All talk No Action?

Despite growing needs for agricultural adaptation to climate change, in the hopes that new technology and skills may aid in the mitigation of climate change, financial and political actions have been slow to emerge.

At the 15th FCCC Conference of the Parties (COP-15) in Copenhagen, negotiators established a text on agriculture, but no agreement was reached.  During COP-17, in Durban, many public figures called for action on agriculture including former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, South African President Jacob Zuma, former President of Ireland Mary Robinson, and Prime Minister of Ethiopia Meles Zenawi.  Over 500 people attended the third Agriculture and Rural Development Day (ARDD) meeting, where crucial steps with the goal of preventing a future of climate-induced collapse of the food system, were discussed.  However, notwithstanding this clear call for action the outcome was somewhat lack luster.  The document produced being the “Durban Platform for Enhanced Action”, which commits parties to reach a legal framework for reducing global emissions by 2015. The only explicit agricultural agreement was to consider adopting a framework for “sectoral actions”, which could include those related to the agriculture sector.  A 5^th of March deadline was set by which parties must provide evidence for the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technology Advice (SBSTA) to “exchange views on agriculture”.  

Some view the events of COP-15 as a “welcome first step” though far smaller than what is required if a significant impact is to be made. Reasons for the modest progress i.e. lack of adoption of a formal program on agriculture, can be attributed to causes such as: the Variability in the vulnerability of nations to climate change, quantity to which countries contribute to international agricultural production and variation in the volume of green house gas emissions produced by agriculture between nations, to mention a few.  Furthermore, Some negotiators were concerned that technical challenges such as carbon monitoring by millions of farmers are too huge to develop agriculture agreements.

Largely the case is such that higher-income nations, agricultural organizations and the UN support an SBSTA woke program on agricultural adaptation and mitigation.  However, it is the low and middle-income nations who were less taken by the work program. 

 COP-18 held this time last year in Qatar was set to hold agriculture policy at the helm of it’s agenda, nonetheless, further debate and lack of agreement meant that again, no solid framework was agreed upon.  Largely differences of opinion seemed to stem from whether to include the role of agriculture in reducing  or mitigating  greenhouse gas emissions.

So How to Move Forward?

Beddington et al 2012 noted seven priorities identified by the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change in 2011, that should be strongly considered if we are ever going to move from all talk towards a solid policy action and achieve a “food-secure world” in the throws of climate change.  These seven priorities are as follows:

1.   Integrate food security and sustainable agriculture into global and national policies, including adaptation and mitigation;

2.   Increase global investment in sustainable agriculture and food systems;

3.   Sustainably intensify agricultural production while reducing emissions and other environmental impacts;

4.   Target programs and policies to assist vulnerable populations;

5.   Reshape food access and consumption to ensure that basic nutritional needs are met and to foster healthy and sustainable eating habits;

6.   Reduce food loss and waste across supply chains; and

7.   Create comprehensive information systems on human and ecological dimensions.

Some argue that food-security is one of the most pressing issues of the 21^st century and it is evident that immediate and coordinated effort is required. But what will it take to make the fish bite?

Sources-

Ingrid Öborn, Jan Bengtsson, Fredrik Heden, Lotta Rydhmer, Maria Stenström, Katarina Vrede, Charles Westin and Ulf Magnusson. (2013). Scenario Development as a Basis for Formulating a Research Program on Future Agriculture: A Methodological Approach.

H. C. J. Godfray, J. Pretty, S. M. Thomas3, E. J. Warham, J. R. Beddington. (2011). Linking Policy On Climate and Food. Science. 331.

J. Bellarby, B. Foereid, A. Hastings, P. Smith, Cool Farming: Climate Impacts of Agriculture and Mitigation Potential (Greenpeace, Amsterdam, 2008).

Foresight, The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and Choices for Global Sustainability. Final Project Report (Government Office for Science, London, 2011).

Agriculture- Moving Forward

My previous post notes the ramifications of climate change on agriculture, and make it clear that in order to tackle this issue policy makers and scientists need to collaborate and work towards a sustainable and global food system.

During the United Nations climate change summit hosted in Cancún in December 2010, an official side event was held with an aim of considering key outcomes from the Agriculture and Rural Development day.  Here, notable advances were made with respect to land use and deforestation.

Pressure from an ever-growing population, and by extension an ever-growing food market, has resulted in vast areas of tropical deforestation, chiefly in South America and Southeast Asia.  Land conversion is one of the most severe routes through which pressure from the food system contributes to global warming.

