Download Contributions received (68)

Climate Change and Food Security: HLPE
consultation on the V0 draft of the Report
Collection of contributions received
Discussion No. 78 from 20 March to 10 April 2012
(extended until 16 April 2012)
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to the topic ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Contributions received .................................................................................................................................................... 7
1. Kien Nguyen Van from Vietnam ......................................................................................................................... 7
2. Bhubaneswor Dhakal from Nepal ...................................................................................................................... 7
3. Daniel Bretscher, Federal Departement of Economic Affairs, Switzerland ...................................... 9
4. Teresa Da Silva Rosa, University Vila Velha/UVV and Center for Urban and SocioEnvironmental Studies (NEUS/UVV), Brazil ................................................................................................... 10
5. Ileana Grandelis, FAO, Italy ............................................................................................................................... 13
6. Bertrand Vincent, Convention to Combat Desertification, Germany ............................................... 15
7. Darshan Sharma, Department of Agriculture and Food, Australia ................................................... 17
8. Kaisa Karttunen, Finland .................................................................................................................................... 18
9. Mary Oyunga, Kenya Agriculture Research Institute, Kenya............................................................... 19
10. Brian Thomson, FAO, Italy .............................................................................................................................. 20
11. Cassandra De Young, FAO, Italy .................................................................................................................... 20
12. CIDSE - International alliance of Catholic development agencies , Belgium .............................. 21
13. Stephen Adejoro, Zartech limited, Nigeria ............................................................................................... 28
14. Carol Thiessen, Canadian Foodgrains Bank, Canada ............................................................................ 29
15. Mahesh Pandya, Paryavaran Mitra, India ................................................................................................. 31
16. Peter Carter, Climate Emergency Institute, Canada ............................................................................. 32
17. Chencho Norbu, Department of Agriculture, Bhutan ........................................................................... 42
18. Lizzy Igbine, Nigerian Women Farmer Association, Nigeria ............................................................ 43
19. Kamal Karunagoda, Department of Agriculture, Sri Lanka ............................................................... 43
20. Luca Colombo, FIRAB, Italy ............................................................................................................................. 44
21. Omar B. Allahham, Ministry Of Agriculture, Jordan.............................................................................. 46
22. Third World Network, Malaysia ................................................................................................................... 46
23. Vanya Walker-Leigh, Nature Trust, Malta ................................................................................................ 49
24. Geoff Tansey, UK.................................................................................................................................................. 52
25. People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS), Kenya ...................................................................... 54
26. Gerhard Flachowsky, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Germany ....................... 55
27. Germany, through the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection .... 56
28. Christine Negra, CCAFS Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change, USA
............................................................................................................................................................................................ 58
29. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), Germany .................. 59
30. Damiano Luchetti, FAO, Italy.......................................................................................................................... 61
31. ActionAid ................................................................................................................................................................ 62
32. Rasmus Heltberg, World Bank, USA ............................................................................................................ 64
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
2
33. Vittorio Fattori, FAO, Italy ............................................................................................................................... 64
34. Robynne Anderson, World Farmers Organisation, Canada............................................................... 66
35. Oxfam Novib, the Netherlands....................................................................................................................... 67
36. Helena Paul, EcoNexus, UK ............................................................................................................................. 70
37. Compassion in World Farming, UK.............................................................................................................. 75
38. Tearfund, UK ......................................................................................................................................................... 77
39. Angel Leyva Galan, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Agrícolas (INCA), Cuba................................ 83
40. Joachim Bénébamba Tamalgho, Burkina Faso........................................................................................ 84
41. Dang Kim Son, Institute of Policy and Strategy for Agricultural and Rural Development –
IPSARD, Viet Nam ....................................................................................................................................................... 84
42. Philippe Quirion, CIRED, France ................................................................................................................... 86
43. Peter Holmgren, Director Climate, Energy and Tenure Division (NRC), Chair of the Inter
Departmental Working Group on Climate Change, FAO, Italy ................................................................. 87
44. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), USA ...................................................................... 90
45. Switzerland, through the Permanent Representation of Switzerland to FAO, IFAD and WFP
......................................................................................................................................................................................... 104
46. Rudolph C. Ryser, Center for World Indigenous Studies, USA ...................................................... 106
47. Margaret Kneller, John Cabot University, Italy .................................................................................... 110
48. Marta G. Rivera Ferre, Center for Agro-food Economy and Development-CREDA-UPC-IRTA,
Spain ............................................................................................................................................................................. 112
49. Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Denmark................................................................................. 113
50. Frederic Lapeyrie, Ministère de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, France .... 114
51. Rachel Smolker, Biofuelwatch, USA.......................................................................................................... 115
52. Leslie Lipper, FAO, Italy................................................................................................................................. 115
53. France, through the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs .................................................... 117
54. CARE International, United Kingdom ...................................................................................................... 122
55. Igodt Brecht, PinguinLutosa Food Group, Belgium............................................................................ 126
56. Christian Aid, UK .............................................................................................................................................. 126
57. Tichaona Seremani, Christoph Lindinger and Stefano Benedikter, Alternative Investments
Africa Private Limited (ALTVEST), UK ........................................................................................................... 128
58. Suman K A., CPPCIF, India ............................................................................................................................ 129
59. The Gaia Foundation, UK .............................................................................................................................. 130
60. Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance, Switzerland......................................................................................... 131
61. CropLife, USA ..................................................................................................................................................... 134
62. Douglas Brown, World Vision International, Canada ....................................................................... 136
63. World Food Programme, Italy .................................................................................................................... 141
64. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Belgium ..................................................................................... 144
65. Argentina ............................................................................................................................................................. 145
66. Technical Cooperation Department, FAO, Italy ................................................................................... 149
__________________________________
3
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
67. Sara J. Scherr, EcoAgriculture Partners, USA ........................................................................................ 155
68. Roelf Voortman and Michiel Keyzer, Centre for World Food Studies (SOW-VU), VU
University Amsterdam, the Netherlands ....................................................................................................... 161
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
4
Introduction to the topic
In October 2010 the newly reformed UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) requested its
High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) to conduct a study on climate
change, and in particular, to assess: “review existing assessments and initiatives on the effects of
climate change on food security and nutrition, with a focus on the most affected and vulnerable
regions and populations and the interface between climate change and agricultural productivity,
including the challenges and opportunities of adaptation and mitigation policies and actions for
food security and nutrition..”
Final findings are to be presented at the CFS Plenary session in October 2012.
The High Level Panel of Experts for Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) now seeks input on the
following V0 draft of its report to address this mandate. This e-consultation will be used by the
HLPE Project Team to further elaborate the report, which will then be submitted to external
expert review, before finalization by the Project Team under Steering Committee guidance and
oversight.
The challenges of climate change to food security are multidimensional. Assessing them also
requires some assessment of challenges to food security generally. The Committee’s charge
includes two focus areas:
•
the most affected vulnerable regions and populations
•
the interface between climate change and agricultural productivity
In a report of about 40 pages (plus annexes), it is not possible to be exhaustive in coverage.
Hence the current draft represents an assessment by the HLPE Project Team members, with
guidance from the HLPE Steering Committee, of priority topics and presentation.
We propose opening a dialogue on the following topics and questions:
An important audience for this report is national policy makers concerned with
agriculture and food security and their staff. Does the report include sufficient information to
support the policy messages and is it written in a way that captures the complexity of the
challenges to food security from climate change while not being too technical?
It is not possible to provide detailed policy recommendations for specific countries,
regions, or groups. Instead we propose a series of policy messages that are intended to provide
guidance for developing nationally-relevant policies and programs and that can also assist
international efforts. Have we chosen the best set of topics? How could our policy messages be
improved? Have important messages been omitted?
The chapter on adaptation is incomplete. We would especially value input on whether
the concepts presented in annotated outline form cover appropriate material or whether
additional topics need to be covered, and some current items eliminated. These inputs will be
used to guide the drafting of the final version of this chapter.
The report proposes three high level policy messages with detailed recommendations
under each. We introduce the three high level messages here and ask the reader to refer to the
fifth chapter for the current complete text. Are these the most important messages for national
and international policy makers? How can the text be improved to convey these (or other)
messages?
1.
Climate change responses should be complementary to, not independent of, activities
that are needed for sustainable food security.
__________________________________
5
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
2.
Climate change adaptation and mitigation require national activities and global
coordination
3.
Public-public and public-private partnerships are essential
We thank in advance all the contributors for being kind enough to spend time in reading and
commenting on this early version of our report. Supplementary information and references are
very much welcomed. We look forward to a rich and fruitful consultation.
The HLPE Project Team
Gerald Nelson (Team Leader), Zucong Cai, Charles Godfray, Rashid Hassan, Maureen Santos,
Hema Swaminathan.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
6
Contributions received
1. Kien Nguyen Van from Vietnam
I. National/ regional/international levels
1. to coordinate and develop strategies;
2. to increase forecasts as well as assess impacts;
3. to designate scenarios;
4. to rise funds.
II. community levels
1. to raise awareness;
2. to create adaptive by indigenous knowledge and local nature resources;
3. to make/ try to new models in conditions of climate changes
2. Bhubaneswor Dhakal from Nepal
Dear FSN members
Based on my knowledge and experience I found both strengths and weaknesses on the report. I
would like to list some of the points of both sides.
1. Strengthens
a. The panel has done very nice review of literatures related the climate change. It has
included many statistical figures where possible and made convincible for many readers
about the threat of the climate change on food and nutrition security.
b. It has clearly categorised main pillars of food and nutrition security. These are
availability, access, use and stability. Decision makers very often cannot separate and
understand the value of the individual pillars. Consequently they cannot make
appropriate policy and management decisions.
c. The panel has discussed the climate change impacts now and future, and mitigation
and adaptation options including policy recommendations in separate sections.
d. The panel has given special importance to women who account more than 50 percent
of the world population, and play important role on food and nutrition security.
e. Despite involvement of many people and time the report is concise in size.
2. Weaknesses
a. The purpose of the working panel is to “review existing assessments and initiatives on
the effects of climate change on food security and nutrition, with a focus on the most
affected and vulnerable regions and populations and the interface between climate
change and agricultural productivity, including the challenges and opportunities of
adaptation and mitigation policies and actions for food security and nutrition.” However,
the panel has given substantially higher effort for describing state of the climate change
than analysing its impacts on different societies. The state of climate change has been
__________________________________
7
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
well reviewed in IPCC reports. The analysis on main issues is not adequate level. A
competent panel would constructively analyse understudied issues and unclear and
misleading information reported on literatures and media.
b. The report has used quantitative figures from research literatures to convince readers
but it has poorly captured true reality of vulnerable societies. The report is not enough
appealing to the readers who have experienced and seen the true reality. Probably it can
be an unavoidable biases associated to members of the panel who have distance
experience on the reality.
c. The panel has given little attention on the vulnerable people in developed countries.
d. The panel has spent considerable space to describe the threats of climate change more
on women and their potential role on adaptation. From my understanding the panel
looked on surface level problems and limited recommendation at same depth. The
vulnerability of women in developing countries is routed on mega institutions which are
difficult to be changed at desired level by policy change. Therefore it requires other
measures to address the vulnerability problem. The report is silence on this aspect.
e. The indigenous people may be the one of the most vulnerable groups due to their
socioeconomic institutions. Except the point of wild harvested food, the report has given
little attention on the problem of indigenous people. The vulnerability of the group has
been increased many times higher by the policies and practices introduced for climate
change mitigation than the climate change itself. For example national and international
agencies are influencing the indigenous communities and introducing management
practices for local forests against their wellbeing. From my understanding and
experience the point of wild harvest gives misleading information. There are many
evidences that the indigenous people have been cheated by such misleading information.
Ignoring problems and providing misleading information of the indigenous people is
common practices of most of international organizations. The report of the panel is not
devoid of it.
f. Climate change mitigation action can have more negative impacts on the vulnerable
groups than benefit. For example the food price rise in 2008 is partly associated to the
biofuel production –one activity for climate change mitigation. The report has hardly
touch on this important issue.
g. In general the report gives a sense that the negative impacts of climate change would
increase faster than socioeconomic changes unless special policy efforts are placed. The
information can convince many people including policy decision makers. Probably due to
limited knowledge I do not believe on it. From my understanding the panel has over
exaggerated the impacts. It is either by professional bias or for hidden interest.
h. The people or communities who are identified vulnerable in this report have been
suffering from climate change from many years. Women of Ghana (in the example of the
report) are not new victims of current climate change. The communities and people are
in need of support to get relief from the impacts. The development support for climate
change adaptation is old wine in new bottle for the vulnerable communities. Additional
climate change makes them little difference on their lives and livelihoods. Again I do not
belief that new climate change makes dramatic change as often reported by
environmental media or deep environmentalists. Moreover these communities are also
making their self effort to adapt to the negative climatic impacts based on experience,
information and opportunities. Then it will be difficult to separate the impact of new
climate change and old.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
8
i. The panel stressed need of both free trade of food and price stability. The report is
silent on possible tradeoffs consequences of free trade on price stability.
j. Addressing social problems are more critical than the need of improve technologies
for enhancing food production in the area vulnerable to climate change. It requires
addressing both problems together which is not adequately pointed in the report.
k. The report stressed on helping small scale farmers. It is a difficult issue to distinguish
who are small scale farmers. In developing societies the small farmers are getting
pressure to give up the farming life to adapt to socioeconomic changes. Agricultural
production has been decreased. I am sceptical that the reduction is caused by climate
change as you advocated. If climate change occurs as the panel described the situation
can be worse. In the regions there is need of reforming of land use policy and fostering
agriculture food production. The report is silent on this aspect.
l. From the prospective of the vulnerable communities and people effectiveness of public
resources for climate change adaptation would be more productive to place existing
information and technologies than investing on further research and development.
