A recently presented report argues for an urgent reform of agricultural subsidies that involve polluting practices: maintaining those incentives while promising to cut emissions is political folly.
The Contradiction Between Emission Reductions and Subsidies for Emitting Practices
Agricultural subsidies cross a fundamental red line the moment they incentivize practices that damage soils and increase emissions. Promising climate protection while those subsidies remain in place constitutes an unacceptable contradiction.
The report presented by the expert group chaired by former Costa Rican president Carlos Alvarado at COP31 proposes reforming the supports that are harmful and financing more sustainable alternatives. Its proposal aims to act in ways that do not require increasing public spending.
The magnitude requires one important precision: the OECD estimates 842,000 million dollars as the annual agricultural support provided to 54 countries, averaged over 2022–2024. It includes transfers and price support; but it does not equate entirely to budget subsidies nor to polluting aid.
Agricultural Subsidies: The Absurdity of Paying for Something That Worsens the Crisis
The diagnosis notes that there are incentives that promote the excessive use of fertilizers and practices that are incompatible with climate commitments. When a subsidy rewards those behaviours, the problem also lies with the government that designed the conditions and preserves its disbursements.
The immediate benefits reach producers, farming businesses, and input suppliers. The environmental costs, by contrast, are borne by society at large and can take years to manifest. That lag facilitates that the damage continues while its policymakers delay reform.
It is intolerable to present any support to the sector as automatically sustainable. Agricultural subsidies should be evaluated by their results: reduced emissions, efficiently used fertilizers, and protected soils. Declaring green objectives without reviewing harmful incentives leaves the door open to institutional greenwashing.
Removing the Subsidies Without Valid Alternatives Would Be Another Irresponsibility
The report identifies barriers after studying several cases of agricultural subsidies recorded in Costa Rica, Malawi, Brazil, Sri Lanka and Vietnam. Its proposal calls for establishing partnerships among businesses, farmers, and environmental organizations. Before withdrawing subsidies, these associations would need to seek ways to compensate those who lose subsidies and offer real and tangible alternatives.
A reform that leaves smallholders without their income and without assistance could turn the climate transition into a very grave rural crisis. Governments must specify which practices will stop being financed, specify which alternatives will be backed, and how they will accompany the transition of vulnerable farms.
Reorienting the agricultural subsidies means that verifiable environmental improvements should be rewarded. The document proposes incentivizing better-managed fertilizers, healthier soils, and lower emissions. It also recommends investing in research, irrigation, rural roads, and climate information: services that enable changing practices without abandoning the farmer.
COP32 Must Close the Door on Greenwashing
The campaign driven by this report will last one year and aims to turn the proposals into concrete commitments at COP32. That timeframe should serve to prepare budget decisions, identify beneficiaries, and establish verifiable environmental conditions.
Agricultural subsidies should also be coordinated with transfers to vulnerable households and school feeding programs, as the experts propose. Protecting food security requires addressing both producers and those who cannot afford adequate nutrition.
Greenwashing begins when a reform merely renames the allocations. To avoid it, governments should publish which incentives will be eliminated, how much money is reallocated, and what results are achieved. Without this accountability, the promise of transformation will remain impossible to verify.
The OECD provides a damning figure on agricultural subsidies: in 2022–2024, only 5% of producer support was conditioned on environmental actions beyond the basic requirements, a share that has remained nearly flat since the early 2000s. Maintaining that minimal requirement while proclaiming climate ambition is politically unsustainable: the conditions for receiving support must accompany the promises.
