Analysis: 84% of nations miss deadline to identify ‘nature-…

Summary

<p>Most countries failed to meet a 2025 target to identify all of their subsidies that could be “harmful” to biodiversity,…</p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-84-of-nations-miss-deadline-to-identify-nature-harming-subsidies-by-2025">Analysis: 84% of nations miss deadline to identify ‘nature-harming’ subsidies by 2025 </a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org">Carbon Brief</a>.</p>

<div class="print-share wp-block">
<button class="g-button g-button--secondary g-button--icon" type="button"><span class="g-button__content">Print article</span><span class="g-button__icon"><svg fill="none" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24" width="24" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<path d="M20.1253 6.9375H18.5625V3.75C18.5625 3.60082 18.5032 3.45774 18.3977 3.35225C18.2923 3.24676 18.1492 3.1875 18 3.1875H6C5.85082 3.1875 5.70774 3.24676 5.60225 3.35225C5.49676 3.45774 5.4375 3.60082 5.4375 3.75V6.9375H3.87469C2.66906 6.9375 1.6875 7.86281 1.6875 9V16.5C1.6875 16.6492 1.74676 16.7923 1.85225 16.8977C1.95774 17.0032 2.10082 17.0625 2.25 17.0625H5.4375V20.25C5.4375 20.3992 5.49676 20.5423 5.60225 20.6477C5.70774 20.7532 5.85082 20.8125 6 20.8125H18C18.1492 20.8125 18.2923 20.7532 18.3977 20.6477C18.5032 20.5423 18.5625 20.3992 18.5625 20.25V17.0625H21.75C21.8992 17.0625 22.0423 17.0032 22.1477 16.8977C22.2532 16.7923 22.3125 16.6492 22.3125 16.5V9C22.3125 7.86281 21.3309 6.9375 20.1253 6.9375ZM6.5625 4.3125H17.4375V6.9375H6.5625V4.3125ZM17.4375 19.6875H6.5625V14.8125H17.4375V19.6875ZM21.1875 15.9375H18.5625V14.25C18.5625 14.1008 18.5032 13.9577 18.3977 13.8523C18.2923 13.7468 18.1492 13.6875 18 13.6875H6C5.85082 13.6875 5.70774 13.7468 5.60225 13.8523C5.49676 13.9577 5.4375 14.1008 5.4375 14.25V15.9375H2.8125V9C2.8125 8.48344 3.28875 8.0625 3.87469 8.0625H20.1253C20.7113 8.0625 21.1875 8.48344 21.1875 9V15.9375ZM18.5625 10.875C18.5625 11.0604 18.5075 11.2417 18.4045 11.3958C18.3015 11.55 18.1551 11.6702 17.9838 11.7411C17.8125 11.8121 17.624 11.8307 17.4421 11.7945C17.2602 11.7583 17.0932 11.669 16.9621 11.5379C16.831 11.4068 16.7417 11.2398 16.7055 11.0579C16.6693 10.876 16.6879 10.6875 16.7589 10.5162C16.8298 10.3449 16.95 10.1985 17.1042 10.0955C17.2583 9.99248 17.4396 9.9375 17.625 9.9375C17.8736 9.9375 18.1121 10.0363 18.2879 10.2121C18.4637 10.3879 18.5625 10.6264 18.5625 10.875Z" fill="currentColor">
</svg></span></button> <button class="g-button g-button--secondary g-button--icon" type="button"><span class="g-button__content">Share</span><span class="g-button__icon"><svg fill="none" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24" width="24" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<path d="M22.1475 10.1025L14.6475 2.60249C14.5688 2.52393 14.4686 2.47043 14.3596 2.44877C14.2505 2.42711 14.1375 2.43825 14.0348 2.48078C13.9321 2.52331 13.8443 2.59533 13.7824 2.68774C13.7206 2.78016 13.6876 2.88881 13.6875 2.99999V6.95624C8.57999 7.29281 2.40092 12.1125 1.69405 18.2681C1.67109 18.4641 1.71058 18.6624 1.80688 18.8346C1.90318 19.0069 2.05138 19.1444 2.23038 19.2275C2.40937 19.3106 2.61003 19.3351 2.80377 19.2975C2.99751 19.2599 3.17444 19.1621 3.30936 19.0181C4.36499 17.8922 8.15624 14.3062 13.6875 14.0747V18C13.6876 18.1112 13.7206 18.2198 13.7824 18.3122C13.8443 18.4047 13.9321 18.4767 14.0348 18.5192C14.1375 18.5617 14.2505 18.5729 14.3596 18.5512C14.4686 18.5296 14.5688 18.4761 14.6475 18.3975L22.1475 10.8975C22.2528 10.792 22.312 10.6491 22.312 10.5C22.312 10.3509 22.2528 10.208 22.1475 10.1025ZM14.8125 16.6425V13.5C14.8125 13.3508 14.7532 13.2077 14.6477 13.1022C14.5422 12.9968 14.3992 12.9375 14.25 12.9375C11.6503 12.9375 9.11624 13.6172 6.71999 14.9578C5.32332 15.7424 4.03681 16.7086 2.89405 17.8312C3.33467 15.3412 4.78405 12.9562 7.01905 11.0559C9.23155 9.18187 11.9334 8.06249 14.25 8.06249C14.3992 8.06249 14.5422 8.00323 14.6477 7.89774C14.7532 7.79225 14.8125 7.64918 14.8125 7.49999V4.35843L20.954 10.5L14.8125 16.6425Z" fill="currentColor">
</svg></span></button> </div>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The findings also reveal that 32 countries spend an estimated $270bn on biodiversity-harming subsidies and other incentives each year.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is the “tip of the iceberg”, one expert notes, with “<a href="https://www.bteam.org/our-thinking/news/reform-1-8-trillion-yearly-environmentally-harmful-subsidies-to-deliver-a-nature-positive-economy">trillions</a>” spent globally.  </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop15-key-outcomes-agreed-at-the-un-biodiversity-conference-in-montreal/">2022</a>, almost every country in the world agreed on a set of “goals” and “targets” aiming to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The subsidies can be found in a range of sectors, including fossil fuels, agriculture, forestry, mining and fishing.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Just 21 countries appear to have met the 2025 goal, Carbon Brief finds, based on analysis of 134<strong> </strong><a href="https://ort.cbd.int/national-reports">national reports</a> submitted to the UN <a href="https://www.cbd.int/">Convention on Biological Diversity</a> (CBD) by 1 July 2026. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Five<strong> </strong>of the world’s 17 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megadiverse_countries">megadiverse countries</a> were among those that met the deadline.</p>

