As governments gather in Yerevan, Armenia for COP17, the priority will be turning the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) into credible policies, effective incentives and measurable outcomes.
Halfway through the GBF implementation period, a global review of progress makes it clear that all but a handful of nations are off track in meeting their 2030 obligations.
Increased action requires one of the biggest drivers of biodiversity loss, land degradation and water stress to be confronted: the way the world produces food.
Regenerative agriculture offers a potential pathway to enhance the food system while restoring natural ecosystems, and companies are already making commitments, financing pilot programmes and setting targets to support regenerative initiatives.
However, voluntary action will not deliver change at the speed or scale required, nor does it fill the US$300 billion – US$400 billion yearly funding gap needed to drive systemic change.
If regenerative agriculture is to fulfil its potential, governments need to create the conditions that allow farmers and companies to adopt it and encourage investors to finance it.
That means redirecting harmful agricultural subsidies (as investors have called on G20 finance ministers to do since 2023), reducing transition risks, strengthening accountability and aligning agricultural policies with the GBF targets, as this Insight piece will explore.
The biodiversity transition will not succeed without transforming agriculture
Recent climate shocks, environmental degradation and geopolitical instability have exposed vulnerabilities across the global agri-food system.
More than 34% of the world's agricultural land has already been degraded through human activities, which could lead to US$23 trillion in global economic losses by 2050 without decisive intervention.
Current food production, consumption and land-use systems also generate an estimated US$12 trillion in environmental, health and developmental damages annually, which could exceed US$16 trillion by 2050 without significant systemic change.
The cost of inaction is becoming impossible to ignore: the challenge is no longer limited to reducing negative impacts, it also entails ensuring long‑term resilience and operational viability in an increasingly unpredictable environment.
Regenerative agriculture offers a pathway to deliver multiple objectives
Conventional agricultural models often fail to replenish the natural resources on which long-term productivity depends, leaving farmers increasingly exposed to climate shocks and rising input costs.
Regenerative agriculture has emerged as a potential solution. While no universally accepted definition exists, regenerative agriculture generally seeks to create sustainable and resilient farming systems.
Some of the shared principles include improving soil health, enhancing biodiversity, strengthening water quality and availability, building climate resilience, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supporting farmer livelihoods.
Its economic potential is also significant. The World Economic Forum estimates that productive and regenerative agriculture could generate US$1.4 trillion in business opportunities and create 62 million jobs globally by 2030.
Regenerative agriculture can also provide a practical route to delivering GBF Target 10, which calls for agriculture to be managed sustainably and contribute to biodiversity conservation, and Target 18, which commits governments to reforming environmentally harmful incentives by 2030.
Ambition is growing, but evidence gaps remain
Unsurprisingly, agri-food companies around the world have embraced regenerative agriculture as a lever to meet climate and nature targets, build supply chain resilience, and drive long‑term profitability.
Yet significant gaps in investment, transparency and accountability remain, as FAIRR's recent analysis of 78 publicly listed food companies highlights. Companies typically allocate only 0.01% to 0.05% of earnings before interest and tax to regenerative agriculture initiatives, and it is often unclear how much of that funding reaches farmers directly.
This is a critical challenge. For any long-term and successful deployment of regenerative agriculture, farmers need financial support to manage transition risks.
Transitioning to regenerative practices can require substantial upfront investment, new equipment, changes in farm management and, in some cases, short-term declines in productivity while soil systems recover.
At the same time, inconsistent measurement and disclosure practices make it difficult for investors and policymakers to determine whether programmes are delivering meaningful environmental and social outcomes, or investment returns.
Among companies reporting on regenerative agriculture, only 36% disclose climate-related metrics, while just 16% and 14% measure impacts on farmer income and biodiversity, respectively.
FAIRR's research also highlights continued reliance on pesticides. Only 8% of assessed companies measured herbicide use within regenerative agriculture programmes, while none had established a pesticide reduction target as part of those initiatives.
Given the impacts of pesticides on biodiversity, soil health and water quality, these findings raise questions about whether some initiatives are delivering genuine system transformation.
