Colombia fails to meet deadline to identify subsidies that affect biodiversity

Colombia has failed to meet its deadline for identifying subsidies that harm biodiversity, according to a recent analysis by the British media outlet Carbon Brief. The report highlights that 175 countries, including Colombia, did not fulfill Objective 18 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted by 196 nations in 2022. This objective required countries to identify harmful incentives and subsidies affecting biodiversity by 2025 and progressively reduce them globally by at least $500 billion annually by 2030. Out of the 196 countries that ratified the framework, only 134 submitted their national reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) under the United Nations. Of these, just 21, approximately 16%, fully met the requirements of Objective 18. Eleven additional countries, along with the European Union, shared some data on specific sectors. Sixty-six countries mentioned they had started the process, while 68, including Colombia, made no mention of progress. A further 62 countries did not submit any national report at all. Among the findings, the analysis revealed that the 32 countries which identified some or all of their subsidies spent roughly $270 billion annually. The main beneficiaries were fossil fuels, which accounted for nearly half of this amount, followed by agriculture, forestry, mining, and fishing. These figures underscore the scale of financial support directed toward activities that threaten ecological health. Eva Zabey, Executive Director of Business for Nature, described the data as a warning that global efforts are falling behind. According to Carbon Brief, the estimated annual value of harmful subsidies could reach up to $1.8 trillion, based on a 2022 estimate by the non-profit organization B Team. However, there is currently no standardized definition or methodology for identifying harmful subsidies. One key limitation highlighted in the report is the lack of clear distinctions between subsidies harmful to biodiversity versus those harmful to the environment more broadly. This ambiguity affects how subsidies are categorized and measured. For instance, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) views biodiversity as a subcategory of environmental issues, excluding climate change and air quality. Under such definitions, climate-related subsidies, such as those supporting fossil fuel industries, would not be included. This omission is problematic because climate change is one of the primary drivers of biodiversity loss. Additionally, there is no uniform method for assessing the value of these subsidies. A study conducted by the Australian National University found that harmful subsidies for biodiversity in Australia reached $263 billion between 2022 and 2023. However, Australia’s own report cited a much lower figure of $155 million. This discrepancy underscores the need for independent evaluations using standardized processes. A 2025 study published in the journal Ambio estimated that the global value of subsidies impacting biodiversity ranges between $1.7 trillion and $3.2 trillion, averaging around $2.6 trillion. In contrast, the figures from submitted reports only account for $27 billion, a number far below the target of reducing harmful subsidies by $500 billion annually. Subsidies can have both direct and indirect effects. Direct impacts include funds allocated to projects known to damage the environment, such as new gas-powered power plants. Indirect effects might involve tax exemptions that encourage certain behaviors, even if they are not immediately visible. Not all subsidies are purely negative. The OECD noted in its Environment Working Paper No. 206 that many subsidies can simultaneously benefit and harm biodiversity. For example, building a hydroelectric dam may negatively affect local ecosystems but reduce reliance on other energy sources. Such complexities highlight the challenges in evaluating and regulating subsidies effectively.