<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="country-progress">Country progress </h3>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Carbon Brief’s analysis looks at the number of countries that have met the 2025 target to identify their use of nature-harming subsidies.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, the metrics to determine which countries have “met” this target are not explicitly defined. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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). </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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). </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">(Every country in the world <a href="https://www.cbd.int/information/parties.shtml">participates</a> in the CBD, except for the US and the Holy See – the governing body of the Catholic church, which is seated in Vatican City.)</p>

<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img alt="Map of the world showing that 21 countries have identified all of their nature-harming subsidies" class="wp-image-80250" height="1855" src="https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/21-countries-have-id-1-scaled.png" width="3000" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Countries that have identified all of their harmful subsidies (yellow); provided figures for some sectors (dark blue); begun the process, but not provided any numbers (medium blue); not begun the process (light blue); and not submitted a national report to the CBD (light grey). Credit: Carbon Brief analysis</figcaption></figure>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The 32 countries that have identified some or all subsidies spend almost $270bn on nature-harming incentives annually, according to Carbon Brief’s analysis. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The $270bn reported in country submissions to date is “just the tip of the iceberg”, notes <a href="https://www.businessfornature.org/who-we-are/our-team">Eva Zabey</a>, the chief executive of <a href="https://www.businessfornature.org/">Business for Nature</a>. The global figure could be as high as $1.8tn, according to a 2022 <a href="https://www.bteam.org/our-thinking/news/reform-1-8-trillion-yearly-environmentally-harmful-subsidies-to-deliver-a-nature-positive-economy">estimate</a> from non-profit group, the B Team. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The figures identified by Carbon Brief are a “warning” that the “world is not moving fast enough” to tackle harmful subsidies, Zabey says, adding: </p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“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.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Harmful subsidies are expected to be among the key priorities at the upcoming COP17 UN nature summit, being held in Armenia in October 2026. </p>

<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="subsidy-target">Subsidy target</h3>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There is no single definition of a “harmful” subsidy. (See: <a href="#harmful-subsidies" rel="nofollow">‘Harmful’ subsidies</a>.) </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The aim to identify these subsidies stems from target 18 of the <a href="https://www.cbd.int/gbf">Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework</a> (GBF) – the global agreement containing a series of goals and targets for nature. </p>