Prior to Cancún the UN initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)  already offered financial incentives to developing nations to reduce deforestation.  During Cancún, negotiators formally adopted the framework and financial commitments needed for REDD+, which goes even further and includes conservation, sustainable management of forests, and ways to improve forest carbon stocks.  A big step in the right direction.

 Furthermore, the challenge of feeding a population, potentially as large as 9 billion, is astronomical.  A plan, which enables food producers to increase, yields in a sustainable and cost effective manner needs to be established imminently.

A great deal can be achieved based knowledge and skill that has already been harnessed. However, the major task nations are faced with is to incentivize and spread the most efficient and sustainable practices.

Agricultural research is already adapting from a purely yield-based outlook to focusing on developing crops and livestock that have less impact on climate. Active research programs aim to increase the effectiveness with which crops and livestock use inputs such as water and nutrients.

Research is long-term, success uncertain and investment is needed now.

Methods that involve making the food chain more efficient can both increase food supply and reduce GHG emissions. As much as 30% of all food grown worldwide may be lost or wasted before and after it reaches the consumer. Not a nice figure at all!  Not to mention how much perfectly good food is wasted each day, primarily in higher-income countries.

Agricultural practices tailored to different regions; show promise for reducing net GHG emissions and maintaining or improving yields despite extreme weather. For example, In Niger, agroforestry on 5 million hectares has benefited >1.25 million households, sequestered carbon, and produced an extra 500,000 metric tons of grain per year

In Denmark, agricultural emissions have been reduced by 28%, while productivity increased! Have a look at how, here’s the Danish Agriculture and Food council website with lots of interesting information about how they’ve achieved this.

References-

H. C. J. Godfray1, J. Pretty, S. M. Thomas, E. J. Warham, J. R. Beddington3. (2011). Linking policy on Climate and Food. Science. 331.

Foresight, The Future of Food and Farming: Final Project Report: Futures (Government Office for Science, London, 2011).

INRA and Agricultural Research for Development (CIRAD), Agrimonde: Scenarios and Challenges for Feeding the World in 2050 (Editions Quae, Versailles, France, 2011).

Decline in Danish agricultural greenhouse gasses (Danish Food and Agriculture Council, Copenhagen, 2011).

The Agriculture Affair

Over the next month my blog will focus on agriculture and the impacts our changing climate could

have on crop production. Global agriculture is currently facing the huge pressure of feeding a growing population, and fingers are being pointed at climate change as a rising threat to agricultural yields and food security. Moreover, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts an increase in the magnitude and frequency of extreme weather events, which will no doubt greatly influence food production and prices. Merged with poverty, unstable governance, conflict, and poor market access, the consequences of these issues are famine, disease and violence.

Here’s a report on the impact of climate change of agriculture and the costs ofadaptation. 

Syria- Aid? What aid?

In 2008 Syria’s agriculture minister stated publicly that the economic and social effect of the drought was beyond the country’s ability to cope. In a plea to the United States, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization representative communicated his hope that “improving relations” between the U.S. and Syria might urge the U.S. to become a donor to the Syria drought appeal.  The U.S. government retorted: “Given the generous funding the U.S. currently provides to the Iraqi refugee community in Syria and the persistent problems the World Food Program (WFP) is experiencing with its efforts to import food for the refugee population, we question whether limited USG resources should be directed toward this appeal at this time.”

In August 2009 the UN launched The Syria Drought Response Plan seeking about USD 52.9 million, with food and provision of key agriculture inputs.

Nevertheless the US failed to assist in easing the effects of the drought and as a result of the deficiency of U.S. leadership, the global response was weak:

·      $700,000 from the Spanish government

·      $1.4 million from the CERF [the Central Emergency Response Fund]

·      WFP received $2.2 million out of $22 million needed.

The Financial Tracking Service (FTS) of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) shows that only 7.6 percent of the plan was funded.

In 2010, The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies published a report on the Syrian drought, stating that around 800,000 people were extremely vulnerable, and “over the past three years, their income has decreased by 90 percent and their assets and sources of livelihood have been severely compromised.” Fuel to the fires of violence undoubtedly?

Sources-

• ·      Evolution of Transboundary Politics in the Euphrates-Tigris River System: New Perspectives and Political Challenges, Kibaroglu, A ; Scheumann, W, Global Governance, 2013, Vol.19(2), pp.279-305
• ·    Water and international conflict, Haftendorn, Helga,Third World Quarterly, 2000, Vol.21(1), p.51-68 [Peer Reviewed Journal], Taylor & Francis Group