Download this document
The context
Food production—hence, agriculture—has been a stated concern of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) from the outset. In 1992, parties committed to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at levels that would no longer threaten the planet; and to achieve this outcome “within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”1
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)2 predicts that by 2020, 75 to 250 million Africans will face water stress due to climate change; climate variability and change will severely impact food production; and a 1–3 degree temperature rise will subject 20–30 percent of plant and animal species to the risk of extinction. Halting and reversing the threat of climate change is imperative.
Supporting agro-ecological farming practices that build resilient farming communities and ecosystems is an essential first step. In the last few years, discussions related to agriculture and land use have increased within the UNFCCC. However, the emphasis has been on the mitigation, rather than adaptation, potential of agriculture in the developing world. There has been little discussion on the mitigation potential of industrial agricultural practices in the developed world.
At the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP 16) in Cancún, 193 governments will decide whether to expand the role that land use change and agriculture will play in the climate talks. The fate of these proposals may well determine the extent to which industrialized countries will use rules on agriculture and land use changes to offset their emissions from polluting industrial processes and shift the burden of greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction onto developing countries. Together with proposals on market-based approaches to finance climate change mitigation efforts, Cancún has the potential to further marginalize small-scale producers and their rights to land and livelihoods. It could also lead to perverse incentives to further intensify industrial agriculture practices in the name of mitigation. Finally, it could divert attention from the most immediate task of addressing the resilience and adaptation of ecosystems that provide food security and have the potential to reduce the impact of agriculture on climate change.