<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img alt="Target 18." class="wp-image-80224" height="191" src="https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/ragout_target_18_.png" width="1024" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Target 18 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Credit: UN CBD (<a href="https://www.cbd.int/gbf">2022</a>)</figcaption></figure>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Target 18 calls on countries to identify subsidies and other incentives that are harmful for biodiversity by 2025. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It says countries should first target the “most harmful” incentives, while simultaneously scaling up positive incentives for nature. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">All 2030 targets in the GBF are global –  with countries each expected to outline how they will contribute nationally. So far, <a href="https://ort.cbd.int/?_gl=1*c8vlxk*_ga*MjY0NDE2MTI0LjE3ODI0MDEzNDc.*_ga_7S1TPRE7F5*czE3ODQ3MzQwMTIkbzIxJGcxJHQxNzg0NzM0NDQ0JGo2MCRsMCRoMA..#0.4/0/0">169</a> countries have submitted these national targets. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Only 38% of countries addressed the 2025 aim to identify harmful subsidies in their national targets “to some extent”, according to a <a href="https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/5611/c35f/aa96bdcd816f5952d586a777/sbstta-28-02-add1-rev1-en.pdf">draft version</a> of an upcoming progress report.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.  </p>

<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="harmful-subsidies">‘Harmful’ subsidies  </h3>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There is no universally agreed-upon definition of a “biodiversity-harmful subsidy” – or how it differs from an environmentally harmful subsidy.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In general, “harmful” environmental subsidies impact humans’ surroundings, whereas those harmful to biodiversity directly affect species and ecosystems. <a href="https://fennerschool.anu.edu.au/people/paul-elton">Paul Elton</a>, a PhD candidate at the <a href="https://www.anu.edu.au/">Australian National University</a>, tells Carbon Brief:</p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“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.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A 2022 <a href="https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2022/11/identifying-and-assessing-subsidies-and-other-incentives-harmful-to-biodiversity_02760154/3e9118d3-en.pdf">working paper</a> on identifying subsidies harmful to biodiversity published by the <a href="https://www.oecd.org/en.html">Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development</a> (OECD) depicted biodiversity as a subset of the environment, with climate and air falling outside the scope of “biodiversity”.</p>

<div class="gf_browser_chrome gform_wrapper gform-theme gform-theme--foundation gform-theme--framework gform-theme--orbital newsletter-inline_wrapper" id="gform_wrapper_4"><div class="gform_anchor" id="gf_4" tabindex="-1"></div>
<div class="gform_heading">
<p class="gform_description"></p>
</div><form action="/feed#gf_4" class="newsletter-inline" enctype="multipart/form-data" id="gform_4" method="post">
<div class="gform-body gform_body"><div class="gform_fields top_label form_sublabel_above description_above validation_below" id="gform_fields_4"><div class="gfield gfield--type-honeypot gform_validation_container field_sublabel_above gfield--has-description field_description_above field_validation_below gfield_visibility_visible" id="field_4_7"><label class="gfield_label gform-field-label" for="input_4_7">LinkedIn</label><div class="gfield_description" id="gfield_description_4_7">This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.</div><div class="ginput_container"><input autocomplete="new-password" id="input_4_7" name="input_7" type="text" value="" /></div></div><div class="gfield gfield--type-html gfield--input-type-html gfield--width-full preheader gfield_html gfield_html_formatted gfield_no_follows_desc field_sublabel_above gfield--no-description field_description_above field_validation_below gfield_visibility_visible" id="field_4_6"><p>Free fortnightly newsletter</p>
</div><div class="gfield gfield--type-html gfield--input-type-html gfield--width-full gfield_html gfield_html_formatted gfield_no_follows_desc field_sublabel_above gfield--no-description field_description_above field_validation_below gfield_visibility_visible" id="field_4_5"><img src="https://cbtempdev.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/cropped_WEBSITE-INLINE.webp" style="padding-bottom: 0.5em;" />

</div><div class="gfield gfield--type-email gfield--input-type-email gfield--width-five-twelfths inline-email field_sublabel_above gfield--no-description field_description_above hidden_label field_validation_below gfield_visibility_visible" id="field_4_1"><label class="gfield_label gform-field-label" for="input_4_1">Email</label><div class="ginput_container ginput_container_email">
<input class="medium" id="input_4_1" name="input_1" type="email" value="" />
</div></div><div class="gfield gfield--type-submit gfield--width-one-twelfth field_sublabel_above gfield--no-description field_description_above field_validation_below gfield_visibility_visible" id="field_submit"><input class="gform-button gform-button--white button" id="gform_submit_button_4" type="submit" value="Submit" /></div></div></div>
<div class="gform-footer gform_footer top_label">
<input class="gform_hidden" name="gform_submission_method" type="hidden" value="postback" />
<input class="gform_hidden" id="gform_theme_4" name="gform_theme" type="hidden" value="orbital" />
<input class="gform_hidden" id="gform_style_settings_4" name="gform_style_settings" type="hidden" value="{"inputPrimaryColor":"#204ce5"}" />
<input class="gform_hidden" name="is_submit_4" type="hidden" value="1" />
<input class="gform_hidden" name="gform_submit" type="hidden" value="4" />

