By Sebastian Osborn, Head of Global Policy at Mercy For Animals
The 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC COP 28) is set to conclude its first-ever Global Stocktake (GST) – a comprehensive process that will assess our progress towards the goals set out in the Paris Agreement on climate change and will inform our next steps. . Current climate measures are far from sufficient to keep global warming at 1.5°C or to protect people and the environment from climate change. However, the gaps highlighted and guidance given during the GST can shape future climate action and determine its success. Among the many critical issues, one that deserves particular attention is our approach to food and climate.
Food and climate action
The importance and urgency of climate action in the area of food systems has become increasingly evident. In its recent Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirms that “even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, Emissions from the food system alone would compromise the achievement of the 1.5°C objective..” At the same time, climate change is already contributing to record levels of food insecurity and hunger.
Despite this, climate action in the food sector lags far behind. Although nationally determined contributions (NDCs) almost universally include some agriculture-related actions, these often focus, directly or indirectly, on policies involving limited changes in agricultural practices, such as agricultural practices. irrigation or manure management, while frequently missing some of the most critical areas of action. For example, less than two dozen of the 193 NDCs contain provisions relating to food loss and waste, responsible for approximately three times global air transport emissions. CDNs dealing with the evolution towards healthier and more sustainable food models are even fewer in number. This is true even though the IPCC clearly states that a change in diet, enabled by political support and socio-cultural change, is the best solution. most effective demand mitigation strategy to “move” the emissions.
As part of the official UNFCCC agenda, the work stream on agriculture, now known as the Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work on Implementing Climate Action on Agriculture and Food Security (SSJW), made important technical contributions. However, its limited scope has primarily focused, to date, on providing a forum for discussion and information sharing on niche elements of production such as nutrient management – rather than take charge the necessary systemic transformations.
Obstacles to action on food
While climate action in the area of food systems is necessary, it is also important to consider the concerns and complexities that have caused some parties to the UNFCCC to hesitate in the past.
First, the climate finance needed for action on food is sorely lacking. The IPCC has demonstrated that agriculture, forestry and land use (AFOLU) is the sector least supported by climate mitigation finance compared to its needs, requiring 10 to 31 times more investments. This glaring gap is clearly visible in the fact that food systems as a whole only receive 3% of public climate financing although it contributes to a third of global emissions.
Furthermore, the right actions to create climate-friendly food systems can vary significantly between countries, raising concerns that international guidance without appropriate nuance could create pressures to implement policies that do not adapt to national contexts. In the past, we have seen that even well-intentioned agricultural policies and support measures, such as fishing subsidies aimed at building capacitywhen not considered holistically, can impact food security and nutrition, as well as livelihoods. An in-depth report in 2021 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) found that current support for agriculture is largely harmful to the environment, health and livelihoods of women and smallholders. . A World Bank Report in 2023 reached similar conclusions, noting that agricultural subsidies are “rarely pro-poor.”
Reasons to be optimistic
While it is important to consider the risks of misguided policies, we must also be aware of the potential of well-designed, context-specific policies and action plans. Political momentum for food has never been stronger, with the incoming COP 28 presidency calling on governments to keep food and agriculture at the heart of their climate action efforts.
Through the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, more than 100 countries have developed “national pathways” to sustainable food systems. The number of CDNs addressing the theme of food loss and waste went from two to 21. We see this momentum spilling over into the GST.
Under GST, the EU, the Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC) and the UK have all highlighted the importance of healthy and sustainable diets. The EU and AILAC also highlighted the importance of reducing food loss and waste, joined by China. Additionally, a number of communications, representing 135 parties in total, highlighted the need for sustainable consumption to achieve climate goals.
As the Historical report of the EAT-Lancet Commission note: “(f)ood is the most powerful lever for optimizing human health and environmental sustainability on Earth. » Today we are witnessing the political momentum that could bring this project to life.
Move forward
As part of the GST outcome, parties will need to harness this political momentum. To be successful, it will take three things.
First, consistent with the science, the GST outcome must recognize that there is a need to address all aspects of the food system – from land use to food waste. Supply- or demand-side interventions alone cannot produce sufficient results and may even be counterproductive.
Second, parties must commit to a global transition towards more sustainable food consumption patterns. To achieve this, it will be necessary to recognize that these changes mean different things in different countries. For example, in high income countries (HIC), where average meat consumption exceeds recommended limits several times, a transition to a more plant-based diet will be essential. In contrast, in many developing countries, other solutions, such as improving social safety nets, will be essential.
Third, the GST outcome must recognize that ambition must go hand in hand with reflection, as food systems are intersectional and diverse and impact a wide range of issues. Although arguments are made that actions such as replacing small farmers with larger farms Or equip cows with masks can generate efficiency gains, more global considerations of impacts will allow us to realize that these do not represent positive progress for food systems as a whole.
To achieve these goals, parties will need to demonstrate ambition and determination, avoiding resorting only to weak platitudes. For example, recognizing that sustainable agriculture can contribute to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement would probably not be politically demanding, but much more would be required. Parties must also be vigilant to avoid succumbing to distractions such as recent suggestions that problems in the food system can be solved by increasing global production and consumption of so-called “blue foods.” By referring to the best available scientific data, incorporated in the AR6 of the IPCC, the parties can quickly see the danger that this represents for the the environment as well as food security and the livelihoods of the most vulnerable.
We must course-correct and achieve food systems transformation in a way that is ambitious, comprehensive and, above all, aligned with science and justice. We benefit from an unprecedented level of political momentum and convergence in this sense. It will be difficult to negotiate the text of the political outcome on GST, but we have seen broad support for language that can provide the direction we need. We must hope that world leaders will rise to the challenge.