3. In conclusion the team has given considerable efforts to prepare the report. There is shortfall
analysis on critical areas. The report would be more meaningful, convincing and useful if the
panel analyse and provide information rigorously, constructively, and fairly.
Many thanks to the FSN moderators and HLPE members for providing me an opportunity to
read and comment the Food Security and Climate Change report prepared by the High Level
Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition.
Thanks FSN members for spending your valuable time to read my ideas.
Bhubaneswor Dhakal
3. Daniel Bretscher, Federal Departement of Economic Affairs, Switzerland
Dear FSN members,
First I want to congratulate you for the comprehensive manuscript on Food Security and Climate
Change. I appreciate it very much to have the chance to express my opinion on the text and to
make some – hopefully constructive – comments. I could not read the manuscript in detail but
had a quick overview and concentrated on the chapters 3 and 4. Both chapters contain a lot of
information on adaptation and mitigation covering the most relevant issues. However,
compilation of this kind have been made in the past already and therefore it is not clear what is
the extra gain of this report. Furthermore, care should be taken not to stay with the enumeration
of options (as most other reports due) but clearly to take up a position on which options should
be preferred towards others. Setting clear priorities in the text would be extremely helpful for
policy maker in taking decisions and would prevent that they chose arbitrarily and/or
opportunistically from a large set of possible measures. Personally I think that a good guidance
in this respect is to categorize the measures according to the following scheme:
1. Priority: Food system approaches (including diet, consumption, trade, food waste,
processing etc…)
2. Priority: Farm system approaches (sustainable farm management, choice of the farm
portfolio (animal species, crop cultures), crop – livestock integration, polycultures, crop
rotation, agroforestry….)
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
9
3. Priority: Crop / Animal management system (soil management, crop management,
animal management, manure management….)
Both for adaptation (food security) as well as mitigation measures on the first level (i.e. food
system) are likely to bring the greatest benefits and (as I think) also at the lowest cost for the
society as a whole. The text contains a lot of very good aspects in this direction but they are not
highlighted appropriately. I think Ulrich Hoffmann from the UNCTAD discussed these issues very
god in his recent discussion paper:
“The current structures in global agricultural input and output markets do not ease, but rather
complicate the required fundamental transformation of agricultural production methods and
consumption patterns. Huge price distortions, considerable externalities, market and policy
failures, as well as powerful commercial interests create a “minefield” for constructive action
being (unilaterally) undertaken at national level. Without a reform of international trade and
investment policies that are really supportive of ecological agriculture national-level action may
remain ineffective.
There is generally too much emphasis on and simplistic overestimation of the potential of
technological development for agricultural transformation. This will only give false hope and
excuses for doing nothing really fundamental. In fact, as the above analysis shows, only few
problems in agriculture are mainly caused by a lack of technology, many are related to social,
economic and cultural issues that require structural changes, not techno-fixes (Paul et al., 2009:
9). It is therefore critical to first of all define what problems are best solved by changing legal
frameworks, trade policies, incentive structures or human behaviour and, second, what
contribution technology could make within this very context.” (Hoffmann, U. 2011: Assuring
food security in developing countries under the challenges of climate change: Key trade and
development issues of a fundamental transformation of agriculture. United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Discussion Papers No. 201).
One might not like particularly the direct (and sometimes very critical) language of this text but
personally I think we need this kind of spirit in order to make a substantial contribution in
facing the challenges related to climate change.
I thank you very much for your appreciation and wish you all the best for the finalization of the
report.
Sincerely yours,
Daniel Bretscher
Research Associate
Federal Department of Economic Affairs DEA
Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART
Natural Resources and Agriculture
4. Teresa Da Silva Rosa, University Vila Velha/UVV and Center for Urban and SocioEnvironmental Studies (NEUS/UVV), Brazil
Comments concerning the chapter 3 “Adaptation: response options for Food Security
Challenges from Climate Change” of the draft report on Food Security and Climate Change.
1. It is missing a definition of adaptation in its introduction. Even if adaptation is considered as
a more recent issue of interest on the scenario of climate change (CC) than mitigation (both
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
10
are the building blocks of CC in its social dimension), we can find some papers or reports
(even by IPCC and UNFCCC) discussing this notion. It can be helpful to go through them in
order to establish the definition of adaptation that will be employed in this report. Moreover,
some papers deal with methodologies which should be consider in this chapter.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Below, a rough list:
Magrin, G. et alli., Latin America. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Parry, M.L. et alli. (eds.),
Cambridge (UK), Cambridge University Press, 2007, 581-615.
Fens, R. Health and climatic hazards: framing social research na vulnerability, response
and adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 17, 2007, 281-295.
Fonseca, I.F.; Bursztyn, M.. A banalização da sustentabilidade: reflexões sobre
governança ambiental em escala local. Soc. estado. vol.24 no.1 Brasília Jan./Apr. 2009).
Füssel, H.-M. Klein, R. J. T.. Conceptual frameworks of adaptation to climate change
and their applicability to human health, PIK Report No. 91, Potsdam, Germany, August
2004.
Füssel, H.-M. Klein, R. J. T..Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments: An Evolution
of Conceptual Thinking. Climatic Change 75(3):301-329, 2006.
Füssel, H-M. Adaptation to climate change: a new paradigm for action or Just old wine in
new skins? Internationa workshop: Porspects of safety and sustainability Science for our
globe, Dec 4, 2008, Tokyo (Japan).
Klein et al 2003 Klein, R. J.T.; Schipperc,E. L. F. ; and Dessaid,S.. Integrating mitigation and
adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions
ONERC/Observatoire National sur les Effets du Réchauffement Climatique.
StratégieNationale d’adaptation au changement climatique. Paris: La documentation
française, 2007
UNFCCC (2006) Technical Paper, Application of environmentally sound technologies for
adaptation to climate change (fccc/Tp/006/)
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2006/tp/tp02.pdf
UNFCCC / United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2007). Climate
change: impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation in developing countries.
UNFCCC/ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2006).
Technologies for Adaptation to climate change. Issued by the climate change secretariat
(Unfccc) Bonn, germany produced by adaptation, Technology and science programme of
the Unfccc secretariat. Peter Stalker (contributing ed.)
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/tech_for_adaptation_06.pdf
2. Explore more the meaning of climate change (CC) comparing to extreme climate events and
climate variability.
3. Pay attention to not mix problems caused by the development model and growing paradigm
and problems caused by extreme events nowadays because vulnerabilities caused by
development projects (as social exclusion and inequalities). Some climate events are
recurrent in a time span of some years or decades and the land use changes meanwhile and
vulnerable areas can be then occupied by the expansion of agriculture. This activity becomes
risky, then.
4. CC is a complex issue having links to many other dimensions. Consider the interface with
other environmental problems which will have different performance according to different
climate scenarios.
5. Women besides children and elder people as well as economic excluded groups are
considered by the literature as vulnerable. These groups have their particularities in each
region and cannot be treated as a whole. It is important to have firstly a local survey in order
to obtain more direct information about these vulnerable groups and data on their
perceptions on CC. According to our experience in a Brazilian research project on CC,
__________________________________
11
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
vulnerability and capacity building, local population has their own priorities and CC, most of
the time, are not listed as such. Avoid mainstreaming this issue in their discourse is a good
practice since adaptation to CC is directly related to their immediate needs in terms of
having real access to infrastructure or basic aspects of life (such as water, education, health ,
sewage…).
Strength and respect cultural patterns are a good practice even if technicians think they are
not adjusted to the adaptation policy or plan. Adaptation is related to capacity building of
local groups which demands to strength their resilience capacity, local links and cultural
aspects. So, respect their patterns is one of the first things to be integrated in technical
adaptation plans or public policies.
Consider some national or local strategies as example of adaptation strategies demands,
firstly, mapping them. Some policies can already motivate important actions to the strength
by adaptation to CC (agroforestry, ecologically friendly agriculture, local species, strategies
on conservation of biodiversity, local market and needs, local ways of consumption…). In
terms of food security, the less farmers and communities are dependent of the external or
national or regional markets, it is better.
Once dealing with complex issues as CC, policy has to be formulated and implemented in a
basis of consultancy to as many different social actors as possible, such as scientific
communities (their findings can be accessed and used to sustain policies) or local non
governmental organizations. This means that environmental governance is also complex.
The communication between government and other actors should be strengthened and
partnerships should be built since the beginning, calling local associations to take part of the
discussions.
Cost effective civil engineering projects can be useful to agribusiness but they should be
assessed in terms of familiar agriculture or small farmers or subsistence agriculture in
developing countries. If should focus more on building or restructuring local farmers
capabilities to face CC or climate variability. Motivating them to use or reinforce the use of
local varieties or other varieties with scientific evidence that they will be more adapted
locally to CC.
Adaptive management and strategies aimed at increasing skills call for a first step named
mapping local and traditional adaptive strategies (not just to CC, those that already exist
related to other issues).
Fishery and extractive activities should be considered as well as strategies to deal with
possible migration waves from rural areas to other rural or urban areas.
Insurance schemes maybe will be not applicable to small farmers and subsistence
agriculture might not have access to them.
CC and adaptation should mainstream other sector policies in order to reach effectiveness.
in terms of research community, public policy on scientific development should reinforce,
motivate, improve interdisciplinary approach on research projects, strengthening the
dialogue between all disciplinary areas in order to build more integrative methods dealing
with CC and adaptive strategies.
Development and humanitarians NGOs should not just pay attention to adaptive strategies
on agriculture, but also to preparedness of local and small farmers to extreme events,
increase their resilience capacity to face climate variability locally in order to avoid their
dislocation to other sensitive areas to a new pressure. This demands a very well coordinated
measures and strategies not just involving governments and civil society, but all sort of
social actors having locally a good influence.
Teresa DA-SILVA-ROSA
Professor, Postgraduate Program of Social Science, University Vila Velha/UVV (ES, Brazil),
Researcher at the Center for Urban and Socio-Environmental Studies (NEUS/UVV),
“Climate Change, knowledge and adaptation”
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
12
5. Ileana Grandelis, FAO, Italy
Dear FSN members,
Thank you for the opportunity to read this interesting paper. A few comments are provided
below. They look mostly at the employment dimension of the climate change and food security
challenge.
The attention given in the paper to the role of women in agricultural production and
therefore to the need of associating them in climate change interventions is highly
appreciated. In addition to that, another important policy message should not be omitted,
which relates to the important employment externalities (positive and negative) of
climate change and climate change adaptation and mitigation measures. The document
seems to give priority to the climate change effects on food production and distribution rather
than to the other dimensions of food security, such as food access and utilization. This is
certainly in line with the Committee’s charge indicating to focus on the interface between climate
change and agricultural productivity as one of the two focus areas of the paper. However, it
slightly overlooks the second focus area on most affected vulnerable regions and populations.
Looking more in depth at this dimension would make more prominent other dimensions of food
security, such as food access in particular, and their determinants.
The relation between more and better rural employment opportunities and food security is
direct, even if often not made explicit enough: in terms of increased availability (through more
skilled rural workforce and increased agricultural productivity), access (through income
generation), utilization (through safer work, better health, links to social protection and
reduction of women work burdens impacting on child care) and stability (through income
stability, incentives to the conservation of natural resources, etc.). For these reasons, the
document should make explicit reference to the employment-food security linkages and how
they will be affected by climate change. This should be part also of the high level policy messages
proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Specific suggestions for integration in the text are made below:
*p. 2 “Climate change will make the challenge of achieving food security even harder. Its effects on
food production and distribution may increase poverty and inequality, with impacts on each of the
four pillars, and consequent effects on livelihoods and nutrition”. As mentioned above, climate
change impacts on food security through reduced access to food (including because of jobs and
other livelihood losses) could be made more explicit. The document refers to incomes more in
detail on pag. 8 in terms of “knock-on effects on income for food producers and food affordability
for urban consumers”. But still, it limits its focus to agriculture, and more specifically agricultural
production, as the only source of livelihoods which risk to be threatened by climate change (see
income for food producers). It is suggested considering more broadly the impact of climate
change on the agriculture sector and on the incomes it generates, thus including other categories
of workers which will also be affected such as agricultural wage workers and micro and small
scale entrepreneurs and wage workers involved in the non-farm sector, which is often linked to
agricultural production.