<input class="gform_hidden" name="gform_currency" type="hidden" value="upmnLQYA9JofzhmPSHN/5XAkXnfLOxTX9PEAbbP+C3mIjMNU9jLRZWwLozl3ImTjeowuxUPQcQQgFyEel0JdWXrUPpmYG4ZC1qzpuGUqylj7faA=" />
<input class="gform_hidden" name="gform_unique_id" type="hidden" value="" />
<input class="gform_hidden" name="state_4" type="hidden" value="WyJbXSIsImJhZGFmNDhiODgxMDFiZTczZmRhZTdiNTdjNTY5OTE0Il0=" />
<input autocomplete="off" class="gform_hidden" id="gform_target_page_number_4" name="gform_target_page_number_4" type="hidden" value="0" />
<input autocomplete="off" class="gform_hidden" id="gform_source_page_number_4" name="gform_source_page_number_4" type="hidden" value="1" />
<input name="gform_field_values" type="hidden" value="" />

</div>
</form>
</div>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, the report also noted that climate change is one of the five key drivers of biodiversity loss, adding: </p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“As such, subsidies that lead to larger greenhouse gas emissions, for example, will also indirectly impact on biodiversity.”</p>
</blockquote>

<figure class="wp-block-image size-full is-resized"><img alt="Distinction between the “environment” and “biodiversity”, according to an oft-cited working paper on identifying and assessing biodiversity-harming subsidies. Credit: OECD (2022)" class="wp-image-80223" height="276" src="https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/chart_.png" style="width: 491px; height: auto;" width="491" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Distinction between the “environment” and “biodiversity”, according to an oft-cited working paper on identifying and assessing biodiversity-harming subsidies. Credit: OECD (<a href="https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2022/11/identifying-and-assessing-subsidies-and-other-incentives-harmful-to-biodiversity_02760154/3e9118d3-en.pdf">2022</a>)</figcaption></figure>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://geog.ubc.ca/profile/jessica-dempsey/">Prof Jessica Dempsey</a>, a political ecologist at the <a href="https://www.ubc.ca/">University of British Columbia</a>, 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:</p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“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.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Biodiversity-harming subsidies can be either direct or indirect. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-025-02147-3">recent estimate</a> 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 <a href="https://www.earthtrack.net/blog/environmentally-harmful-subsidies-update-26-trillionyear-and-continuing-threat-nature">$2.6tn</a>.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Elton tells Carbon Brief:</p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“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].</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“It’s a significant lack of accountability.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.</p>

<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img alt="Chart showing biodiversity harming subsidies" class="wp-image-80251" height="2059" src="https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/proportional-area-1-scaled.png" width="3000" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Comparison of the harmful subsidies identified by countries in their national reports (light blue), the phase-out target for subsidies outlined in the GBF (medium blue) and a global estimate of environmentally harmful subsidies (dark blue). Credit: Carbon Brief analysis</figcaption></figure>

<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="sectoral-breakdown">Sectoral breakdown</h3>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many subsidies can have both negative and positive impacts on biodiversity, according to the 2022 OECD working paper. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><a href="https://fr.linkedin.com/in/ronaldsteenblik">Ronald Steenblik</a>, a subsidies expert and co-author of the <a href="https://www.earthtrack.net/document/protecting-nature-reforming-environmentally-harmful-subsidies-update">report</a> estimating $2.6bn of harmful subsidies, tells Carbon Brief:</p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“What’s harmful is somewhat in the eye of the beholder.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Of the subsidies reported to the CBD, almost half were for the fossil-fuel sector, and around one-quarter for agriculture and fishing. </p>

<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img alt="Chart showing that almost half of nature-harming subsidies go towards fossil fuels" class="wp-image-80215" height="1529" src="https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/almost-half-of-natur-scaled.png" width="3000" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Sectoral breakdown of identified subsidies. “Multiple” means a country either did not distinguish between sectors or reported one number encompassing several sectors. “Other” refers to specific sectors not named in the chart. Credit: Carbon Brief analysis. </figcaption></figure>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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.)</p>