This issue is particularly relevant to GBF Target 7, which seeks to reduce pollution risks, including those associated with pesticides and hazardous chemicals. Without stronger measurement and accountability frameworks, regenerative outcome claims may be difficult to verify.
Governments already have the tools to accelerate change
To overcome these risks, and to speed up the adoption of regenerative agricultural practices, governments have a critical role in offering the right policy signals and enabling environments to encourage transition in the private sector and beyond.
One of the largest opportunities is subsidy reform. Governments currently provide almost US$500 billion annually in agricultural support that is environmentally and socially harmful or market-distorting.
FAIRR’s members voiced concern about harmful public support in agriculture in 2023, as investors with nearly US$7 trillion assets under management called on G20 finance ministers to realign subsidies with climate and nature goals.
Redirecting support towards regenerative practices could accelerate adoption and help advance the GBF Target 18. It would also offer several benefits to governments impacted by the current climate and fertiliser crisis, such as:
long-term food resilience by encouraging sustainable agriculture that rewards environmental and social outcomes; and
economic benefits such as food price stability, reduced healthcare expenditure, while reducing unplanned mitigation expenditures related to climate shocks in food production.
There are already examples of effective policy action that contribute to subsidy reform while helping to de-risk private investment. The US state of Michigan has launched a public-private insurance pilot project to offer lower insurance premiums to regenerative farmers, underpinned by actuarial data pointing to lower insurance payout risk on crop farms that employ regenerative practices.
The UK's £2 billion (US$2.7 billion) Environmental Land Management scheme rewards farmers with dedicated income for delivering public goods such as biodiversity protection, improved water quality, healthier soils and climate resilience. As of December 2025, 6.1 million hectares, or around 69% of England's utilised agricultural area, was covered by this scheme.
Denmark has dedicated €5.8 billion (US$6.7 billion) to fund agricultural transition, long-term land-use planning and nature restoration through a tripartite agreement that helps overcome the transition risk associated with regenerative practices.
In partnership with farmers and the industry, the agreement will combine public investment, land conversion support, carbon pricing and transition subsidies to achieve its targets: converting 140,000 ha of carbon-rich agricultural land; planting 250,000 ha of new forest; and reducing nitrogen emissions by 1.8–2.6 MtCO₂e by 2030.
Brazil's ABC+ Plan (valued at R$7 billion (US$1.4 billion) per year) demonstrates how concessional finance can support regenerative and low-carbon farming systems. Providing R$19.7 billion (US$3.9 billion) in support between 2010 and 2020, the plan resulted in sustainable agriculture technologies being adopted across 54 million hectares nationwide, equivalent to a 193.7-million-ton reduction in carbon dioxide.
Such models demonstrate how governments can improve the business case for adoption of regenerative agriculture and provide examples of countries that are taking the lead on subsidy reform to drive change.
A strengthening of such efforts and a commitment to follow through at COP17 could deliver positive nature and food security impacts in years to come. The G20 summit, which the UK will preside over in 2027, presents an excellent opportunity to continue action on this important issue.
From commitments to implementation
Some companies are already taking action, and investors have capital to deploy, but achieving regenerative outcomes while delivering returns and food system resilience will require more than voluntary commitments and ad hoc investments.
As delegates gather in Yerevan, the international community will be looking to the Armenian presidency to steer leading countries to champion the cause of scaling positive incentives and reducing harmful subsidies for biodiversity, reducing pollution and enhancing sustainable agriculture in turn.
The policy tools already exist. The question for COP17 is whether governments are prepared to deploy them at the pace and scale required. If they do, regenerative agriculture could become a cornerstone of efforts to meaningfully implement the GBF, unlock private sector action, and build resilient food systems.
FAIRR insights are written by FAIRR team members and occasionally co-authored with guest contributors. The authors write in their individual capacity and do not necessarily represent the FAIRR view.
Written by
Technical Specialist, Research & Engagements - Nature
Senior Policy Officer
