies”, the outlet said. The EU’s environment chief, Virginijus Sinkevičius, said this “raises serious questions about the consistency and stability of the EU decision-making process”, the article reported. He added: “The EU’s and its member states’ international reputation is at stake.” Meanwhile, farmer protests also continued in Brussels this week, Politico reported.
COCOA CRISIS LATEST: Cocoa prices rose above the cost of copper as the continued “supply crunch grips the market”, Bloomberg said. The poor cocoa harvest, previously covered in Cropped, comes after “bad weather and crop disease” hit growers in west Africa where “most of the world’s cocoa is grown”, the outlet said. This will cause, among other things, “Easter egg prices hikes” around the world, another Bloomberg piece noted. A recent rapid attribution study found that the “dangerous humid heat” that engulfed western Africa in mid-February was made 10 times more likely by human-caused climate change, Carbon Brief reported. The heatwave potentially affected millions of people, the study said.
CARBON WITHOUT CONSENT: The state of Sabah in Malaysian Borneo declared its intent to press ahead with an “opaque nature conservation agreement”, despite concerns flagged by UN special rapporteurs, Mongabay said. In 2021, Sabah state officials signed over “rights to carbon and other marketable ecosystem services from more than half of [its] forests in secret” to Singaporean firm Hoch Standard, the article reported. The company has “no record in carbon trading” and is controlled by a “myster[ious]” company in the British Virgin Islands, it added. According to the letter by the UN special rapporteurs, the deal grants “100 years of monopoly rights” over 2m hectares of forest, “fails to acknowledge the presence of Indigenous Peoples in the area” and was signed without their free, prior, informed consent (FPIC). Sabah state, in its response, reiterated its “commitment to uphold FPIC”, special rapporteur Prof Surya Deva told Mongabay. But, he added that he believes “the government [and] the relevant company should do more to obtain a social licence from affected Indigenous Peoples”. Separately, a new study found Australia’s main method to generate carbon offsets to be “a failure on a global scale”, the Guardian wrote.
WALK THE PLANK: The International Seabed Authority’s (ISA) member states are considering “strip[ping] Greenpeace of its observer status”, as the body met again to decide on rules for deep-sea mining, BBC News reported. Canada’s The Metals Company – which has a mining joint venture with Nauru – “claims Greenpeace activists disrupted a research expedition when they boarded its vessel in the remote Pacific” last year, the article explained. In response, Greenpeace said the incident “was a peaceful protest aimed at protecting a pristine ecosystem”, it noted. Separately, the Wall Street Journal reported that hundreds of former US government and military officials, including Hilary Clinton, are calling for the US Senate to ratify the ISA’s parent treaty: the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). As a non-voting member of the ISA, the US “can’t be awarded exploration contracts to mine the seafloor in international waters”, the newspaper said, unlike China which currently has five contracts. The Financial Times reported that Chinese and Russian diplomats at the talks called a “US claim to an extended area of seabed…unacceptable”, given its current position on UNCLOS. Separately, a Nature editorial warned that deep-sea mining talks “should not be rushed”, as “too little is known about the deep-sea ecosystem”.
SAKURA MATATA: The Korea Times reported that South Korea’s “iconic” cherry blossom festivals in the south of the country have been significantly set back by “[t]he delayed blooming of seasonal flowers primarily attributed to climate change”. Local governments that moved their dates up to respond to last year’s “abnormally early blooming caused by warming” have found themselves “grappling with flowerless venues” this year, it added. Cherry blossom festivals are a major part of the local economy and, according to one report in the story, “create ripple effects of some 300% surges in sales” in tourism district shopping revenues. Last month, South Korea recorded its highest average February temperature since 1973, followed by “abnormal” sub-zero weather and low rainfall, failing to give the spring flowers what they needed to fully bloom, the article explained. Meanwhile, a new study estimated that climate change could drive cherry blossoms to extinction in Japan by 2100, reported the South China Morning Post.
Watch, read, listen
AMBANI’S ARK: A two-part Himal Southasian story investigated a new wildlife “rescue” centre run by petrochemical giant Reliance, housing critically endangered species “at the world’s largest [petroleum] refinery complex”.
ATE LEGS: A Yale Environment 360 piece looked at the wider questions around controversial plans from a Spanish company to “factory farm octopuses for their meat”.
FOREST RIGHTS: The Guardian’s Science Weekly podcast examined the “growing movement” to give legal rights to nature.