*p. 2 “Who are the poor? They are likely to be located in rural areas and be female and children.” It
is suggested adding also the youth among the poorest. E.g. Working poverty rates among youth
exceed the corresponding adult rates in almost all the countries for which data are available
(ILO, Global Employment Trends, 2012). Also, it should be mentioned that the poor are mostly
engaged in the agriculture subsistence sector. Overall, in most developing countries, the highest
risk of working poverty (those workers who live on less than $1.25 a day) is associated with
employment in agriculture. Also, poverty is very often associated with a vulnerable employment
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
13
status and this is an aspect which should be reflected in order to indentify the most adapted
corrective measures.
* p. 16, section 1.4.4 on Access. Again only agriculture production seems to be affected by
climate change as a livelihood. “Even when availability is not a concern, access to food is affected
by climate change due to the disruption or loss of livelihoods and price volatility of staples.
Individuals with high risk of food insecurity are largely concentrated in rural areas where food
production takes place so their livelihoods will be directly affected by local effects of climate change
and indirectly by effects in other parts of the world.” Again, it is suggested broadening the
perspective as suggested for pag. 2.
See UNEP, 2008 “In Africa [...], jobs in the rural areas will be affected, not only because of
the direct reduction in agricultural production, but also from indirect effects in rural
economies, through the knock-on effect on the processing sector, private transport
services to the cities, and non-agriculture related commerce that depends on the
revenues of this activity (i.e. small shops in rural communities). [...] In Asia up to 60% of
the income of rural households in Asia is directly related to agriculture production, while
the rest comes from waged-jobs in the same sector. Thus, rises in the frequency of fl oods
or decreases in freshwater availability are likely to affect the two main sources of income
of these households.
* In the same section, it should also be considered that the agriculture sector is known for its
high levels of informality, casual work arrangements, low pay, labour force fragmentation,
gender and age-based inequalities, poor and often risky working conditions, limited access to
social protection and the uncertainties and specificities of agricultural production. (FAO, 2012
(forthcoming), Decent Rural Employment for Food Security. A case for action.) Climate change
challenges will therefore place an enormous burden on already affected workers.
For a more comprehensive analysis of impacts of climate change on employment, the following
resources could be consulted:
• ILO, 2009. The Employment Effects of Climate Change and Climate Change Responses: A
Role for International Labour Standards?
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_dialogue/@actrav/documents/public
ation/wcms_122181.pdf
• ILO, 2010 Climate change and labour: The need for a “just transition
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/--actrav/documents/publication/wcms_153352.pdf#page=14
• UNEP, 2008. http://www.unep.org/labour_environment/PDFs/training/CC-FULLEN.pdf (includes Annex I on Climate change and examples of major projected impacts by
sector
* p. 18. Section 1.5. Policy messages. The need to create more and better employment
opportunities in rural areas, including upgrading existing jobs, should be mentioned in this
section as an area of work with which programs and policies dealing with climate change have to
establish synergies and coherence.
In terms of needs for further research, in addition to the two areas indicated in this section, an
additional area could be explored, namely How rural employment patters and existing decent
work deficits in rural areas will be affected by climate change
* p. 27. Chapter 3, adaptation and 35, Chapter 4, Mitigation. The green jobs potential in
terms of adaptation and mitigation is completely overlooked in this chapter which seems to be
still in a very draft stage. Measures such as conservation tillage, agroforestry, rehabilitation of
degraded crop and pasture land, water managament could create additional jobs. However,
some need changes may reduce labor inputs. It is of paramount importance that all strategies
take into account their potential externalities (positive or negative) on employment creation and
on the quality of jobs and include measures to address them. This will indeed have important
impact on food security of rural populations which often depend on their labour as their only
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
14
available resource to earn an income. This should be reflected in the policy
recommendations.
The following references are suggested:
- ILO, 2011 Local investments for climate change adaptation: in brief ILO in Asia and the Pacific
green jobs through green works http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---robangkok/documents/publication/wcms_155743.pdf
- Other ILO resources on green jobs available at the following link
http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/green-jobs/lang--en/index.htm.
- UNEP, Green Jobs: Towards Decent Work in a Sustainable, Low-Carbon World
http://www.unep.org/labour_environment/features/greenjobs-report.asp
- FAO, 2009, Green jobs, Unasylva No. 233, Vol. 60, 2009/3
http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1025e/i1025e00.htm
*p. 40. Chapter 5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICIES AND ACTIONS
Recommendations should at least indicate the following:
Under 5.2. Need for programs and policies dealing with climate change to establish
synergies and ensure coherence also with employment-related policy and strategies (from
workers skills upgrading to the improvement of the vulnerable working conditions which
make rural workers more vulnerable to climate change).
Under 5.3 Need to consider the potential for adaptation and mitigation measures and of
greening of agriculture to create more and better rural jobs
Importance of gender and age sensitive skills development programmes, especially for more
disadvantaged categories of rural workers, for them to be actively engaged in climate change
adaptation and mitigation.
*Appendix: Glossary Useful definitions to be added to the definitions’ section could be the
following:
1. Green jobs: Green jobs include work in agriculture, industry, services and administration that
contributes to preserving or restoring the quality of the environment. They also need to be good
jobs that meet goals of the labour movement offering adequate wages, safe working conditions
and workers’ rights (UNEP, 2008).
2. Decent work: Decent work involves opportunities for productive work that delivers a fair
income, security in the workplace and social protection for families; better prospects for
personal development and social integration; freedom for people to express their concerns, to
organize and participate in the decisions that affect their lives; and equality of opportunity and
treatment for all women and men (ILO,2006. Decent Work FAQ: Making decent work a global
goal).
Ileana Grandelis
Rural Employment Officer
Gender, Equity and Rural Employment Division - ESW
Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN
Rome, ITALY
6. Bertrand Vincent, Convention to Combat Desertification, Germany
Dear FSN members,
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
15
Many thanks for this opportunity to contribute. The following comments are most focused on
the "availability" pillar of food security, as UNCCD mandate is on land degradation.
I. General comments
There are different treatments of the issues in the zero draft that require, for completeness and
integrity of the same, to be included in this consultation paper. For example, issues of land
degradation and desertification must be highlighted, provided that the vast majority of the
global population that suffers from food insecurity live in the drylands and face the phenomenon
of desertification.
We propose to add one or two paragraphs on SLM. The text provided below could be used to
that effect.
Likewise, the glossary at the end must include the definitions of drought, land degradation and
desertification as they are provided by the UNCCD; this is just fair, provided that the definition of
climate change used in such glossary contains a reference of article 1 of the UNFCCC where the
definition of climate change is provided.
II. A focus on Drylands
The document is supposed to “review existing assessments and initiatives on the effects of
climate change on food security and nutrition, with a focus on the most affected and vulnerable
regions and populations and the interface between climate change and agricultural productivity,
including the challenges and opportunities of adaptation and mitigation policies and actions for
food security and nutrition”
In the context of climate change discussions about vulnerability, a particular focus on Drylands
is an imperative as 41% of the population is living in these areas. There are at the frontline of the
global warming and are highly at risk and vulnerable (mainly rural – therefore dependent on
agriculture – and poor). In these extreme vulnerable areas, the quality of land and soils is the
most important asset to ensure food availability. Land degradation and desertification have to be
addressed to ensure sustainable food production.
From UNCCD Advocacy Policy Framework on Food Security
(http://www.unccd.int/Lists/OfficialDocuments/cric10/21eng.pdf):
A recent study indicates that the area of land becoming degraded in developing countries
increased by an average of 1 per cent per year between 1981 and 2003.12 Such degradation of
already very poor soils is a serious challenge for people living in drylands, where 41 per cent of
the global population live and depend on agriculture as the major source of their livelihood. But
this figure is an average and is much higher in specific countries, for instance 81 per cent for
Ethiopia, 77 per cent for Eritrea, 70 per cent for Somalia, and 66 per cent for Afghanistan.13
12 Bai ZG, DL Dent, L Olsson and ME Schaepman. 2008. Global assessment of land degradation
and improvement. 1. Identification by remote sensing. Report 2008/01, ISRIC – World Soil
Information, Wageningen.
13 <http://www.earth-policy.org>.
Drylands have the potential to expand food security across their own populations. Sustainable
Land Management in drylands can also increase soil carbon stocks: For many developing
countries such actions could become an important part of their mitigation portfolios and
income-building efforts. Effective mitigation action in soils requires the assurances that the
carbon sequestered could be measured, reported and verified (MRV). Furthermore, it is
necessary certain technical capacity to enhance carbon storage and/or to maintain land
resource / carbon sequestration practices as well as abilities to monitor carbon stocks. All this is
relevant for financing food security through NAMAs and soil carbon sequestration, for example.
An envisaged opportunity when linking food security and climate change in drylands can be
found when highlighting the need to include SLM into climate change research. The IPCC AR4
contains limited information on climate change adaptation and mitigation actions that also
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
16
address SLM. This is due to the absence of available scientific and evidentiary studies and
experiences in peer-reviewed literature on these matters; this is an opportunity to foster making
information on SLM and climate change available for the IPCC AR5 process.
Food security in drylands relates directly to SLM / forest management. The REDD+ options
allow countries for flexible consideration of "forest" in the context of their national
circumstances. Countries are deciding on the type of forests to be benefited from and be
included in the regime on the basis of its established country-driven character. For example, low
cover and tropical dryland forests, including their soil pool. Commitments on financial resources
for developing countries under REDD+ are now above 4 billion USD. Substantive financial
resources are distributed through bilateral and multilateral channels.
III. Sustainable Land Management : the response for food security under climate change
Part 1.4.1. is focusing a lot on the link between farm scales and climate change vulnerability.
However, this approach could be misleading as the scaling of farms is the results of geographic,
agronomic and land tenure characteristics. This means that in climate change vulnerable areas
such as drylands, there is not much fertile land accessible to allow large scale farming, unless
importing intensive agriculture model. On the other hand, climate change vulnerability could be
addressed through Sustainable Land Management measures which could be applied to large
scale farms to a certain extend. Beyond the scale, production systems models based on the
recycling of elements (carbon, organic matter, water…) has to be scaled-up.
With the ongoing negotiation processes of the UNFCCC (from Cancun, Durban and beyond)
climate change adaptation issues have been given the same level of priority as mitigation and
more ambitious goals for mitigation are in the process to be also decided upon. The more
inclusive and broader approach allows including land and soiling issues (as well as agricultural
soils).
Any action on climate change (be it mitigation of adaptation) in relation to food security and
agriculture in developing countries must be somehow linked with land degradation and
desertification. Opportunities provided to increase food production and reach the global /
international targets on food security can benefit from land-based options provided by, for
example, REDD+, technology development / transfer, capacity building and NAMAs. Advocacy
for decisions to include climate change adaptation and mitigation action in drylands and with
dryland populations. The challenge is to identify such land degradation / desertification actions
at national and local levels and confer to them the proper priority within the climate change
framework.
Therefore, food security options to be considered under the presence of climate change must
include as sine qua non conditions the use of the broad range of existing SLM practices and
technologies that have the potential to either reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, increase food
security options and increase overall resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change. SLM
actions are synergy actions that can be used per se or as part of larger actions on mitigation /
adaptation projects or programmes to be supported nationally or internationally.
SLM technologies, included by any party in their technology needs should be part and parcel,
and benefit from the financial support on food security and on climate change, at any stage of the
technology cycle. This would give possibilities to disseminate and transfer SLM technologies and
practices for increased food security.
Best regards
Bertrand VINCENT, UNCCD
7. Darshan Sharma, Department of Agriculture and Food, Australia
Dear FSN members
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
17
Thank you for the opportunity to read this draft and share thoughts. My comments would
largely refer to ‘adaptation’ section.
From the outline, it looks good and pretty comprehensive but perhaps following points need
consideration.
1. Diversity of crops has been discussed but my point is about introducing more of the food
types that have flexible harvesting time. Basically, if you could harvest a crop anytime
when needed or resource (water) is exhausted rather than waiting for the harvestable
crop part (e.g. grain) to ripen. This will require R&D on such plants and perhaps a
consumer acceptance for such crops.
2. Increased flooding due to hurricanes etc has been attributed in many areas to climate
change. These natural calamities are undesirable but offer opportunities for refilling
aquifers where irrigated agriculture is to blame for reduced water levels.
3. Apparently some areas currently under agriculture will not remain agriculturally viable.
However, if such areas can be put to alternative use, such as solar farms, the sun energy
can still be harvested for the benefit of mankind. The energy so generated can be used in
a number of ways but its utilization in desalinization plants and fertilizer plants can
provide inputs for food production. It is a high cost endeavour but returns are long
lasting too.
4. Policy refinements need to lay greater emphasis on ‘compensation’ for crop losses rather
than on ‘subsidies’ for raising crops. Insurance works but for only for those who can pay
premiums. Even for those who can pay premiums, pitfalls are not rare.