<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="limitations">Limitations</h3>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One limitation of Carbon Brief’s analysis is the lack of standardisation of subsidy data.  </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The <a href="https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/ea34/8414/8c5e6797d291af15f33d6e40/cop-16-inf-03-rev1-en.pdf">methodology</a> underlying the national reports lists several definitions of environmentally harmful subsidies, adding:</p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“[T]here is no standardised, globally agreed methodology for assessing the value of subsidies…nor is there a single global dataset providing this information.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It adds that it is “important” for countries to identify harmful subsidies “within their national context”. Steenblik says:</p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“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.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For example, China’s national report says the country has already identified all biodiversity-harming subsidies and reformed them entirely.  </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In Australia, a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14486563.2026.2623910">2026 study</a> – 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.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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”.)</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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”.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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:</p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“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.”</p>
</blockquote>

<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="methodology">Methodology </h3>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Carbon Brief analysed national reports submitted to the CBD by 134<strong> </strong>parties – 133 countries and the EU – to assess which ones had identified all of their biodiversity-harmful subsidies and therefore met the 2025 deadline. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The reports were submitted in 2026, with the analysis including those submitted by 1 July 2026. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The figures for each country can be found in <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Gq81qTxlBbhc6p2LgBkuPBTUXulUAs6cGazSp6s5qPI/edit?usp=sharing">this spreadsheet</a>. More than three-quarters of reports did not list any figures. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">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 <a href="https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/currency-exchange-rates-converter/">currency exchange rates calculator</a> from the US Treasury.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These figures were then <a href="https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/">adjusted for inflation</a> to the year 2025. Numbers were rounded to the nearest $1,000.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In total, this amounted to $269,856,769,000 in subsidies across 32 countries.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many countries listed the sector that each subsidy is going towards. Carbon Brief standardised these inputs using the following categories: </p>

<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Agriculture and fishing</li>

<li>Energy</li>

<li>Forestry  </li>

<li>Fossil fuels </li>

<li>Infrastructure</li>

<li>Transport </li>

<li>Other</li>

<li>Multiple sectors</li>
</ul>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Multiple sectors” was assigned when a country provided only a partial sectoral breakdown of their subsidies or none at all. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“Other” was selected to encompass sectors that were named more infrequently, including water, mining, tourism and construction.</p>

<div class="article-summary__content">
<p>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.</p>
</div>

</div>

<h2 class="g-card__heading" id="uk-withdraws-millions-in-funding-from-worlds-second-largest-rainforest-in-congo">UK withdraws millions in funding from world’s second-largest rainforest in Congo </h2>
<div class="g-card__meta">

<div class="g-card__date">
15.07.2026 </div>

<div class="g-card__labels">
<a class="g-card__label" href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/topic/nature">Nature</a> </div>

</div>

</div>

<h2 class="g-card__heading" id="qa-what-englands-new-land-use-framework-means-for-climate-nature-and-food">Q&A: What England’s new ‘land-use framework’ means for climate, nature and food</h2>
<div class="g-card__meta">

<div class="g-card__date">
20.03.2026 </div>

<div class="g-card__labels">
<a class="g-card__label" href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/topic/food-farming">Food and farming</a> </div>

</div>

</div>

<h2 class="g-card__heading" id="analysis-half-of-nations-meet-un-deadline-for-nature-loss-reporting">Analysis: Half of nations meet UN deadline for nature-loss reporting</h2>
<div class="g-card__meta">

<div class="g-card__date">
02.03.2026 </div>

<div class="g-card__labels">
<a class="g-card__label" href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/topic/nature-policy">Nature policy</a> </div>

</div>

</div>

<h2 class="g-card__heading" id="brazils-biodiversity-pledge-six-key-takeaways-for-nature-and-climate-change">Brazil’s biodiversity pledge: Six key takeaways for nature and climate change</h2>
<div class="g-card__meta">

<div class="g-card__date">
16.01.2026 </div>

<div class="g-card__labels">
<a class="g-card__label" href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/topic/nature-policy">Nature policy</a> </div>

</div>

</div>

<a class="g-card__link" href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/brazils-biodiversity-pledge-six-key-takeaways-for-nature-and-climate-change"></a>

</article>
</div>
</div>
</section>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-84-of-nations-miss-deadline-to-identify-nature-harming-subsidies-by-2025">Analysis: 84% of nations miss deadline to identify ‘nature-harming’ subsidies by 2025 </a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org">Carbon Brief</a>.</p>

📝 RSS Summary Only

Analysis: 84% of nations miss deadline to identify ‘nature-harming’ subsidies by 2025

AI Analysis

Summary

More from Carbon Brief

Q&A: What does China’s 15th five-year plan for coal mean for climate action?

Analysis: Weaker EV targets could cost UK consumers £3bn a year by 2030

Q&A: What is in China’s new five-year plan for climate change?

Factcheck: How nuclear, gas, wind and solar power are affected during heatwaves

Q&A: Does the world need ‘carbon capture and storage’ to reach net-zero?