FEET IN WATER: On World Water Day, a comment piece in Nature featured reflections from four scientists on what it takes to build better access to water and justice.
New science
Climate change impacts and adaptations of wine production
Nature Reviews Earth & Environment
Research found that as much as 70% of the world’s wine-producing areas face “substantial risks” of being less suitable to make wine at a global temperature rise above 2C. The researchers extensively reviewed other studies of the effects of climate change on grape growing and wine production around the world. They found that climate change poses “huge challenges” for wine production. They noted that a temperature rise below 2C may benefit wine-growing in some regions, indicating that this limit could be a “safe threshold” for just over half of traditional vineyards. The study outlined the risks of increased heat and drought, extreme weather and the unpredictability of pests and disease in key wine-producing areas such as northern California, France, Spain, Chile and Argentina.
Spillover effects of organic agriculture on pesticide use on nearby fields
Science
Pesticide use in organic croplands reduces when there are other organic fields nearby, a study found. However, it said pesticide use in conventionally grown fields increases when they are close to organic fields due to pest “spillover” when tackled using different methods. The researchers looked at pesticide use and crop data from around 14,000 fields in Kern County in the US state of California between 2013 and 2019, alongside wider US data to help simulate how organic agriculture affects pesticide usage. The findings of this analysis suggest that “clustering” organic croplands together could help to reduce the overall use of pesticides.
Elevation modulates the impacts of climate change on the Brazilian Cerrado flora
Diversity and Distributions
A new study found that about half of all plant species in the ecologically-rich Brazilian Cerrado “will experience a net range loss due to climate change” and two-thirds of its landscapes will face species losses by 2040. Using species distribution models, the study estimated how warming temperatures might cause more than 7,000 species in the region to move. The researchers found that elevation “exerts a central role” in how plants respond to climate change, with lowlands more likely to “become local extinction hotspots” as many species move upslope, but mountaintop species will have “nowhere-to-go”. The authors concluded that climate change mitigation “is key for safeguarding the integrity of Cerrado ecosystems in the long term” and “urge[d] the incorporation of climate adaptation measures into conservation and restoration decision-making to increase climatic resilience”.
In the diary
- 18-29 March: First part of the 29th annual session of the International Seabed Authority | Kingston, Jamaica
- 30 March: International day of zero waste
- 10 April: Parliament elections in South Korea
Cropped is researched and written by Dr Giuliana Viglione, Aruna Chandrasekhar, Daisy Dunne, Orla Dwyer and Yanine Quiroz. Please send tips and feedback to cropped@carbonbrief.org
The post Cropped 27 March 2024: Bankrolling meat and dairy; EU nature restoration pushback; Missing cherry blossoms appeared first on Carbon Brief.
More of Germany’s electricity came from wind and solar power than fossil fuels for the first time ever in 2025.
Together, wind and solar power generated 225 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity – accounting for 44% of the total in 2025 – with just 217TWh (43%) coming from fossil fuels.
Solar and onshore wind have grown rapidly under Germany’s “Energiewende” strategy over the past two decades, as the nation transitions away from both coal and nuclear power.
Renewables have recently faced mounting opposition from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party and the current coalition government has been trying to develop new gas-power plants.
Nevertheless, Carbon Brief analysis of Energy Institute data – shown in the chart below – illustrates how wind and solar have continued growing, emerging as the nation’s largest power source.
The success of renewables in Germany mirrors the EU as a whole, which also saw wind and solar overtake fossil-fuel power generation in 2025 for the first time.
Germany has various targets in place that require a rapid expansion of wind and solar power, including cutting economy-wide emissions to net-zero by 2045.
The nation is also aiming to increase renewables’ share of electricity consumption to 80% by 2030 to achieve a “largely climate neutral” power system by 2035. It aims to decarbonise its electricity entirely once coal power has been phased out, which has a deadline of “no later than” 2038.
(The renewables targets also include electricity generated from hydropower and bioenergy. The latter produces a relatively large share of Germany’s power – roughly a tenth in 2025.)
Germany has to rely on renewables more than neighbours, such as France and the UK, to achieve its climate goals. This is due to its phaseout of nuclear power, which is a key part of the “Energiewende” strategy.
Nuclear power has long faced widespread public opposition in Germany. This year, the centre-right chancellor Friedrich Merz described the nuclear phaseout as a “strategic mistake”, but the government has ruled out a return to conventional nuclear power.
The country has an official coal phaseout date of 2038, but experts say the country is on track to eliminate coal from its power supply years earlier. This is despite some pressure to temporarily slow the transition away from coal during the recent energy crisis.