5. Food quality (balanced nutrition) is often missing in adaptation discussion. Harsher
climatic conditions would demand humans to be physically and mentally more resilient
implying a greater need to satisfy nutritional balance.
6. Policy implementation is one part in adaptation that might remain slack. Bear in mind
‘corruption’ and ‘complacency’ can potential derail any ‘great policy’ and adaptation is no
exception.
7. Increased temperature will increase the need of sheltered working environments and/or
alternative working hours. Someone needs to look into the costs and effect of these on
human health, life style and family needs.
8. Supply chain has been discussed in the draft and I guess that should cover an altered
need for food storage.
Hope these make sense.
Regards,
Darshan
Dr Darshan Sharma
Senior Research Agronomist
Centre for Cropping Systems
Department of Agriculture and Food
Australia
8. Kaisa Karttunen, Finland
Dear FSN members,
congratulations for the good work done in putting together research results, scenarios and
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
18
visions on the climate change issue. With some amendments the present draft can be developed
into a meaningful tool for decision makers at local, national and global level.
-I would like to emphasise the importance of a comprehensive approach to climate change, for
example trying to identify synergies between food security and climate change adaptation and
mitigation objectives. This requires, for example, screening of the present agriculture and food
security policies and strategies through a climate lens and mainstreaming climate change issues
into them, or designing new policies and strategies with climate change integration.
-Concerning the adaptation part of the paper, I would like to emphasise the importance of
vulnerability analyses that fall under the responsibility of governments and international
organisations, with participation of the civil society. Such analyses reveal e.g. the hotspots where
safety nets are most urgently needed.
-Under governments and international organisations I would also like to add the importance of
conserving and maintaining biodiversity as a vital element for adaptation.
-Diversifying agricultural production and rural income sources, as well as diversity in other
parts of the value chain have been found to increase resilience to climate change. This could be
emphasised more in the paper.
-Although the focus of the paper is on the production side of the value chain, would it be possible
to tackle adaptation and mitigation needs also from food consumption and consumer
perspective? Do we have any messages to the decision makers concerning directing the food
demand towards more environmentally and climate friendly commodities? And how to adapt
the present consumption patterns as a response to the changing climatic conditions?
-The second message for national and international policy makers should also include the local
perspective and should read as follows: Climate change adaptation and mitigation require local
and national activities and global coordination.
Thank you very much!
Kaisa Karttunen
Agriculture and Rural Development Consultant
Finland
9. Mary Oyunga, Kenya Agriculture Research Institute, Kenya
I feel that this is a very important discussion. More and more vulnerable groups are getting
affected by climate change especially in Kenya. Women and children are getting more and more
marginalized as the effects of climate change continues to bite. The loss of water sources, grazing
land, sources of fuel for domestic use, farming activities and poor health as a result of all these
continues to affect women and children.
In Kenya for example the long rains this year has seriously delayed and has been seen a
possibility of affecting food production. In Kenya, many families will have their livelihoods
affected because they have to adjust to the climate change either by reducing the number of
meals in day on the quality of the same. This has created more female headed households in the
rural areas and due to effects by HIV/AIDs, there are more and more child headed households as
males move to town in search of white collar jobs in effect neglecting agriculture.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
19
10. Brian Thomson, FAO, Italy
Climate changes will affect food production in a number of ways. Crop yields, aquatic
populations and forest productivity will decline, invasive insect and plant species will proliferate
and desertification, soil salinization and water stress will increase. Each of these impacts will
decrease food and nutrition security, primarily by reducing access to and availability of food,
and also by increasing the risk of infectious disease.
The just released FAO/Springer publication "The Impact of Climate Change and Bioenergy on
Nutrition" articulates the links between current environmental issues and food and nutrition
security. It provides a unique collection of nutrition statistics, climate change projections, biofuel
scenarios and food security information under one cover which will be of interest to
policymakers, academia, agronomists, food and nutrition security planners, programme
implementers, health workers and all those concerned about the current challenges of climate
change, energy production, hunger and malnutrition.
The book The Impact of Climate Change and Bioenergy on Nutrition may be seen at:
http://www.springer.com/environment/global+change+-+climate+change/book/978-94-0070109-0
Brian Thompson
11. Cassandra De Young, FAO, Italy
Some references that would help them for the fisheries and aquaculture impacts, vulnerabilities
and adaptation and policy options would be:
Climate change implications for fisheries and aquaculture: Overview of current scientific
knowledge http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0994e/i0994e00.htm
Shorter text resources:
A Wikipedia page we developed with the Global Partnership for Climate, Fisheries and
Aquaculture (PaCFA) with some references
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheries_and_Climate_Change
A policy brief developed by PaCFA
ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/brochure/climate_change/policy_brief.pdf
FAO State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010 highlights chapter
http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1820e/i1820e03.pdf or Part 2 of the 2008 publication
http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0250e/i0250e00.htm
A 2007 policy brief on Building adaptive capacity to climate change
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1115e/a1115e00.pdf
More information available so I would just need to know what they would like.
Thanks!
Cassandra De Young
Policy and Economics Division
Department of Fisheries & Aquaculture
FAO
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
20
12. CIDSE - International alliance of Catholic development agencies , Belgium
We recognize that changing climatic patterns will pose great stress to our food production
systems and create an “extremely serious challenge to food security” we thus welcome the HLPE
report on climate change. As the CFS is the foremost legitimate international space for food and
agriculture policy orientation at the global level, it is indeed imperative that this issue be
address within the committee. We are grateful for the opportunity to contribute comments at
this stage of drafting to ensure that the document maximises its full potential of informing policy
makers while providing strong messages that will guarantee the right to food through
sustainable agricultural practices.
To us the central message of this report should be building more resilient and diverse food
systems and questioning both our current consumption and production models which are
not only unsustainable but also major drivers of climate change. Generally, we are quite
concerned about the direction the report is taking. Our key concerns include:
- The report’s focus on production increases with little attention paid to the question of equity
and access.
- The lack of orientation towards agroecological models of production that should be employed
not only to adapt to climatic variations but also to curb the impacts of industrial agriculture on
the environment. In which case there should be a strong message on models of production
oriented by the findings of the IAASTD report.
- The degree of private sector orientation and insufficient attention to the possible risks that this
entails is worrisome. There little to no mention of accountability and social and environmental
safeguards to ensure that climate change does not become just another business opportunity at
the expense of people and the environment.
- Access to productive resources will become increasingly strained due to climate change, yet,
the report largely ignores the links between climate change and increased resource grabbing
and biofuels production and possible impacts on food security. Our specific concerns are
addressed through the 4 questions outlined by the HLPE to guide inputs into this consultation.
1) Does the report include sufficient information to support the policy messages and is it
written in a way that captures the challenges of food security from climate change while
not being too technical?
‐ Although we recognise the report makes an effort to not be too technical, it is too general. More
is needed on the evidence (section 1.4.3.2) of the effects of climate change on agriculture.
Categorising effects by ecosystem (semi-arid, grasslands…) or region would be helpful.
‐ Policy messages at times are incoherent with information in the body of the report. For
instance on pages 9 and 40 it is mentioned that small scale food farms produce the majority of
food people eat, are major employers and are more resilient to climate change. The same
paragraph goes on to say that private sector research is more likely to benefit large scale farms.
Yet the document is rife with policy messages pushing for more private sector engagement with
no mention of equity and accountability.
‐ Food is a human right which must be ensured by governments. The responsibility of states to
guarantee this right could be strengthened in section 3.4.2. This includes the role of government
as a driver of support for farmer centered research and extension services. .
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
21
‐ Generally we are concerned with the lack of attention the report pays to the equity question.
One of the major challenges facing food security today is the issue of access hence a focus on
increasing production and technological solutions alone will not solve the problem of hunger.
Although the report recognizes the significance of power imbalances to access and does mention
that there should be support to community-led initiatives (1.4.4) it falls short of pursuing this as
a key policy message. Community led initiatives are critical for resilience and strengthening
these should be the point of departure for any successful response to address climate change. A
review of some successful local initiatives, (such as seed banks, DRR
activities, rain water harvesting systems…) could be provided in an annex or box in the report.
‐ Industrial agricultural models, patterns of waste and consumption of high external input
dependent food (such as meat) are noted as contributing to climate change but there is no policy
message to address these; such as the need for a dietary transition to healthier more sustainable
foods or targeted/planned production efforts so as to avoid waste. Instead the report rings
alarm bells for the need to increase production without qualifying what type of production
model and where. Furthermore, there is a need for informed debate on issues of consumption to
be facilitated amongst all consumers. This is an area of work the CFS could support
‐ It is important that the report does not leave room for the interpretation of false solutions,
assuming economic growth, free trade and the role of the private sector as panaceas for the
challenges of climate change. Without equity and commitment to uphold the right to food we
will not guarantee food security and in fact may end up in a situation where the most vulnerable
are in a worse position.
‐ On section 2.2 the analysis on the most vulnerable groups needs to be improved; for instance,
who specifically (eg, fisherfolk, pastoralists) and what is the most likely impact / concern for
each particular group
‐ Indeed it is beyond the scope of the report to address specific national contexts and policies.
The effects of climate change will be felt similarly across regions which share similar ecosystems
and the report could do more in offering regional messages and encouraging regional responses,
such as the building of regional strategic food reserves not only to mitigate the impact of price
volatility but also to respond to the inevitable increase in humanitarian crises.
‐ The report mentions time and again the importance of research and even notes that private
research will most likely support large scale production. Research will need to be more farmercentered, involve orphan crops and reflect on-farm conditions. If research is conducted outside
of the “real farm” conditions, for instance using high external inputs unaffordable by the
majority of the world’s food producers, it will not only fail to be adapted by the farmers, but will
also miss a great learning opportunity on resilient food production systems
‐ In the mitigation section there is insufficient assessment of the potential of mitigation efforts in
regards to lowering emissions reductions under different scenarios. Here the report could do
more to set out the strengths and weakness of the various scenarios and approaches being
considered on mitigation.
‐ There is not enough on known or expected consequences such as the probability of increased
political crises, climate change refugees, etc. Additionally, the issue of better linking relief
rehabilitation and development (LRRD) efforts is absent from this report and this will become
an increasingly important issue with climate change as will social protection measure – we
encourage the HLPE groups working on these two reports to consult with each other.
The impacts or trends on nutrition are insufficiently addressed in the report. Section 2.5 on use
assumes that economic growth will lead to higher caloric intake. We must not assume this
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
22
means good nutrition. The increase in obesity is equally concerning from a food security point of
view.
‐ The recommendations section is weak and could do more to draw from the text in support of
resilient food systems while challenging current models of production which are actually
contributing to climate change.
‐ Information could be organized in a more reader friendly format. For instance, employing the
use of tables to summarize and highlight certain information such as the impacts and
consequences across certain crops, regions, and vulnerable groups.
‐ Interviews and quotes with some of the most affected could be useful in illustrating how
climate change is being felt and help us understand the trends and challenges that lie ahead
2) It is not possible to provide detailed policy recommendations for specific countries,
regions, or groups. Instead we propose a series of policy messages that are intended
to provide guidance for developing nationally-relevant policies and programs and
that can also assist international efforts. Have we chosen the best set of topics? How
could our policy messages be improved? Have important messages been omitted?
‐ Complementarities and coherence among climate adaptation, mitigation and food security are
key issues that need to be addressed if we want to tackle the converging food crisis and climate
crisis.
‐ A more global view of the current unsustainable food production and consumption patterns
should underlie the whole debate linked to food insecurity and contribution to climate change.
Indeed indices of hunger are increasing despite overall boosts in production. Increases in yields
do not automatically translate into food security, revealing the importance of access and
distribution. Hence, it is misleading to systematically address the food crisis via production
considerations alone, as it is also very much a matter of access and distribution. Today we
produce 17% more calories per day per person than we did 30 years ago. Yet while we were
able to increase production we were not able to eradicate hunger. The question of unequal
access to food is thus crucial as far food insecurity is concerned and this is insufficiently
addressed in the report.
‐ Attention should focus on the unsustainable production and consumption patterns as one of
the cause of both food insecurity and climate change, as the biggest emitting agricultural
practices are large-scale industrial food production systems. Putting the broader system into
question includes tackling the issues of overproduction, overconsumption and also waste,
whether this is via storage losses or food wastage.
‐ Themes insufficiently developed in the report include: impacts on nutrition, youth,
displacement of populations and increased crisis.
‐ There is also no mention of food sovereignty and how this could be a essential strategy for
national food policies. Food sovereignty offers the foundation for which resilient systems could
be based; it is an ecologically, socially and economically relevant strategy for national policy
makers
‐ If the right to food as to be an overarching principle and its full realisation our final aim, then
we should put in question the current mainstream agricultural patterns that have failed to
ensure access to food for all, while contributing significantly to current unsustainable levels of
GHG emissions. Changing food consumption patterns and reducing waste have considerable
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
23
potential as far as food security and emissions reductions are concerned1. The mitigation
potential of these two key elements, consistently with their impact on food security, need to be
taken into account and further assessed. Without putting in question the current trends of largescale food production, most mitigation attempts may remain marginal and inefficient, and food
insecurity may remain unsolved.
