Nearly 90 percent of the $ 540 billion in global subsidies given to farmers each year are “harmful,” according to a startling UN report.
This agricultural support harms people’s health, fuels the climate crisis, destroys nature and causes inequality by excluding smallholder farmers, many of whom are women, according to UN agencies.
Major sources of greenhouse gas emissions, such as beef and milk, received the largest subsidies, according to the report. They are often produced by large industrialized groups that are better placed to access subsidies.
Without reforms, the level of subsidies was on track to rise to $ 1.8 million (£ 1.3 million) by 2030, further damaging human well-being and worsening the planetary crisis, he said. say the UN.
Support for the “large-scale” dairy and meat industry in rich countries needs to be reduced, while subsidies for chemical fertilizers and polluting pesticides should decrease in lower-income countries, according to the analysis.
The report, released ahead of the UN food systems summit on September 23, said reorienting subsidies to beneficial activities could “change the game” and help end poverty, eradicate hunger , improve nutrition, reduce global warming and restore nature. Good use of public money can include support for healthy foods such as vegetables and fruits, improving the environment, and supporting smallholder farmers.
Numerous analyzes in recent years have concluded that the global food system has broken down, with more than 800 million people experiencing chronic hunger by 2020 and 3 billion unable to afford a healthy diet, while 2 billion people are obese or have overweight and a third of food is wasted. The total damage caused has been estimated at $ 12 billion a year, more than the value of the food produced.
The report was published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Program. (UNEP) and is an underestimation of the total subsidies to the food system, as it only includes those for which reliable data are available in 88 countries.
“This report is a wake-up call from governments around the world to rethink agricultural support systems to make them suitable for transforming our agri-food systems and contributing to the top four: better nutrition, better production, better environment and better life, “said Qu Dongyu, FAO Director-General.
UNDP chief Achim Steiner said redirecting subsidies would also increase the livelihoods of 500 million smallholder farmers worldwide, ensuring a level playing field with industrial agriculture.
Marco Sánchez, FAO Deputy Director and author of the report, said: “Current support for farms needs to be transformed for the current reality. For example, the United States is now adhering to the agreement. climate change in Paris, which is very welcome, but there is no way they can achieve these climate goals if they do not face the food industries ”.
Joy Kim, of UNEP, said: “Agriculture contributes a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, 70% of biodiversity loss and 80% of deforestation.” He said promises of international funding for climate change were $ 100 billion a year and $ 5 billion a year for deforestation. “But governments provide $ 470 billion [in farm support] this has a huge detrimental impact on the climate and nature. “
The report found that between 2013 and 2018, support for farmers amounted to an average of $ 540 billion a year, of which 87% ($ 470 billion) was “harmful”. This included price incentives for specific livestock and crops, subsidies for fertilizers and pesticides, and distortion of export subsidies and import tariffs.
These damage health by promoting excessive consumption of meat in rich countries and excessive consumption of low-nutrition commodities in poorer countries. “If you don’t promote fruits and vegetables, in relative terms it’s very expensive for the consumer to eat healthily,” Sanchez said. “That’s why 2 billion people in the world can’t afford a healthy diet.”
The report highlighted some cases of positive actions, such as measures in China to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and the zero-budget natural agricultural policy in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh.
The UK is also shifting its £ 3bn a year grant system towards environmental targets. Some subsidies should also be redirected to help farmers cope with the extreme weather impacts of the climate crisis, according to the report.
The EU will pay 387 billion euros (330 billion pounds) in subsidies to farms from 2021 to 2027, but last Thursday Brussels’ Green MEPs said a planned overhaul failed to align agriculture with the EU’s climate change goals.
It was difficult to review farm support in the face of vested interests, Sanchez said, but it could be done by explaining the costs to governments, demanding better consumers, and failing to lend financial institutions to harmful activities.
“The real costs of our food system have been hidden for too long,” said Morgan Gillespy, director of the Coalition for Land and Food Use program. According to a recent review, the damage caused to nature by subsidy schemes was $ 4 million to $ 6 million.
“Changes in subsidy schemes are likely to be politically controversial and could provoke protests among farmers and other groups,” Gillespy said. “But just because it’s difficult doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Now the facts are clear. “
Consultation with farmers was vital, he said. Copa-Cogeca, the largest interest group for European farmers, did not respond to any requests for comment.
A separate report, published by the World Resources Institute in August, said that without reforms, subsidies to farms “will make large tracts of healthy land useless.”
He said: “Since the world will have 10 billion people by 2050, the loss of this land will make it impossible to feed the world’s population.”
Instead, farmers should be supported to restore their land using techniques such as agroforestry, he said.