(Very few outside the AfD are calling to scrap the coal phaseout altogether, but the government will publish a review of the timelines in August.)
While coal generation has fallen quickly, even as nuclear was being phased out, some argue that coal could have been cut more quickly if nuclear had remained.
Gas-power expansion has also been framed by the government in recent years as an essential component of Germany’s transition away from coal and nuclear power, to support a renewables-heavy grid.
The current government under Merz has tried to boost gas and recently adopted a law to provide state support for new gas-fired power plants. The plan is for these plants to be converted to run on “green hydrogen” by 2045, in order to meet the climate-neutrality goal.
Germany aims to install 115 gigawatts (GW) of onshore wind by 2030 and approved a record 20.8GW of new capacity in 2025.
Meanwhile, solar generation has reached unprecedented levels during the hot summer of 2026.
However, the government’s planned grid reforms have been criticised by the renewables industry for risking slowing down the energy transition. Under the proposals, renewables developers would only be granted automatic grid connections in areas with limited grid capacity if they waive compensation for future curtailed generation.
Interview: COP31 president says electrification is ‘surest way to protect citizens’
Six charts show how clean power was world’s largest source of new energy in 2025
Guest post: How US renewable-energy growth persists despite federal policy uncertainty
CCC: Faster electrification of UK will ‘put money back into people’s pockets’
The post Analysis: Wind and solar power overtake fossil fuels in Germany for first time ever appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Wind and solar power overtake fossil fuels in Germany for first time ever
Climate Change
Analysis: 84% of nations miss deadline to identify ‘nature-harming’ subsidies by 2025
Most countries failed to meet a 2025 target to identify all of their subsidies that could be “harmful” to biodiversity, according to Carbon Brief analysis.
The findings also reveal that 32 countries spend an estimated $270bn on biodiversity-harming subsidies and other incentives each year.
This is the “tip of the iceberg”, one expert notes, with “trillions” spent globally.
In 2022, almost every country in the world agreed on a set of “goals” and “targets” aiming to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.
One of these targets asked countries to identify all subsidies that damage biodiversity by 2025, before phasing out or reforming at least $500bn of these incentives by 2030.
The subsidies can be found in a range of sectors, including fossil fuels, agriculture, forestry, mining and fishing.
Just 21 countries appear to have met the 2025 goal, Carbon Brief finds, based on analysis of 134 national reports submitted to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) by 1 July 2026.
Five of the world’s 17 megadiverse countries were among those that met the deadline.
Country progress
Carbon Brief’s analysis looks at the number of countries that have met the 2025 target to identify their use of nature-harming subsidies.
However, the metrics to determine which countries have “met” this target are not explicitly defined.
Carbon Brief included any country that says it has completed the process of identifying its subsidies. In almost every case, these countries also included a total figure for the value of those subsidies.
The analysis finds that 21 countries say they have identified their harmful subsidies, as shown in the map below (yellow). This amounts to 16% of the countries that have submitted national reports so far.
A further 11 countries, plus the EU, have provided figures for some of their subsidies, such as only those in a specific sector (dark blue).
Of the 134 national reports submitted to the CBD, 66 make reference to beginning the process (medium blue), while the remaining 68 do not (light blue). The final 62 countries party to the CBD have yet to submit a national report (light grey).
(Every country in the world participates in the CBD, except for the US and the Holy See – the governing body of the Catholic church, which is seated in Vatican City.)
The 32 countries that have identified some or all subsidies spend almost $270bn on nature-harming incentives annually, according to Carbon Brief’s analysis.
This is based on a tally of the figures for the most recent available year listed in countries’ national reports, in US dollars using conversion rates at the end of the given year and adjusted for inflation. The analysis also includes figures from other reports cited in the country submissions.
The $270bn reported in country submissions to date is “just the tip of the iceberg”, notes Eva Zabey, the chief executive of Business for Nature. The global figure could be as high as $1.8tn, according to a 2022 estimate from non-profit group, the B Team.
The figures identified by Carbon Brief are a “warning” that the “world is not moving fast enough” to tackle harmful subsidies, Zabey says, adding:
“The positive news is that some countries have shown it can be done and this should embolden others to follow suit…Subsidy reform should be treated as an economic necessity, not an environmental checklist.”
Harmful subsidies are expected to be among the key priorities at the upcoming COP17 UN nature summit, being held in Armenia in October 2026.
Subsidy target
There is no single definition of a “harmful” subsidy. (See: ‘Harmful’ subsidies.)