‐ Also, the importance of regional responses/mechanisms is underdeveloped in the report
3) On Adaptation chapter, does it cover the appropriate material, what additional
topics are needed, should be eliminated.
‐ Section 3.1 starts with a discussion of how food systems have always adapted, indeed through
the hands of small-scale food producers. Any adaptation measure cannot therefore be successful
without their skills. The small-scale food producer should thus be at the center of research and
action in regards to adaptation.
‐ Youth is completely absent from the report. Given that climate change will only get worse with
time and that the numbers of young farmers is dwindling at a shocking rate it seems that some
policy messages to support young farmers, including their access to land and other resources, is
needed.
‐ A major factor in building resilient food systems is diversification. This concept is largely
absent from the report. Diversification is not only a way of spreading production risk and
improving nutrition it also has benefits for soil health.
‐ Adaptation should not only be seen from the supply side. We need a dietary transition which
can support our earth’s capacity constraints, which are obviously compounded by climate
change. It is incumbent upon this report to deliver this message and encourage longer term
planning for such a shift through agroforestry or food forests, a shift away mono-cropping which
compromise soil health and wastes water…
‐ Access and conflict over productive resources such as land and water will become increasingly
strained due to climate change. It is therefore imperative that governments protect the rights of
smallscale food producers to their resources. There is currently no mention of biofuels as a
possible threat to land and water grabbing.
‐ Section 2.5 states that “central policy message is the importance of relatively free movement of
food across international borders as a partial adaptation to climate change”. We are concerned
about this conclusion and in fact believe that resilient local food systems and shorter food chains
should in fact be the central message coming out of this report. Current trade and agricultural
policies are actually underpinning unsustainable models of production and distribution
(refrigeration and transport as well as other long supply chain activities) which are major
contributors to GHG emissions. Furthermore, free trade as a primary food security strategy
means increased dependence on foreign food which is vulnerable to volatile prices, further
threatening the food security.
1 On these two issues we refer to the report Mitigating Greenhouse Gases in Agriculture, A challenge and
opportunity for agricultural policies, ACT alliance, Bread for the World, church of Sweden and Danish Church
Aid,November 2011.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
24
‐ It would be interesting to have, perhaps in the annex or in section 3.3, some examples of
successful adaptation strategies such as: Planting of trees, mangroves and grasses, system of rice
intensification, micro irrigation schemes that conserve water, coastal and wetlands management
to mitigate the effects of storms etc…
‐ Small-scale food processing (such as drying and other value added activities) are also an
adaptation tool and can be an important livelihoods diversification scheme
‐ Climate change adaptation must build and expand on disaster risk reduction efforts and
respect existing frameworks such as the Hyogo framework for action (205 – 2015) agreed on by
168 governments in 2005.
‐ Seeds are of extreme importance to resilient food systems and there is almost no mention of
these in the report, such as the need for protecting local varieties which are more resilient and
adapted to local conditions
‐ The report, as it stands, suggests that a green revolution type of approach will be an important
adaptation strategy. This is a major area of concern as green revolution supported production
systems that were heavily fossil fuel dependent and led millions of farmers in to debt as well as
creating massive ecological damage. What is needed is support for pro-poor adaptation
strategies and not more “packages” and miracle seeds. Section 3.4.3. for instance, calls for high
technology food production which is largely out of reach of the poorest farmers another
inconsistency in the report.
‐ Empowering communities to design their own adaptation solutions is an important part of
adaptation and this element is also largely absent from the report2.
‐ The potential for urban agriculture is unfortunately ignored and it can be an important strategy
for complementing household food needs. Innovative models are available all over the world3
4) The report proposes three high level policy messages with detailed recommendations
under each. We introduce the three high level messages here and ask the reader to refer
to the fifth chapter for the current complete text. Are these the most important messages
for national and international policy makers? How can the text be improved to convey
these (or other) messages?
1. Climate change responses should be complementary to, not independent of, activities
that are needed for sustainable food security.
‐ We welcome the call for overall coherence and complementarity among climate efforts, food
security and poverty reduction policies. Climate change responses should not put additional
pressure on small-holder food producers that are producing most of the world’s food, while
contributing the least to climate change. In parallel, the types of agricultural models and
approaches developed to adapt to climate change and to face its challenges must be judged by
their contribution to food security and climate adaptation and mitigation.
‐ In an effort to ensure this coherence and complementarity there needs to be more
collaboration among the climate and agriculture UN fora. Climate policies relating to agriculture
developed under the UNFCCC should reflect the recommendations of Committee on World Food
2 http://www.oaklandfood.org/home
3 http://www.peoplesgrocery.org/index.php?topic=aboutus
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
25
Security (CFS). In turn, agricultural policies related to the climate adaptation and mitigation
challenges should take into account the policy debates taking place in the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) and reflect the climate analysis and science-based requirements of the
Intergovernmental Panel of Experts on Climate Change (IPCCC). The call for consistency among
policies will only happen if bridges are built between relevant for a and with a view to
complementarity and coherence of the efforts.
‐ The focus on food security as a guideline for climate and agricultural policies is key but should
be reinforced with a view to a rights-based approach. The Right to Food should be the basis of
any agriculture related policy. Ensuring that the right to food is respected reminds that climate
policies linked to agriculture must first and foremost focus on adaptation, and that any
mitigation action in this sector must be built on strong social and environmental safeguards. A
rights-based approach should be the overarching guideline of any food and climate
related policy.
‐ From a mitigation point of view, there is a need to ensure that those with greatest
responsibility take action first and foremost, and that policies and actions agreed and applied
support resilience and don’t exacerbate existing vulnerabilities, nor generate new ones.
‐ In the context of growing threats of climate change on food security, food sovereignty offers a
useful approach which is based on local solutions, strengthening resilience and guaranteeing
that the most vulnerable are the central protagonists in the solutions.
2. Climate change adaptation and mitigation require national activities and global
Coordination
Adaptation
‐ Climate change is already impacting agricultural practices and food sovereignty, therefore
adaptation needs to be addressed as a priority. Because impacts of climate change are being felt
with strong regional differences in nature, scope and intensity, policies have to be developed
with strong regional focus, based on their own local circumstances.
‐ Valid efforts are being made in regards to agriculture adaptation within the UNFCC framework
such as the Nairobi work program and work program on loss and damage. Establishing
coherence among international efforts is an important effort.
‐ It is indeed crucial that adaptation is based on indigenous knowledge and practices that have
over the years proven to be the most resilient. This is not only key as far as adaptation is
concerned, but also with a view to mitigation of agriculture sector as a whole, as small-scale
agriculture has the lowest emissions.
Mitigation
‐ The mitigation recommendations rightly refer to the latest UNFCCC development from Durban,
the Durban Platform (AWG- DPEA), as a global agreement towards a commitment of all parties
on emissions reductions by 2020. If indeed the scope of the climate challenge, the new country
dynamics and latest emissions trends led to set up a broader framework for global action,
climate actions should be designed with a view to equity, translating the principle of the
Convention that it the Common But Differentiated Responsibility and Respective Capabilities
(CBDRRC) within this new platform. Indeed, whilst the construction of this new global
agreement involving all countries overcomes the initial distinction between Annex I and non__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
26
Annex I countries, still key factors such as historical responsibility, climate impacts, economic
ability to support the burden of mitigation actions, current emissions trends…must be taken into
account in the burden sharing of global emissions cuts. In the context of this new international
climate regime, mitigation actions can’t be led by a single costs and benefits approach but must
encompass the scope of contributing factors and solutions to both climate change and food
security, and be based on the latest science requirements regarding the emissions cuts needed to
stay below the 2°C threshold of temperature rise, so as to avoid the worst impacts of climate
change on people and, de facto, on food security. This equitable global regime also implies that
developing countries engage in low carbon development pathways as soon as possible, with
the adequate financial and technological support.
‐ Concerning the recommendation to support the creation of market-based mechanisms, we
would like to raise key concerns on the potential inclusion of agriculture mitigation actions into
carbon markets. Many advocate for market-based approaches in agriculture. Proposals to
include agriculture in offsetting markets are, however, questionable from an environmental
integrity perspective, unjust in terms of responsibility for climate action, and presents
considerable risks for small-scale food producers and food security. Indeed, there are major
concerns that soil carbon market leads to increased pressure on food security and small-scale
food producers, whilst contributing only marginally to emissions reductions. Large farms and
agribusiness rather than small-scale farmers would be likely to attract most investment in soil
carbon sequestration, pointing to continued expansion of large-scale monoculture agriculture.
Soil carbon projects may increase the value of land in developing countries. This may lead to
increased pressure on land (including land use changes and increasing GHG) resulting in land
grabbing.
‐ We are concerned that the inclusion of agriculture in international offsetting schemes would
shift responsibility for agricultural mitigation to developing countries. This distracts from the
urgent need to support small-scale farmers who must adapt to the impacts of climate ariability.
Agriculture investment in developing countries must reduce vulnerability, build resilience and
increase food production in an ecologically efficient way. Mechanisms which increase flexibility
for developed countries and vested interests in expanded carbon markets are not a response to
these needs.
‐ Another question in the context of soils and carbon market is who will benefit from possible
future market approaches. Under the Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) and any regulated
carbon offset mechanism, project development and certification cycles are lengthy, complex and
costly. This is why those most likely to obtain carbon credits are those who can afford to pay for
specialist ‘carbon consultants’ and who can offer offset projects large enough to cover the CDM
related transaction costs – not small-scale food producers
‐ The promotion of agro-ecological small-scale food producers and all forms of sustainable,
ecological and climate resilient food production systems is crucial as being the solution both to
community adaptation to climate change as well as mitigation.
‐ With regards to carbon emissions, large-scale industrial agriculture with high external inputs
of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and methane from cattle production is highly emitting, and
contributing to the reduction of forest cover and therefore emissions from deforestation,
whereas the majority of farms in developing countries are smallscale with low external inputs
and meagre emissions.
‐ Emissions from livestock are an important contributor to the sector’s global contribution to
GHG emissions. If we agree this needs to be addressed among the mitigation efforts, we question
the resort to technological mitigation solutions. Indeed the overall role of agriculture in the
global GHG emissions is due to overconsumption and overproduction patterns. Endlessly
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
27
increasing production of livestock is not sustainable. The solution to the unsustainable levels of
emissions of livestock production lies in a reduction of consumption and production, so as to
stay within sustainable limits, and not into a technological reduction of growing livestock
production.
3. Public-public and public-private partnerships are essential
‐ Strong social and environmental safeguards must be included as far as private investments into
agriculture adaptation and mitigation projects are concerned. There must also be strong
accountability mechanisms to ensure that private sector activities are in line with human rights
and ecological standards
‐ It is imperative that, for accountability purposes, those most affected by food insecurity and
climate change are actually involved in the decision making of the proposed partnerships for.
‐ The report does not distinguish among different private sector interests and this is dangerous.
Multinational companies involved in large-scale industrial production are already receiving a lot
of support from governments to engage in a type of production which is aggravating climate
change. It is incumbent upon this report to ensure that a clear message is sent to governments
that this is not the kind of food system that should be supported. There is also no mention of
small-scale enterprises and their role in supplying their communities.
‐ Ultimately, the primary responsibility lies with national governments to support their smallscale food producers and to implement policies that uphold the right to food. Again, food
sovereignty, and ensuring the food production needs of your territory locally, is an important
strategy given the specific challenges brought on by climate change. The importance of local
production and consumption at a scale that does not contribute to GHG emissions is
insufficiently emphasized as a core message of the report.
13. Stephen Adejoro, Zartech limited, Nigeria
Thank you for giving us opportunity to contribute to the findings of the HPLE experts on the
effect of climate change, I will contribute from my local experiences and from the most
productive and high level of empowerment sector of the livestock industry (The poultry sub set
of the industry).
Poultry production is a fast way of producing protein food of egg and meat for the teaming
population of Africa, and sure way of an accelerated means of empowerment for Africa youths
The recent climate change effect have resulted into massive crop failure and heavy
contamination of poultry feeds with Mycotoxin contamination
This effect of climate change also result into heavy water pollution and contamination as a result
of floods, chicken adaptation to high temperature and high resistances to available antibiotics
result to heavy mortality that affect installed capacity utilization
The industry in West Africa is presently operating at about 60% capacity , while cost of
medicating the 40million commercial layer industry in Nigeria was estimated at about $75
million (World poultry publication)
Production output is low as a result of poor feed quality and aftermath of Mycotoxin effect on
growth and chicken immune capacity
Research into new approach at managing effect of climate change ,through the science of
Nanotechnology must be part of the recommendation in the Experts final submission
Thanks
Dr Stephen Adejoro
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
28
Dr Adejoro is an independent poultry consultant presently as contract head of Research &
Market for Zartech limited in Nigeria
14. Carol Thiessen, Canadian Foodgrains Bank, Canada
Dear FSN members,
Let me express my appreciation for the Committee on World Food Security’s HLPE preparing a
report on the critical issue of food security and climate change. I also welcome the opportunity
to provide a response to the zero draft of the report.
