Repurpose farm subsidies for climate goals, or keep them for food security?

No stance on repurposing subsidies for climate goals; 1991 focus was exclusively on food security and productivity via pricing, research, and institutional reforms.

The World Bank Group's 1991 reports do not address repurposing farm subsidies for climate goals, as climate change was not framed as a policy priority in agricultural subsidy reform at that time; instead, the focus was squarely on improving food security and agricultural productivity through price incentives, public investment in research and extension, infrastructure, and institutional reforms—without mention of climate objectives or trade-offs between climate and food security.

No explicit stance on repurposing farm subsidies for climate goals versus food security; focuses instead on removing environmentally harmful subsidies and promoting sustainable agriculture.

The 1992 World Bank Group reports do not address the repurposing of farm subsidies for climate goals, nor do they frame agricultural subsidies in terms of a trade-off between climate objectives and food security. Instead, the reports focus on eliminating distorting subsidies (e.g., on pesticides) to reduce environmental harm and promote sustainable resource use, while emphasizing sound agricultural policies, improved extension and credit systems, and alternative livelihoods to alleviate pressure on forests and fragile lands. Food security is implicitly linked to productivity and sustainability, but climate change is not identified as a policy driver for subsidy reform in this year's documents.

Opposed perverse agricultural subsidies in 2003 as environmentally damaging and economically inefficient, advocating their removal—not repurposing—despite political barriers and without endorsing retention for food security.

In 2003, the World Bank Group identified agricultural subsidies—particularly those in OECD countries—as largely 'perverse' because they encouraged environmentally harmful practices (e.g., excessive fertilizer use, deforestation, water depletion) while failing efficiently to achieve food security or rural development goals. It advocated dismantling such subsidies as a 'win-win' for both economic efficiency and environmental sustainability, but acknowledged political and institutional barriers—including entrenched beneficiary constituencies and the 'transitional gains trap'—that made reform difficult. The WBG did not explicitly call for *repurposing* subsidies toward climate goals (a framing not yet prominent in 2003), nor did it endorse retaining them for food security without qualification; rather, it stressed that subsidies often undermined long-term food security by degrading natural resources essential for agriculture.

WBG 2008 conditionally supported short-term, targeted fertilizer subsidies to fix market failures and raise productivity—not for climate goals or food security safety nets.

In 2008, the World Bank Group did not advocate repurposing farm subsidies specifically for climate goals; instead, it conditionally endorsed temporary, targeted, and 'market-smart' fertilizer subsidies—primarily to overcome binding market failures and boost agricultural productivity in low-input contexts like Sub-Saharan Africa. These subsidies were justified only when designed to stimulate demand among poor farmers without displacing private sales, encouraging competition, and including clear exit strategies. The WBG emphasized that such subsidies should be part of a broader strategy including infrastructure, research, and financial services—not standalone interventions—and warned against their use for safety-net or food security purposes, recommending more effective alternatives for those ends. Climate objectives were not mentioned in relation to subsidy reform in the 2008 reports.

Advocates redirecting farm subsidies toward climate-smart practices—contingent on environmental standards, farmer support, and food security safeguards—not away from it.

The World Bank Group (WBG) in its 2010 World Development Report advocates repurposing agricultural subsidies—especially the large, input- and output-linked subsidies prevalent in OECD countries—toward climate-smart agriculture and environmental services, provided that such reforms are designed to simultaneously enhance food security, farm productivity, soil and water health, and biodiversity. It emphasizes that subsidy redirection must be conditional on farmers meeting environmental and agricultural standards, support rural development that improves competitiveness and resource management, and include up-front risk mitigation (e.g., via carbon finance or loans) and robust advisory services—particularly for smallholders. The WBG cites the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy reform as a model and highlights pilot carbon finance projects in Kenya to demonstrate feasibility, stressing that subsidy reform should not undermine food security but rather strengthen resilience and long-term sustainability.

Critiques agricultural subsidies as inefficient and distortionary but does not address repurposing them from food security to climate goals.

The World Bank Group's 2020 reports criticize agricultural input subsidies—especially fertilizer subsidies—as economically inefficient, productivity-reducing, and distortionary, citing evidence that they worsen income inequality, discourage adoption of new technologies, and contribute to price distortions and informality. While the excerpts do not explicitly address repurposing subsidies *for climate goals*, they do state that energy subsidies heighten vulnerability to climate change and inhibit transition to a climate-resilient, low-carbon economy—implying a broader concern about subsidy design undermining climate objectives. However, the reports make no direct recommendation to shift farm subsidies *from food security to climate goals*, nor do they weigh food security against climate priorities; they instead advocate for market-oriented structural reforms—including reduction of price controls and related subsidies—to improve productivity and equity. The stance is thus critical of current subsidy regimes but silent on the specific trade-off posed in the question.

IMF 2011 reports critique fuel and bread subsidies but do not address repurposing farm subsidies for climate or food security.

The IMF's 2011 reports do not address the repurposing of agricultural subsidies for climate goals versus food security; they focus exclusively on fuel and bread price subsidies in the Middle East and Central Asia, critiquing their inefficiency, poor targeting, and environmental and fiscal costs, and advocating replacement with better-targeted cash transfers—but make no mention of climate-smart agriculture, fertilizer support reform, or trade-offs between climate and food security objectives in agricultural policy.

ADB advocates phasing out inefficient fertilizer subsidies to fund climate-smart agriculture and equitable food security, citing fiscal, environmental, and equity costs.

The ADB's 2021 reports argue that existing fertilizer subsidies in Asia—originally intended to boost food security—have become counterproductive due to fiscal strain, environmental degradation, and inequitable distribution, and therefore advocate for their phased repurposing toward climate-smart agriculture and sustainable resource management; this reform is conditioned on redirecting savings toward targeted support for smallholder farmers, improved nitrogen use efficiency, and investments in low-emission agricultural practices.