Episode 20 - IPBES Assessment on Business & Biodiversity: Asia Pacific's Role in Reducing Biodiversity Loss

As you well know, the world spends $7.3 trillion a year financing the destruction of nature, compared to just $220 billion protecting it.

A big chunk of that financing is coming from government subsidies.

And so while we're spending a lot of time here and even outside of this conversation pointing the finger at the private sector, should we also not be focusing on these government subsidies bankrolling the destruction of nature?

It is a very critical issue and very sensitive one.

Because it's basically pointing some fingers on certain sectors and sectors would go like, okay, it's potentially negative.

Let's say as listed as negative, but it's not all that negative.

But the sectors includes like the fossil fuels, agriculture, water, transport, construction, fishery, and so on.

The list goes on.

And you can imagine these sectors also involve a lot of different stakeholders.

And it's quite diverse.

It also involves a lot of informal sectors.

So if we do it in a wrong way, it could asymmetrically impact the marginalized groups.

So we have to be careful not to damage these people who are already dependent on limited resources.

But at the same time, we have to address these subsidies may be leading to destruction.

We have to face it and we have to somehow align that, reallocate it or design the subsidies in a different way that the companies or the sector wants to act positively.

So I don't think a lot of sectors are willing or intentionally destructing biodiversity, but the subsidy is given in a way that incentivize certain negative actions.

So that's something that we need to think about.

What kind of subsidy would make agricultural sectors to act more positively? For example, in Japan, we changed the rules that before obtaining subsidies, We have like a checklist.

It's called the green checklist.

And this will enable farmers and also our production sector to be a little bit more aware of what kind of impacts we have on biodiversity.

And then people will start to think, okay, I want this subsidy and I want to continue this production, but I also have to be in balance with these nature conservation efforts.

So I think these small actions, so you can continue the subsidy, but, you know, try to come up with some kind of a small awareness raising or different directions and making compulsively these kind of checklists before obtaining subsidy would be one step forward.

Professor, as you may know, our UNDP commitment to helping countries meet their ambitions under the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is called the Nature Pledge, for which our podcast is named.

This framework guides our work across 140 countries, and it's built around three systemic shifts, some of which we've touched upon today.

These shifts include a value shift, an economic and finance shift, and a policy and practice shift.

As you well know, the world spends $7.3 trillion a year financing the destruction of nature, compared to just $220 billion protecting it.

A big chunk of that financing is coming from government subsidies.

And so while we're spending a lot of time here and even outside of this conversation pointing the finger at the private sector, should we also not be focusing on these government subsidies bankrolling the destruction of nature?

It is a very critical issue and very sensitive one.

Because it's basically pointing some fingers on certain sectors and sectors would go like, okay, it's potentially negative.

Let's say as listed as negative, but it's not all that negative.

But the sectors includes like the fossil fuels, agriculture, water, transport, construction, fishery, and so on.

The list goes on.

And you can imagine these sectors also involve a lot of different stakeholders.

And it's quite diverse.

It also involves a lot of informal sectors.

So if we do it in a wrong way, it could asymmetrically impact the marginalized groups.

So we have to be careful not to damage these people who are already dependent on limited resources.

But at the same time, we have to address these subsidies may be leading to destruction.

We have to face it and we have to somehow align that, reallocate it or design the subsidies in a different way that the companies or the sector wants to act positively.

So I don't think a lot of sectors are willing or intentionally destructing biodiversity, but the subsidy is given in a way that incentivize certain negative actions.

So that's something that we need to think about.

What kind of subsidy would make agricultural sectors to act more positively? For example, in Japan, we changed the rules that before obtaining subsidies, We have like a checklist.

It's called the green checklist.

And this will enable farmers and also our production sector to be a little bit more aware of what kind of impacts we have on biodiversity.

And then people will start to think, okay, I want this subsidy and I want to continue this production, but I also have to be in balance with these nature conservation efforts.

So I think these small actions, so you can continue the subsidy, but, you know, try to come up with some kind of a small awareness raising or different directions and making compulsively these kind of checklists before obtaining subsidy would be one step forward.

Professor, as you may know, our UNDP commitment to helping countries meet their ambitions under the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is called the Nature Pledge, for which our podcast is named.

This framework guides our work across 140 countries, and it's built around three systemic shifts, some of which we've touched upon today.

These shifts include a value shift, an economic and finance shift, and a policy and practice shift.