To discuss both the science around climate change impacts on food security, both in the present
and projections for the future, review adaptation and mitigation activities, and make policy
recommendations is a huge and complex task. I welcome the focus on the four pillars of food
security, as access, utilization and stability are often underrepresented in discussions on climate
change and food security.
That said, I offer up some general feedback, followed by some specific concerns and suggestions.
1. Urgency: While the report certainly states the serious risk climate change poses for food
security, the overall report does little to convey the absolute urgency of taking action now,
especially by developed countries, on mitigation and through providing support for adaptation
in developing countries.
2. Over emphasis on availability/production: While all four pillars of food security are discussed,
the main focus still appears to be on the availability of food—both the impacts of climate change
on the availability of food, as well as over-emphasis on increased production (and methods to
achieve increased production) as a means to adapt to climate change. Much more could be said
about access--in particular, as it relates to issues of power and equity (both within households,
in communities, and through national and international policies). Other issues that have a
serious impact on access and availability, such as consumption patterns (including growing
consumption of meat), the use of agricultural land, and subsidies, for biofuels production etc,
should also be given greater prominence.
3. Agricultural systems: Most of the analysis in the HLPE report appears to focus on smallholder
farmers in developing countries, despite real concerns about the contribution large-scale, inputintensive agriculture makes to rising greenhouse gas emissions. This imbalance should be
rectified.
4. Adaptation as priority: Furthermore, for smallholder farmers the overwhelming priority is on
adaptation. They have contributed little to greenhouse gas emissions, but are among those most
vulnerable to climate change impacts. They are already facing increasing droughts, seasonal
changes and more extreme weather events. They have no choice but to focus their energies on
adapting to these changes. And national and international policies should prioritize support for
adaptation for smallholder farmers. Policies and support for mitigation must prioritize activities
that first bolster food security and increase resilience and adaptive capacity (such as in agroecological approaches).
5. Policy pathways needed: It is not clear from the report, how governments should move
forward on this issue. It is far too likely that this report will just be ignored, especially if clear
steps of action are not delineated. Developed countries should be urged to make good their
commitment to provide financial support for action on climate change in developing countries,
with a balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation in developing countries (as per
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
29
both the Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Agreements). At a minimum, this support should
collectively reach $100 billion/year by 2020 (with interim targets needed). Support for
adaptation should prioritize most vulnerable communities, in particular, smallholder farmers,
and emphasize agro-ecological approaches that build resilience—especially as much uncertainty
vis-a-vis long term climate impacts still exists at local levels. Furthermore, national governments
should be urged to prioritize food security in their national budgets, providing increased
support for agro-ecological approaches that build resilience. It is also imperative that major
donor countries re-commit to support for aid for agriculture, in particular, agriculture that
increases resilience to climate change.
Some specifics:
1. 1.4 Food Security and the Effects of Climate change (p 7): I’m curious about the mention of
population growth in developing countries as the only mentioned threat to global food security.
Why raise this here as it is not mentioned elsewhere in the report, and there are numerous other
threats to food security that warrant mention.
2. 1.4.2. Role of women in agricultural production (p 10): This report places significant emphasis
on the disproportionate impact of climate change on women’s food security, an emphasis that I
applaud. This section could further mention that women and children are also more likely to eat
second to men, thus exacerbating impacts on women and children of food shortages. Lack of
access by women to agricultural extension services is important, as mentioned, but so is the
ability to make decisions, vis-a-vis power dynamics within families and communities, that affect
women’s abilities to attain knowledge and make adaptive choices.
3. 2.8 Policy Messages (p 25): When looking at the availability and access to food in various
climate change scenarios, it is clear that effective food aid/assistance policy is also imperative to
responding to the climate crisis. Yet this report barely mentions an increased need for
humanitarian assistance in future. Ensuring fair, timely and sufficient access to food/cash
vouchers during humanitarian crises is an important component of long-term food security and
relevant to any discussions on climate change and food security. It shouldn’t be ignored in this
report. Furthermore, the important role of national and international food reserves to mitigate
price volatility and ensure availability of food during crises should also be explored.
4. 3.3.1. Availability: other strategies to highlight include conservation farming, System of Rice
Intensification, natural resource management, agroforestry, crop diversification and diversified
livelihoods. Focus should also be on community-based adaptation; specific responses should be
community-led, reflecting particular vulnerabilities of individual communities.
5. 3.3.2. Access: special attention should also be made to the need for secure land tenure to
ensure access to food.
6. 4. Agricultural Mitigation of Greenhouse gas emissions: As mentioned earlier, the priority for
vulnerable communities is adaptation. Mitigation as it contributes to increased food security and
improved livelihoods, however, is beneficial. There is a legitimate concern, however, that
focussing on the potential of developing country agriculture for increased soil carbon
sequestration (and linkages to carbon markets) may increase land grabs, stimulate further loss
of farmland used for food production in favour of biofuel plantations, and ultimately harm those
most affected by climate change. Furthermore, there is little evidence to suggest that
smallholder farmers will benefit from carbon markets.
7. 4.4 Mitigation options in agriculture: REDD must ensure that social and environmental
safeguards, as well as rights of forest dwellers, be respected. Again, there are legitimate concerns
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
30
that REDD resources will not reach those most vulnerable, but rather that they may fuel land
grabs.
I thank you for this opportunity to respond to the HLPE report on Climate Change and Food
Security. Best wishes as you continue work on the report.
Sincerely,
Carol Thiessen
Canadian Foodgrains Bank
Canada
15. Mahesh Pandya, Paryavaran Mitra, India
Country like India has a rural based economy through agriculture and animal husbandry. More
than 60% people are directly dependant on traditional systems which is link with agriculture.
More than 60% agricultural activities are depends on rain fed.
India is a fast growing developing country. Nowadays there are two types of major threats on
agriculture
A. Rapid industrial growth.
B. Climate change
A. Rapid Industrial Growth:
•
•
•
•
Centre government & various state governments are keenly interested to get
Direct Foreign Investment & i.e. we set up a China’s model up SEZ (Special
Economic Zone) & considered SEZ as a public interest. For SEZ, government has
got power to acquire a land, so in India ample amount of fertile land is given to
SEZ.
State like Gujarat (India) has fastest growing industrial state. They have SEZs&
Special Investment Region (SIR)s & also rapid industrial growth on India’s
largest costal area due to above policies.
Such industrial growth has adverse effects on marginalize communities like
maldhari (cattle keepers), small farmers, and fishermen, denotified communities
are badly affected – specially their livelihood & food security.
In country like India women are in centre for activities related to agriculture &
animal husbandry & fishing. So women are extremely suffered through above
mentioned growth.
B. Climate Change:
•
•
•
Before industrial growth & green revolution India was self sustain in terms of food
grain & food security.
As for the area with bad climatic condition, there were specific kind of millet crops
which was fulfilled the need of food security of people but due to the green
revolution & white (milk) revolution countries are looking for more GDP (Gross
Domestic Product) & as a result agriculture’s crop pattern were changed (likewise
millet crops to rice & wheat & cash crop).
Now rice & wheat crops are totally dependant on temperature & water, in climate
change era there are uneven pattern of temperature & rain so the production of
rice & wheat are substantially affected. Millets cops are almost gone. Millets cops
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
31
•
were important for food security for poor people in terms of quality, quantity &
nutrition’s values.
In irrigated area water table gone deeper due to excessive amount of water use in
irrigation & industrial purpose, which is also one of the reasons of reduction of
food grain crops.
As per above situations of developing countries like India we have following suggestions for
betterment of food security & climate change:
1. Land use restriction - Do not allow agriculture land for industrial purpose.
2. Bio- Fuel - Do not allow bio fuel plantation in fertile land.
3. Common Resources - Do not allow commons land (grazing pasture land) for
industrial purpose & bio fuel plantation.
4. Millet crops - Encourage millets crops special drive for millets crops in terms of
campaign. Millets crops should be a top priority action in national climate change
action programme.
5. Public participation - Public consultation for any industrial growth or any
genetic modified crops.
6. Involvement of women - Women should be given equal opportunity in land
ownership & decision making.
7. Proper EIA - Proper action plan & policy for industrial growth & agriculture
growth. Involve all stake holders in equity in decision making process. Industrial
growth should be considered in terms of environmental impact assessment &
agriculture growth is also considered with respect to types of soil, rain, needs of
water & climate condition.
8. Co-ordination of different government agencies - Proper coordination of
various government welfare schemes with respect to food security.
9. Renewable energy - Solar based power plant & wind power should be in barren
land.
10. Indigenous people’s rights - Forest rights mostly given to forest dwellers for
livelihood & sustainability.
11. Marine ecology - Do not allow Industries on coastal area to protect marine
ecology.
Yours Truly,
Mahesh Pandya
Paryavaran Mitra
502, Raj Avenue, Bhaikakanagar road
Thaltej, Ahmedabad - 380059 Gujarat INDIA
website - www.paryavaranmitra.org.in
16. Peter Carter, Climate Emergency Institute, Canada
The Climate Emergency Institute is pleased to be able to provide input to the Global Forum on
Food Security and Nutrition with respect to the issue of Food Security and Climate Change.
Nothing now is more important for the FAO's mandate of achieving food security for all than
global climate change.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
32
Unfortunately the zero draft background paper is far behind on the situation of the world’s
committed global warming and climate change that results in committed severe losses of food
security.
Our focus fills the gap on commitment that is indispensable for policy.
At today's already committed global temperature increases the world as a whole and all regions
are in a state of emergency with respect to their future food security.
Summary and proposed message to policy makers
The first step in adaptation is to recognize the global climate world food emergency. Without
this, no measures will be large enough or applied soon enough to help. Without this the absence
of political will to prevent global climate catastrophe will not change
The combined national emissions reductions proposals to the United Nations, commits the
world to a global temperature increase of 4.5° C by 2100, which is a full eventual temperature
increase commitment of 9° C * over the following centuries.
We know for certain the world has been tracking and is fixed on the worst case IPCC high
emissions scenario (A1F1) which leads to a warming of 5.5° C by 2100, which in turn leads to a
full eventual temperature increase of 10° C *.
The negligence by policy makers to comply with their moral and legal responsibility to stop
atmospheric greenhouse pollution to protect food security (defined dangerous interference with
the climate system under the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)
and to avoid global climate catastrophe is now a policy (rather lack of) to end the age of
agriculture and civilization.
Without emergency measures on global emissions models indicate we are condemned to large
crop yield losses in all food producing regions by 2050.
This puts all populations in all regions in a state of global climate food emergency.
Continuing on a high emissions scenario is definitely the situation until 2050. There are no new
international agreement, no plans to decarbonize the world economy and no recognition of the
global climate emergency. Therefore it can only be assumed as the International energy agency
has projected that the projected growth in world energy production will be predominantly by
fossil fuel combustion (80%). This makes the above catastrophic commitments definite realities.
Climate change assessment for food security policy making ignores standard risk assessment
methodologies which must be corrected. In particular model results are applied in manners that
ignore risk.
Risks and impacts of global climate change on food productivity must be made over a centennial
time horizon. This is because global warming lasts for over a thousand years causing combined
cumulative damages to crops and land.
The application of assumed economic growth offsetting climate change food losses is wrong in
every sense. It is fossil fuel economic growth that directly causes and commits the world to large
increasing food losses. The more fossil fuel growth the more will be the food losses, which has to
lower economic growth.
The only measure we know that will mitigate crop losses is emissions reduction.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
33
Global warming is irreversible and climate change caused crop yield losses can only be assumed
to be irreversible. Essential though it is, there is no evidence for lasting benefits from adaptation,
which can at best only delay impacts (global warming will continue to increase and its impacts
on crops and the land will continue to increase).
Governments must prepare starting now for the worst ever global environmental and
population health catastrophic situation developing over the forthcoming decades before 2050.
This will largely be due to progressive losses of water and food with accompanying increase and
spread of diseases and civil strife.
*The global average temperature increase by 2100 is a ‘transient’ increase which is only half the
eventual full ‘equilibrium’ committed increase.
Evidence from the published science with references for summary
Crop losses are already happening due to climate change
The most important and reliable finding with respect to future food security is that there is
already a clearly discernible reduction in crop yields due to climate change (up to 15% loss) in
all regions except North America.
The results demonstrate already occurring negative impacts of climate trends on crop yields at the
global scale.
Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming D Lobell C Field
2007 Environ. Res. Lett.
These losses can only increase and at an increasing rate as the multiple adverse impacts of
global warming and climate change increase with global warming over time.
The great US food production regions are vulnerable to climate change before 2050.
