Cop27 agreement on food
Abstract
COP27, the 27th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is finally over. In late-night negotiations that ended in the early hours of Sunday, November 20, parties successfully reached a deal to establish a long-awaited and much-discussed mechanism for loss and damage finance. The agreement, which came after years of concerted effort on the part of civil society and developing countries, was “a real pinch-me moment,” according to Teresa Anderson of ActionAid. But this high-profile outcome was but one of the many decisions taken at COP27.
COP27, the 27th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is finally over. In late-night negotiations that ended in the early hours of Sunday, November 20, parties successfully reached a deal to establish a long-awaited and much-discussed mechanism for loss and damage finance. The agreement, which came after years of concerted effort on the part of civil society and developing countries, was “a real pinch-me moment,” according to Teresa Anderson of ActionAid. But this high-profile outcome was but one of the many decisions taken at COP27.
The conference’s agreement on food also represents an important step forward, although it includes some key weaknesses. As we reported in the days before COP27, the future of the UNFCCC’s only dedicated work stream on food, the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture, was set to be decided as delegates met in Sharm el-Sheikh. This was an incredibly important, although under-discussed, item on the agenda. Food systems are highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and climate action must be designed in a way that supports the resilience of small-scale producers in frontline communities around the world. Without a strong emphasis on food that is centered on principles of justice and equity, national climate change policies will fail. This is especially true in Africa, where approximately 70% of the population relies on agricultural livelihoods. This is why food security is emphasized in the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, and even the brand-new Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan. Food systems transformation is an indispensable component of climate action.
Here are the key outcomes for food systems from COP27:
An expanded mandate for food security
As the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture is replaced by the Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work on Implementation of Climate Action on Agriculture and Food Security, negotiators have taken an important step to expand the UNFCCC’s mandate to address food systems in a more holistic and integrated manner. Where the previous work program had a narrow focus on agricultural production, its successor will promote “a holistic approach to addressing issues related to agriculture and food security.” While negotiators did not agree to include a food systems mandate in the text, this still represents a substantial step forward.
There are two definitions of food security that carry legal weight in the international system, and both would introduce important elements into the Sharm el-Sheikh joint work that were not included in Koronivia. Member states of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) have agreed that food security has four pillars: physical availability, physical and economic access, utilizationthrough an adequate diet and the meeting of all physiological needs, and stability of prices and supplies over short and long timescales. Another highly influential definition from the High-Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) adds the pillars of sustainabilityand agency to the FAO’s original four, thus mainstreaming concerns for human rights, democratic governance, and ecological integrity. By defining a “holistic…food security” mandate, the Sharm el-Sheikh joint work is already signaling that it intends to leave behind Koronivia’s outdated focus on production.
Click on this link if your want to Read More
