COP 28 - Field work in progress

There are genuinely many fascinating aspects of the current Climate Conference taking place in Dubai (COP28 – if you missed COPs 1 – 27 catch up now, you missed some high grade real-life drama). Aside from the now routine battle around the value of the process, the commitment of governments and the motives of corporations taking part (which is like a high stakes version of ‘the real meaning of Christmas’ debate that takes place at this time every year) there have been some moments which feel like a step forward…

Firstly, there was further agreement on a ‘Loss and Damage Fund’ to compensate poorer countries for the effects of climate change. The fund, whose initial commitments total c.$430m, will be managed by The World Bank and is seen as valuable for the ideals it carries as well as providing a financial mechanism for supporting states enduring the worst severe weather events. 

Next up for polite, unopinionated discussion, renewable energy. And, of course, a debate about renewables cannot fail to include the topic of fossil fuels and varying commitments to ‘phase down’, ‘phase out’ or mitigate their impact through, e.g., carbon capture technology. This was always going to be a battle of semantics and the actual wording of any broad commitment is ever key to who signs up. So what are the energy headlines this time round? Well, 118 countries committed to a pledge to triple the world's renewable energy capacity by 2030. While cynics may have lighted on the focus on nuclear power (‘more please’) and coal (‘no thanks’), nearly 50 oil and gas companies also signed the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter, an initiative to cut operational emissions by 2050. Backers of the overall pledge include the EU, USA, UAE, Brazil, Canada, Nigeria and Australia. As always, it is not plain sailing, with both India and China supporting the tripling of renewables but decidedly less than enthused about the reduction of fossil fuels that goes along with it…

Of course the highlight of this conference was always going to be the focus on food and agriculture (yes I am biased…biased, but also correct…). As previously mentioned, hosts UAE wanted to make this front and centre of the conference and put forward the ‘COP28 UAE Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action.’, an impressive title which, sadly, doesn’t easily lend itself to an acronym. The declaration will inspire some and disappoint many others, it was ever thus, but what does it contain and what are the real implications of DSARFSCA? (told you that acronym wouldn’t work…)

Firstly, in the words of Mariam bint Mohammed Saeed Hareb Almheiri, Minister of Climate Change and Environment of the UAE, it finally acknowledges on the biggest climate change stage of all that, “There is no path to achieving the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and keeping 1.5C within reach, that does not urgently address the interactions between food systems, agriculture, and climate”. A bit like suddenly realising that supermarket shopping costs money and including it in your household budget might be a good idea…

In short, the declaration commits signatory countries to including food and agriculture specifically in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs, their emissions assessment and commitments to reduction) and their National Adaption Plans (NAPs, planning processes that allow a country to identify, address, and review their evolving adaptation needs). The detail also covers:

• Adapting food systems to climate change that is already ‘baked in’, with a focus on the specific needs of the most-affected groups including smallholder farmers and Indigenous groups
• Helping these groups maintain their livelihoods
• Enhancing early warning systems
• Enhancing water management in agriculture, which accounts for more than 70% of global freshwater use each year
• Protecting and restoring soils and ecosystem
• Reducing food loss and waste, which is accountable for at least 8% of global annual emissions
• Promoting more sustainable aquaculture
• Encouraging changes in consumption, with a focus on the Global North
• Ensuring and improving access to nutrition, with a focus on the Global South

Does anyone think any of the above unworthy of global attention? Thought not. They are all not just valuable inclusions in a broad climate change plan but critical to its future success. So why are some still disappointed in the text? Well, firstly,  the absence of explicit mention of fossil fuels, with the authors preferring the rather vaguer, “shifting from higher greenhouse-gas-emitting practices”. Secondly, detractors claim that there are no measurable targets or meaningful deadlines included, which is hard to disagree with in terms of being able to list commitments against timeframes. 

So, great leap forward or missed opportunity? Let’s look at what the declaration does give us. It means that 134 countries, representing 5.7 billion people and 500m farmers will make food production central to their climate plans. Those represented also produce 70% of the world’s food and 76% of total food emissions. This means that critical players in the field of food security and the environmental impact of agriculture are about to formalise the rules of the game. This is crucial and even though the declaration does not immediately demand defined targets, it provides the detail with which to do so in a meaningful and context-specific way. 

It is a valuable starting point for one of the most critical aspects of the climate change challenge, and all countries now need to understand what it means, locally, regionally and globally, for the future of their most basic means of survival.