The aim to identify these subsidies stems from target 18 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) – the global agreement containing a series of goals and targets for nature.
Target 18 calls on countries to identify subsidies and other incentives that are harmful for biodiversity by 2025.
It also says that nations should “eliminate, phase out or reform” these subsidies in a “proportionate” way, reducing them by at least $500bn per year by 2030.
It says countries should first target the “most harmful” incentives, while simultaneously scaling up positive incentives for nature.
All 2030 targets in the GBF are global – with countries each expected to outline how they will contribute nationally. So far, 169 countries have submitted these national targets.
Only 38% of countries addressed the 2025 aim to identify harmful subsidies in their national targets “to some extent”, according to a draft version of an upcoming progress report.
Countries’ national reports do not “provide a sufficient basis to determine” whether the 2025 milestone was met, says the report, but available evidence “suggests” that it was not.
‘Harmful’ subsidies
There is no universally agreed-upon definition of a “biodiversity-harmful subsidy” – or how it differs from an environmentally harmful subsidy.
In general, “harmful” environmental subsidies impact humans’ surroundings, whereas those harmful to biodiversity directly affect species and ecosystems. Paul Elton, a PhD candidate at the Australian National University, tells Carbon Brief:
“If you were to do a study that focused on biodiversity-harmful subsidies versus one that focused on environmentally-harmful subsidies, there’d be a Venn diagram where a large percentage would overlap.”
A 2022 working paper on identifying subsidies harmful to biodiversity published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) depicted biodiversity as a subset of the environment, with climate and air falling outside the scope of “biodiversity”.
However, the report also noted that climate change is one of the five key drivers of biodiversity loss, adding:
“As such, subsidies that lead to larger greenhouse gas emissions, for example, will also indirectly impact on biodiversity.”
Prof Jessica Dempsey, a political ecologist at the University of British Columbia, tells Carbon Brief that she would “absolutely” consider fossil-fuel subsidies to be biodiversity-harming – not only as a driver of climate change, but also because the extraction of fossil fuels can cause localised harms to biodiversity. She adds:
“I do think probably it is true that all harmful subsidies are not necessarily biodiversity-related. Some care in that is important, but subsidies to the sectors that are known drivers of biodiversity loss feel very obvious to me.”
Biodiversity-harming subsidies can be either direct or indirect.
Direct subsidies refer to government expenditures that go towards a project that harms nature, such as construction of a new gas-fired power plant. Indirect subsidies could include tax exemptions that encourage a certain behaviour, such as lower tax rates on fuels for agricultural machinery.
Subsidies in agriculture, fishery and energy sectors are most commonly deemed “harmful”, but damage can also be caused by support for forestry, infrastructure, transport, construction, water and other sectors.
One recent estimate of the global total of biodiversity-harming subsidies put the figure at $1.7-3.2tn annually. An estimate of environmentally harmful subsidies put the figure at $2.6tn.
Elton tells Carbon Brief:
“It’s useful to contextualise the $500bn ambition of the GBF against those global estimates of how big [the total] actually could be, because that underscores the fact that so far, you’ve only got a subset of nations reporting about $250bn by your analysis, which is only half of the [phase-out target].
“It’s a significant lack of accountability.”
The chart below compares the $2.6bn estimated value of harmful subsidies to the $500bn phase-out target set in the GBF and the value of the subsidies identified so far in national reports.
Sectoral breakdown
Many subsidies can have both negative and positive impacts on biodiversity, according to the 2022 OECD working paper.
A subsidy on constructing dams for new hydropower can harm local biodiversity by disrupting water flows and flooding certain areas, for example. But it also reduces fossil-fuel dependence, lowering emissions and leading to a decrease in global warming.
Ronald Steenblik, a subsidies expert and co-author of the report estimating $2.6bn of harmful subsidies, tells Carbon Brief:
“What’s harmful is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.”
Most experts agree that a few sectors receive the bulk of the world’s biodiversity-harming subsidies: fossil fuels, agriculture and infrastructure, with much smaller contributions from other sectors, such as forestry, mining and fisheries.
Of the subsidies reported to the CBD, almost half were for the fossil-fuel sector, and around one-quarter for agriculture and fishing.
Dempsey says it is “surprising” that mining “didn’t show up” in these figures. (Of the 32 countries that provided subsidy data, only one mentioned mining as an industry that received harmful subsidies.)
Limitations
One limitation of Carbon Brief’s analysis is the lack of standardisation of subsidy data.