There is a dangerous impression (from old research) prevailing that the US (a top world
provider) is food secure under climate change conditions. This is not the case. Today’s models
though still lacking in many adverse factors show US food productivity suffers serious losses by
2050 that will affect the whole world. Additionally, research into adverse factors not factored in
the models shows grave US crop losses by 2050.
Today’s temperature increase and climate change commitments
Time commitment - global warming is for ever
Whatever the temperature increase we eventually arrive at, it is practically irreversible.
Therefore combined cumulative damages to agriculture must be considered over a centennial
timeframe (Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions S Solomon, et al PNAS
2008)
Therefore impacts to food will be cumulative combined adverse impacts over future centuries.
The climate change science does not account for combined impacts on crops nor cumulative
damage to the land and irrigation.
Policy commitment
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
34
The global warming climate change commitment due to present policies on climate change is
base risk assessment on, particularly with respect to food security. This is because this
commitment is a world food security catastrophe. It is also the one source of commitment that
we should be able to influence, unlike the commitment from climate science which is absolute.
+4.5°C by 2100 = +9°C after 2100
By policy we are committed to a realized or transient global temperature increase of 4.5° C by
2100 (Climate Interactive Climate Scoreboard) from the combined voluntary formal confirmed
proposals on emissions to the United Nations climate convention secretariat, which in turn is
committed to double over a centennial scale time period after 2100, resulting in an eventual
equilibrium temperature increase of 9°C.
Climate science commitment
Double today’s warming
The above commitment to doubling of our temperature increase this century is due to the
climate system inertia - the relationship was established in the first IPCC 1990 assessment.
Because of time lags inherent in the Earth’s climate, warming that occurs in response to a given
increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide (“transient climate change”) reflects only about
half the eventual total warming (“equilibrium climate change”) that would occur for stabilization
at the same concentration. (National research Council Climate Stabilization Targets 2010)
We therefore have to assess impacts and risks at a 4.5° C increase this century and also assess
impacts and risks at 9° C for the future of humanity. Risk is the product of impact probability and
impact magnitude. To avoid climate catastrophe risk worst case probability ranges must be
applied. These are not applied to climate change assessment.
Triple today’s warming
We are in fact absolutely committed by climate science to a global temperature increase of 2.4° C
from preindustrial (Ramanathan and Feng Avoiding Dangerous Interference with the Climate
System PNAS 2008).
Even the most aggressive CO2 mitigation steps as envisioned now can only limit further
additions to the committed warming, but not reduce the already committed GHGs warming
of 2.4°C.
This is made up of another 0.8°C due to the ocean heat lag (1.6C commitment) and a similar
amount due to unmasking of aerosol cooling.
For simplicity we only apply the doubling for the climate system inertia in this paper, making
even these large commitments large underestimates.
Emissions commitment
We have been tracking for years and are fixed on the worst case IPCC emissions scenario
A1F1
(Global Carbon Budget 2010 Global Carbon Project , International Energy Agency World Energy
Outlook 2011)
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
35
For the A1F1 scenario latest model projections give a 5.5°C temperature increase by 2100 with a
probability risk range of up to 7.2° C. For 2050 this gives a 2.5° C increase mean and probability
range up to 3.2° C. (UK Met Office, When could global warming reach 4°C? Richard A. Betts et al
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 2011)
By all policies and plans we will stay on this worst case A1F1 scenario to 2050 (International
Energy Agency IEA).
Committing to 4C through absence of policy and consideration of climate inertia.
With no new United Nations agreement climate change scientists are of the opinion that we are
headed for a 4° C world this century.
4C by 2060s is plausible
When could global warming reach 4°C?
Richard A. Betts et al Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Eary 2011
Climate change: Prepare for global temperature rise of 4C, warns top scientist
Defra's chief adviser says we need strategy to adapt to potential catastrophic increase
The Guardian 7 August 2008.
3C by 2050 is plausible
Results from the experiment suggest that a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is as
equally plausible as a rise of 1.4 degrees (relative to the 1961-1990 average). … those planning
for the impacts of climate change need to consider the possibility of warming of up to 3
degrees (above the 1961-1990 average) by 2050 even on a mid-range emission scenario.
This is 3.5°C by 2050 from pre-industrial and the world is on the worst case scenario.
(Climate Prediction net report of multi-thousand-member perturbed-physics ensemble of
transient coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model simulations published in
Nature)
Broad range of 2050 warming from an observationally constrained large climate model ensemble
Daniel J. Rowlands et al , Nature August 2011
Unless there is a sea change in the attitude of policymakers a 5.5°C increase by 2100 will be
unavoidable and a 3°C increase by 2050 most likely - bearing in mind that there is a 30 to 50
year lag between any changes in the emissions resulting in a change of temperature increase.
Climate model results vary widely amongst models. They all have a very large upper range of
probability that should be treated as the risk range but is not.
The climate scientists take the mean of the modeling results at all stages of assessment. This
ignores risk and does not protect future food security.
The obvious and only appropriate way is to choose the results which carry the highest risk to
food security- not go by the mean.
Socio economic industrial inertia and commitment
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
36
How long to decarbonize?
At best it takes many years for legislation to pass and more years to take effect.
Decommissioning fossil fuel plants takes years
Building enough zero carbon clean energy infrastructure to replace fossil fuels takes years.
Building renewable energy transmission systems takes years
The most rapid decarbonization provided in the IPCC assessment takes 55 years- clearly
unnecessarily slow.
While only total decarbonization* of the world economy can stop the global temperature and
climate change from continuing to increase, today there are no plans to decarbonize.
*If emissions of greenhouse gases are reduced how quickly do lead concentrations in the
atmosphere decrease? Some fraction, about 20% of emitted CO2, remains in the
atmosphere for millennia. Because of the slow removal process atmospheric CO2 continues
to increase in the long term even if its emission is substantially reduced from present levels.
In fact only in the case of essentially complete elimination of emissions can the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 ultimately be stabilized at a constant level.
IPCC 2007
FAQ 10.3.
In its last World Energy Outlook the International Energy Agency, the authoritative voice on
global fossil fuel energy, warned that unless governments instituted emissions cutting policies
on an urgent basis, over the next few years investment infrastructure for further fossil fuel
energy would lock the world in to a 6°C global temperature increase by 2100.
It is therefore inconceivable that governments will pass regulations for the decarburization of
economies without the public and policy makers acknowledgement that due to already
committed global temperature increases and climate change the world today is in a state of
planetary emergency (as James Hansen publicly stated in 2008).
We must therefore assume that the International energy agency is right and right now we are
committing ourselves to a global temperature increase by 2100 of 6° C, which is a commitment
to humanity of a 12° C temperature increase.
James Hansen (NASA) suggests another 0.6C commitment from the socio-economic –industrial
inertia.
Today's committed losses of world and regional food productivity from the research on
crop yields.
NB: These are climate crop model projections that the scientists caution fail to capture many of
the adverse effects of global warming and climate change (IPCC, NRC)
IPCC 2007 (temperature increases are converted to global and from pre-industrial by results
provided by the NRC Climate Stabilization Targets 2010 –original are local from 2000))
Global crop yield is at risk of decline at a global temperature increase of 1.5°C and can
accommodate no more than 3.0°C before beginning to decline.
Crop productivity is projected to increase slightly at mid- to high latitudes for temperature
increases of up to 1-3°C depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that. (Note that means
some crops decline at 1C, some at 2C, some at 3C)
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
37
At lower latitudes, especially seasonally dry and tropical regions, crop productivity is projected to
decrease for even small temperature increases (1.5 -2.5°C).
National Research Council Climate Stabilization Targets 2010.
Already committed crop yield losses by 2050 are up to 30% for both low latitude and made
latitude temperate regions.
Losses at the 4° C policy commitment reach over 60% for both low latitude and mid latitude
temperate regions.
Other research
For Africa
Losses by 2050 to 5 basic food crops range from 8 to 22%.
Rice productivity in Pacific regions
Losses are up to 20% by 2050. Losses to rice yields from the 4C policy commitment is up to
50%.
4C World UK Met Office
The UK Met Office published a 4C global temperature increase map with regional temperature
increases and impacts shown in 2009.
Agricultural yields are expected to decrease yields for all cereal crops in all regions for global
average increases above 3C (The Impact of Global Temperature Rise of 4C - 2009).
The regional warming at 4C for the best world food producing regions is from 5C to 7C. The US
best food producing region is 7C.
Climate crop models can be dangerously misleading as they fail to capture many of the multiple
adverse impacts of global warming and climate change on crops.
One such factor is peak warming on crop health that applies to the US.
The United States produces 41% of the world’s corn and 38% of the world’s soybeans. These crops
comprise two of the four largest sources of caloric energy produced and are thus critical for world
food supply. Yields are predicted to decrease by 25-35% by 2050 and 63–82% under the most
rapid warming scenario (A1FI) by the end of the century.
( Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate
change W. Schlenker, M. Roberts PNAS 2008)
The climate crop models results are real world underestimates
Terrible though these climate crop model results are in the real world they underestimate
losses, and as temperatures rise the amount of the under-estimate will increase.
The text below is from the NRC Climate Stabilizations Targets 2010.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
38
Several major crops and regions reveal consistently negative temperature sensitivities, with
between 5-10% yield loss per degree warming estimated both by process-based and statistical
approaches.
Most of the nonlinearity in Figure 5.1 reflects the fact that CO2 benefits for yield saturate at higher
CO2 levels.
Because temperate land areas will warm faster than the global average this corresponds to
roughly 1.25-2°C in global average temperature.
For C3 crops, the negative effects of warming are often balanced by positive CO2 effects up to 2-3°C
local warming in temperate regions, after which negative warming effects dominate. For C4 crops,
even modest amounts of warming are detrimental in major growing regions given the small
response to CO2 .
The expected impacts illustrated in Figure 5.1 are useful as a measure of the likely direction and
magnitude of average yield changes, but fall short of a complete risk analysis, which would, for
instance, estimate the chance of exceeding critical thresholds.
The existing literature identifies several prominent sources of uncertainty, including those related
to the magnitude of local warming per degree global temperature increase, the sensitivity of crop
yields to temperature, the CO2 levels corresponding to each temperature level and the magnitude
of CO2 fertilization. The impacts of rainfall changes can also be important at local and regional
scales, although at broad scales the modeled impacts are most often dictated by temperature and
CO2 because simulated rainfall changes are relatively small (Lobell and Burke, 2008).
In addition, although the studies summarized in Figure 5.1 consider several of the main processes
that determine yield response to weather, several other processes have not been adequately
quantified. These include responses of weeds, insects, and pathogens; changes in water resources
available for irrigation; effects of changes in surface ozone levels; effects of increased flood
frequencies; and responses to extremely high temperatures.
Moreover, most crop modeling studies have not considered changes in sustained droughts, which
are likely to increase in many regions (Wang, 2005; Sheffield and Wood, 2008), or potential
changes in year-to-year variability of yields.
The net effect of these and other factors remains an elusive goal, but these are likely to push yields
in a negative direction
Adaptation responses by growers are also poorly understood and could, in contrast, reduce
yield losses.
Sourced climate crop model results
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
39
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
40
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
41
Please also find the link to more information, graphics and illustrations:
http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/fsn/docs/HLPEII/Climate_Emergency_Institute.pdf
Dr. Peter Carter
Environmental Health Protection Policy
Climate Emergency Institute
Canada
17. Chencho Norbu, Department of Agriculture, Bhutan
Dear FSN members,
Thank you for sharing the paper. I would like to share some thoughts on items mentioned below
( first General comments followed by specific observations)
General comments:
1. Land degradation is a serious concern among small farmers who have limited access to arable
land for their food security. Soil erosions, loss of soil organic matter, land slides, land slips,
gullies ..are common symptoms that we can observe. These symptoms trigger erosion of
biological productivity of arable land that has direct impact on food production, and carbon
sequesteration function of soils. Although there is a mention about agronomic practices under
chapter 3 ( section 3.3.1 Availability), it is not adequately addressed. I would propose a
separate bullet for land degradation to capture the concerns of small producers under chapter 1.
Specific comments.
1. Page 9- 1.4.2 Role of women in agricultural production:
Women's access to land resources and her role in food production is changing rapidly, and also
varies across different regions governed by their norms and values. These changes come in with
education, and improved technologies. In many ways, it is more to do with extension approaches
adopted to provide technologies. It may not be good idea to bring gender issue when physical
environment differs widely among geographic regions. What we should focus is on education
and easy access to improved technologies .
2. Page 15- 1.4.3.3 Food Security and climate change effects after harvest
Access to simple post harvest technologies is critical for small farmers living in humid zones ( in
particular) to keep their seeds for the coming seasons. Many farmers who are living distance
away from road heads lose their seeds to pest and diseases under such environment. Supply of
locally adapted good seeds is important to increase food availability. Post harvest interventions
after the harvest is also equally important for small farmers. if there are locally available cold
storage facilities, farmers can store it to earn additional income when there is a good price for
local produce in the market. Post harvest interventions are important for all growers, big or
small.
