COP27 Ups and Downs:
Thankfully, Food Was on the Agenda; Alas, the Climate Was Not!
By Oshani Perera, 2 December 2022
Was there much to be thankful for at the close of the UN Climate Change Conference (COP27) in Sharm el-Sheikh? This is a loaded question.
This was the first year that food systems received due attention, with a day dedicated to adaptation and agriculture and four pavilions discussing how food and agriculture can be a part of the solution. This is indeed a good thing.
Then there was FAST, the new initiative on Food and Agriculture for Sustainable Transformation. It has the support of agriculture ministers from 20 countries, UN agencies, around 30 other partnerships and NGOs. Its goals include compiling the necessary due diligence for climate financiers to invest in climate-smart food production and climate-smart food systems more widely. This is a noble goal for the food sector to receive about 3% of climate finance while being the third largest contributor to climate change. But we raise our eyebrows on the value of yet another international initiative that will coordinate, catalyse and inform.
Source: United Nations Environment Programme (2022). Emissions Gap Report 2022: The Closing Window — Climate crisis calls for rapid transformation of societies. Nairobi. https://www.unep.org/emissions-gap-report-2022 (p. XXV).
We welcome the Decision -/CP.27 on the Joint work on implementation of climate action on agriculture and food security. This four-year programme builds on the Koronivia joint work on agriculture and promotes more holistic approaches to agriculture and adaptation, stresses the co-benefits and calls upon continued leadership of the Adaptation Fund, the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund, all of which are overseen by the Global Environment Facility.
Then there was the Loss and Damage Fund. After 27 years of climate talks, developed countries agreed to help developing nations better prepare, withstand, and rebuild following climate disasters. This new fund would be dedicated solely to loss and damage, disbursing funding quickly when countries are struck by climate disasters. Rich countries and the G77 bloc will be working together to set up this fund and then financing it. But what will be its design? Can it be nimble enough to respond to disasters? Will it be accompanied by a programmatic arm, perhaps akin to the World Food Programme, to deliver emergency financing and assistance? And let’s ask the difficult question: could the Green Climate Fund or the Global Environment Facility not have been tasked to house this fund? We are facing the development costs and overheads of yet another international institution that will take years to mature while climate disasters continue to rise in frequency and intensity.
And, most importantly, what use is a fund to repair loss and damage when COP27 did not strengthen commitments made at COP26 to limit global warming to 1.5°C? This indeed means that the objective of the Paris Agreement will not be realised. And with no commitment to address the cause of climate change, a loss and damage fund is like placing a single band-aid on the crack of a dam that is about to burst. The prevention principle of sustainable development has been totally overlooked.
We continue to ignore the reality in which developed countries as a bloc are still the largest greenhouse gas emitters and in which, even when you take historical emissions into account, their individual emissions are dwarfed by those of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other petrostates. Letting these countries off the hook is a deep injustice and the G77 bloc will do well to recognise this.
Climate negotiations are no longer about following science, but about trust and bold leadership. Both were missing at COP27. We are, indeed, too late.
References:
https://www.fao.org/3/cc2186en/cc2186en.pdf