7 Key Takeaways for Financing the Transition

by Benjamin Warr

Pesticide-risk reduction is now a biodiversity, pollution, and financial priority. Reducing pesticide risk should be treated as a core component of national biodiversity implementation and pollution prevention, not solely as an agricultural or chemicals-management issue.

Phasing out Highly Hazardous Pesticides is a core and practical entry point. The strong alignment between GBF Target 7 and GFC Target A7 makes HHP phase-out one of the most direct and measurable ways to reduce pesticide risk and toxic load.

Transition pathways are essential to achieve durable change. While regulatory measures such as bans and restrictions are important, they are rarely sufficient on their own. Lasting reductions in harmful agrochemical use require well-designed transition pathways.

Stronger monitoring and reporting are essential. This includes national reporting to the CBD and the GFC, and measurement of pesticide risk and impact.

Finance and fiscal policy can accelerate the transition. Governments should establish clear long-term policy signals and align fiscal policies and financial instruments to support safer and more sustainable alternatives, while removing subsidies and incentives that encourage harmful pesticide use.

Show clear commitments and targets. Experience from FARM-supported countries and others, demonstrates that meaningful progress is possible when governments combine regulatory reform, farmer support, market engagement, stronger monitoring systems, and appropriate financing.

Partnerships and inclusive collaboration are essential. Governments should foster partnerships across the agrifood value chain and engage farmers, researchers, financial institutions, civil society, and the private sector, while ensuring the meaningful inclusion of women, smallholders, Indigenous Peoples, and other underrepresented groups.

What Does "Reducing Pesticide Risk by 50%" Mean?

by Benjamin Warr

Reducing pesticide risk is different from reducing pesticide volume. Under the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), the objective is to reduce the overall risk from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by at least 50% by 2030, rather than simply cutting the quantity of pesticides applied. This distinction is important because different pesticides vary greatly in their toxicity, persistence, mobility, and impacts on non-target organisms such as mammals (including humans), pollinators, soil biota, aquatic species, and natural enemies. As a result, a relatively small number of HHPs may account for a disproportionately large share of the overall toxic load and associated biodiversity and health risks.

To inform and measure progress in the implementation of GBF Target 7, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) was tasked to convene experts to develop the Headline Indicator 7.2: Aggregated Total Applied Toxicity (ATAT) that has been adopted as Headline Indicator 7.2 in the Monitoring Framework for the GBF. ATAT does not measure the volume of pesticide use but instead combines information on both the quantity of pesticides applied and their toxicity, providing a more meaningful measure of environmental and health risks than pesticide volume alone.

Because ATAT accounts for both volume and toxicity, it highlights the importance of targeting those pesticides that contribute most to the national toxic load. For example, chlorpryrifos, an HHP, has been identified as an important contributor to the Total Applied Toxicity in Asia, Africa and S. America. In practice, phasing out HHPs is one of the most direct, measurable, and policy-relevant strategies for achieving GBF Target 7. While broader transitions toward integrated pest management, agroecological approaches, and lower-risk alternatives remain essential, removing HHPs, such as chlorpyrifos, can deliver substantial reductions in pesticide risk even before total pesticide use declines significantly.

🗣📢 Calling for Submissions: Case Studies on Financing Agrochemical and Plastic Reduction 📢

FARM is calling for case study submissions on financing solutions that reduce harmful agrochemicals and agricultural plastics. We are looking for examples of:

- Transition loans, equity, and other financing instruments
- Fiscal policy reforms and subsidy reorientation
- Enabling regulatory frameworks and public procurement strategies
- Market-based mechanisms and certification-linked finance
- Public-private partnerships and innovative grant mechanisms
- ...and other relevant examples. 

📝 Selected case studies will be featured in FARM's inaugural compendium, reaching a global audience of financial institutions, policymakers, and development practitioners working on sustainable agriculture. 

📅 Submissions are reviewed on a rolling basis. Deadline: 11 September 2026. 

More details are available on the attached concept note. 🔗 Submit your Expression of Interest via the link below, and we look forward to hearing from you! 

An excellent and technically rewarding forum