The methodology underlying the national reports lists several definitions of environmentally harmful subsidies, adding:
“[T]here is no standardised, globally agreed methodology for assessing the value of subsidies…nor is there a single global dataset providing this information.”
It adds that it is “important” for countries to identify harmful subsidies “within their national context”. Steenblik says:
“When you get down into the details, you can have lots of arguments of where you draw the line. And, so, the big question on this spreadsheet is where countries drew that line.”
For example, China’s national report says the country has already identified all biodiversity-harming subsidies and reformed them entirely.
In Australia, a 2026 study – led by Elton from Australian National University – identified biodiversity-harmful subsidies worth $26.3bn over 2022-23, a number that amounts to just over 1% of the country’s GDP.
However, in its national report, Australia identified $155m worth of subsidies, largely in the agricultural sector. (The national report says that the identified agricultural subsidies are those that are “potentially most harmful to the environment”.)
Elton tells Carbon Brief that this discrepancy underscores the necessity of an independent assessment of harmful subsidies, “rather than this just being seen as a tick-the-box reporting exercise by officials in the environment department”.
When it comes to actually phasing out harmful subsidies, Dempsey says, focusing on the quality of the subsidy – and who benefits from it – is just as important as focusing on the numbers. She adds:
“If we don’t take this lens of understanding the beneficiaries and we only focus on the [numbers], we really risk having policy changes that then lead to increased affordability problems for everyday working people, and backlash.”
Methodology
Carbon Brief analysed national reports submitted to the CBD by 134 parties – 133 countries and the EU – to assess which ones had identified all of their biodiversity-harmful subsidies and therefore met the 2025 deadline.
The reports were submitted in 2026, with the analysis including those submitted by 1 July 2026.
The figures for each country can be found in this spreadsheet. More than three-quarters of reports did not list any figures.
To get the full tally for the amount listed, Carbon Brief used the figures for 2025 (or the nearest available year) and converted the local currency into US dollars, based on conversion rates in the given year using the currency exchange rates calculator from the US Treasury.
These figures were then adjusted for inflation to the year 2025. Numbers were rounded to the nearest $1,000.
In total, this amounted to $269,856,769,000 in subsidies across 32 countries.
Many countries listed the sector that each subsidy is going towards. Carbon Brief standardised these inputs using the following categories:
- Agriculture and fishing
- Energy
- Forestry
- Fossil fuels
- Infrastructure
- Transport
- Other
- Multiple sectors
“Multiple sectors” was assigned when a country provided only a partial sectoral breakdown of their subsidies or none at all.
“Other” was selected to encompass sectors that were named more infrequently, including water, mining, tourism and construction.
The designations employed and the presentation of the material on the map in this article do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Carbon Brief concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
UK withdraws millions in funding from world’s second-largest rainforest in Congo
Q&A: What England’s new ‘land-use framework’ means for climate, nature and food
Analysis: Half of nations meet UN deadline for nature-loss reporting
Brazil’s biodiversity pledge: Six key takeaways for nature and climate change
The post Analysis: 84% of nations miss deadline to identify ‘nature-harming’ subsidies by 2025 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: 84% of nations miss deadline to identify ‘nature-harming’ subsidies by 2025
SYDNEY, Monday 27 July 2026 — In response to an announcement that Woodside’s Browse to North West Shelf (Browse) Project was declared a State Significant Project by the WA Government, the following comments can be attributed to Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, Hannah Schuch:
“The WA Government must not ignore the significant risks clearly associated with Woodside’s plans to drill for gas at the pristine Scott Reef — to endangered marine life, our oceans, and our climate — all of which are valued and relied upon by Western Australians.
“The WA Environmental Protection Authority has already found Woodside’s plans to drill at Scott Reef would have unacceptable impacts on the environment without considering the climate impacts of 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon pollution associated with this disastrous proposal.
“Woodside’s gas drilling plans, including seismic blasting and carbon dumping in the heart of a precious ecosystem, pose potentially fatal risks to pygmy blue whales and genetically unique green sea turtles, and could cause a catastrophic oil spill.
“If the WA and federal governments are concerned with the prosperity of WA, they must reject Woodside’s nature and climate-wrecking proposal to drill for gas at Scott Reef.”
—ENDS—
High res images and footage of Scott Reef can be found here.
For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact Emma Sangalli on 0431 513 465 or emma.sangalli@greenpeace.org
Cook Government must recognise risks posed by Woodside’s Scott Reef drilling plans
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测