3. Page 17-1.4.5 Utilization
For small and poor farmers, education, advocacy and awareness is important to improve their
dietary habits. Physical environment may be suitable to grow wide range of nutritious
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
42
vegetables and fruits, yet we see many farmers not moving away from their traditional practices.
So along with improved technologies, we must emphasise education/awareness..
4. Page 27 - Chapter 3 Adaptation
I would place importance on easy access to improved technologies for adaptations... access to
germplasm ( biotic and abiotic resistant varieties ). Many small countries and small farmers do
not have resources or easy access to such materials..
5. Page 37- Mitigation options in Agriculture
One potential technology is SLM ..Sustainable Land Management as mentioned by one of the
participants in this forum. I support his view and specifically supported through GEF and UNCCD
programs/activites. SLM also provides opportunity for 3 RIO/UN conventions to work together
on a farm to adapt and mitigate climate change.
On SRI ( system of rice intensification), please examine labor requirements to plant, weed and
manage water. Labor force is serious concern where farm machines are not in place or physical
environment limits its use.
Thank you for providing this opportunity. If I do have more observations, I will come back again.
Chencho Norbu,
Department of Agriculture,
Thimphu, Bhutan
18. Lizzy Igbine, Nigerian Women Farmer Association, Nigeria
This is an issue worth discussing as we are all vulnerable and victims in one way or the other,
coupled with the fact that we have not developed a working template on its Mitigation or
Adaptation strategy.Climate Change affects and determines food production and farmers are to
be Climate literate to know when to farm, what produce in a given area, and how to go about
mitigating the effects on their farms.
Information is the key, when a farmer is uninformed or do not take into cognisance the weather
report of a given day. His planning and going to farm at a particular day will be wasted as he
could have used that day for other indoor job or preparations.
Climate information is the farmers tool to achieving food security and so more research is
encouraged into Climate Change if we are to meet our target as it makes or mares the farmers
efforts.
19. Kamal Karunagoda, Department of Agriculture, Sri Lanka
Dear Moderator
I found that the working paper on “food security, farming and climate change” is a very
comprehensive report. The report has addressed major concerns of climate change and it has
given clear directions for policy makers and other stakeholders to take effective actions to
counteract the impacts of climate change. I think that little more emphasize on following areas
would improve the report.
•
The importance of the use of farmer/climatic heterogeneity as a mitigation option:
The expected changes in the climate may have different effect on different climatic zones
within a country. Identification of these differences and use of these differences to
__________________________________
43
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
•
•
•
•
mitigate the climatic impacts would be an appropriate strategy. Conservation of
agricultural resources in more stable regions would subdue the impact effects of the
climate change.
Seed security: The effect of climate change could be aggravated by its impact on
availability, accessibility and use of seeds. Loss of crops or seed stocks due to floods or
drought may require buffer stocks of seeds for replanting and planting in the following
season. The availability, accessibility and use of seeds would be a vital factor in
mitigation options. Unlike seeds of traditional varieties, seeds of modern varieties do
not perform well under non-optimal environmental conditions. Therefore, R&D on seed
related technology also an important aspect of mitigating the impacts of climate change.
Investments in development of critical infrastructure (drainage systems,
conservation of flood preventive low lands, etc.) would be vital for developing countries
to mitigate climate change impacts.
Further, investments on human capital and institutional development (property
rights on land, new plant varieties, regulations, etc. ) would lay the foundation for
implementation of effective mitigation options.
Where it is appropriate, investments on protected houses to protect the crops from
extreme weather condition could be one of the mitigation measures. Promotion of
urban agriculture would improve the availability of food for urban populations.
Kamal Karunagoda
Agricultural Economist
Department of Agriculture
Sri Lanka
20. Luca Colombo, FIRAB, Italy
The Fondazione Italiana per la Ricerca in Agricoltura Biologica e Biodinamica (FIRAB)4 follows
the HLPE work since its establishment and is pleased to contribute to the e-consultation on the
V0 draft of the Report on Food Security (FS) and Climate Change (CC). FIRAB further recognizes
the relevance of the topic and the importance of a pertinent deliberation from the Committee on
World Food Security (CFS).
Given the significance of the subject FIRAB notes with disappointment that the V0 draft was
incompletely delivered for the e-consultation, thus disabling a thorough comment: the
unfinished section on agrofuels’ pros and cons (ref. page 39 of the V0 draft) offers a valid
explanation for this disappointment.
Overall considerations
The document presents a useful summary of the available scientific information on CC impacts
and the relevant implications on FS. The specific impact on already food insecure constituencies
(smallholder farmers, women, the elders and children) is usefully highlighted indicating the
urgency of targeted measures and policies, as well as the necessity to empower small scale
4 The Fondazione Italiana per la Ricerca in Agricoltura Biologica e Biodinamica (English name: Italian
Foundation for Research in Organic and Biodynamic Agriculture) was set up in 2007 by organic and biodynamic
farmer, environmental and labor associations to promote applied research through a participatory approach
and operates technical and scientific dissemination.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
44
farmers. Similarly, the relevance of ‘local lessons’ is reckoned showing that a global phenomenon
such as CC can be resourcefully addressed if community efforts are valued and supported.
Despite this recognition, no adequate and pertinent policy recommendations are suggested in
the document. Viceversa, while the climatic situation and its effects are depicted in their
dramatic dimension, recommendations for policies and actions do not seem to be inspired by a
comparable sense of urgency and by the radical need to reverse business as usual and the
current economic
and productive mainstream system. FIRAB considers and suggests that the document be fed by a
mostly needed policy courage enabling the CFS to deliberate accordingly.
The attention to the food security pillars, as indicated in the project team mandate, is certainly
useful as analytical tool. These dimensions show radically different dynamics in rural and urban
areas and in different sociocultural contexts and these aspects are not sufficiently taken into
account. A good example is given by the World Bank reference to global poverty, mentioned in
the V0 draft, that appears useless and misleading, as well as the claimed progress from the early
80’s to current times on absolute deprivation (based on % of population living below the $1.25
or $2 poverty lines) that ignores the change in purchasing power, thus being quite pointless, if
not annoying.
FIRAB positively notes that the IAASTD experience is conveniently recalled and that there is no
trite endorsement for any role to be played on CC by biotechnology. Viceversa, FIRAB highlights
that the actual and factual contribution offered by organic farming is not recalled and recognized
neither as a suitable agricultural model able to respond to CC challenges and to mitigate climate
chaos nor as a knowledge- and biodiversity- rich practice to adapt to it, hampering a wider
adoption of agricultural and research policies that efficiently target CC.
FIRAB finally welcomes the final recommendation to substantially invest in public research and
extension and the call to urgently act in this direction, with a clear focus on small-scale farms
and farmers that provide “important productivity, resiliency and poverty-reduction benefits”.
More generally, though, it has to be noted that the final recommendations appear to be too mild
and vague to respond to the urgency of the climatic and food insecurity situation. Moreover, it
cannot be accepted that mitigation activities should be targeted to areas with cost effectiveness,
i.e. developing countries, or left to “market based mechanisms”. These activities should rather be
adopted immediately and everywhere under clear political responsibility.
Detailed comments
More specifically, while CC and the human responsibilities are definitely given as a matter of
fact, impact scenarios seem to be poor and limited to already available ‘evidence’ integrated by
predictions derived from a few models. Chapter 3 on adaptation is hardly debatable being more
an index than a thorough reasoning; most of the considerations made in the introduction do not
add significant value or inspire substantial changes to current policies and practices. The
sectoral approaches to adaptation seem to be tailored to mitigate business risks rather than to
responsibilize actors in order to respond to societal and climatic impacts of the development
model. The whole financial sector section is inspired by a disguised market mechanism that
already proved to be ineffective in shielding poor and food insecure people. It is finally unclear
whether ‘civil society’ is considered as a further player or not. In any case, FIRAB rejects the idea
to include ‘major foundations’ (that we intend as supposedly philanthropic foundations) within
the civil society constituency, particularly if projected to develop partnerships “with the private
sector to translate advances in science into products and interventions (…)”.
Policy messages in chapter 3 clearly positively focus on the building/strengthening of resilient
food systems and on the need to make ample use of existing and new knowledge about social,
economic and biophysical aspects: while a wide range of knowledge and techniques is
mentioned, FIRAB notes that agroecological and participatory approaches proved to be far more
performing and this should be acknowledged in the document.
Chapter 4 on mitigation focuses on crop- and livestock-specific responsibilities on GHG
emissions and on their management, thus failing to highlight the accountability of the industrial
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
45
and agrochemical food and farming system. It is not a matter of blaming specific culprits, but this
omissions hinder the identification of clear policy areas for interventions either through taxes
and incentives or through climate friendly regulations for the agrifood sector.
Final remarks
FIRAB wishes that the HLPE work and the consequent CFS deliberations constructively operates
to respond to societal needs and to orientate State and non-State actors in order to fulfill the
right to food.
In order to do that, a HLPE document on the interlinked relationship between climate change
and food insecurity should loudly call for a drastic and immediate reduction of GHG emissions,
for a radical change in the growth and development paradigms and for a thorough redefinition
of food and agriculture systems towards more sustainable and socially responsible policies and
practices.
21. Omar B. Allahham, Ministry Of Agriculture, Jordan
Dear Sir,
Related to the Food Security and Climate Change report; the report covered all aspects that
relate to climate change, it also illustrates in detail subjects related to the impact of climate
change on food security, community, and especially the rural areas with emphasis on the role of
women, children and their relationship to food security
Some of the points I would like to point out:
The programs and policies related to climate change must be built on the concept of reducing
poverty and achieving food security.
The risks and challenges related to climate change and its effects on food security must be taken
into consideration.
The report needs to increase focus on small-scale agricultural land and its importance in
achieving food security for poor rural areas, which constitute a high proportion of agricultural
production in the world. It need to explore how to enable those working in small scale
agriculture including "women and children" to achieve the highest level of production through
the access to modern technology and extension and information, vital for production and how
to direct investments towards this group.
Best Regards
Eng. Omar B. Allahham
Studies & Policies Department
Head of Policies Division
Ministry Of Agriculture
Amman-Jordan
22. Third World Network, Malaysia
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the zero draft of the Report. We
appreciate the work that has gone into tackling this very complex issue.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
46
The work of the HLPE and the CFS is crucial in the discussion on climate change and food
security and could provide important policy direction. As such, it is critical that the framing for
the Report is right, and we were disappointed with the Report in this respect. Our concerns
include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
Given the severity of the climate threat – at this very moment – in very vulnerable,
already food-insecure regions, and the potential for even more severe impacts on
agriculture and the food security of billions who depend on agriculture for their
livelihoods in the very near future, added urgency needs to be injected into the Report.
Climate change is not only a “threat multiplier” (p. 7); it poses a real and present danger
via direct effects on agriculture and food security.
In meeting the mandate of the study to focus on “the most affected and vulnerable
regions and populations” and given the urgency of the threat of climate change to
agriculture and food security, the emphasis of the Report must be on adaptation, which
is the urgent priority for developing countries, especially for the poor and vulnerable.
Policies are urgently needed that can increase support for adaptation efforts, improve
food security and increase resilience. Currently, there is an imbalance between the
mitigation and adaptation chapters, and the Report needs to really improve greatly on
the adaptation chapter and give it more prominence.
Agroecological approaches, particularly with respect to improving soil structure, waterholding capacity and fertility, conserving and sustainably using agricultural biodiversity,
and traditional water harvesting and water management practices should be at the
forefront of the Report, given the tremendous contribution they can make to adaptation,
resilience and food security. The Report is conspicuously silent on this on this issue,
despite extensive support elsewhere (e.g. FAO, IFAD, IAASTD, IPPC SREX Report, UNEP,
UNCTAD, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food – see also below for a list of useful
references). Agroecological approaches are low-cost and no-regrets options as they
bring benefits to whatever system they are used in. Furthermore, agroecological
approaches can also mitigate GHG emissions, by reducing emissions and sequestering
carbon. For example, the potential for agroecological approaches to reduce the use of
synthetic nitrogen fertilizers should be further explored, particularly given that the
contribution of synthetic fertilizers to climate change are substantial.
Many answers lie in farmers’ fields and farmer knowledge, for example, how to create
healthy soils that store more water under drought conditions and how to grow a
diversity of crops to create the resilience needed to face increased unpredictability in
weather patterns. The important contribution of farmers’ practices, innovation and
knowledge is not acknowledged nor highlighted in the Report, and this is worrisome as
policy design to support sharing and exchange of information and innovation,
community efforts at conserving agriculture biodiversity, building a research continuum
from farmers to researchers, etc. will be left out if this omission is not rectified.
With respect to mitigation, not just in the specific chapter on the issue but also
throughout the Report, the Report erroneously fails to address the contribution of inputand energy-intensive agriculture, characteristic of the industrial systems of the North, to
climate change. This is where the reduction in emissions from agriculture should start. In
particular, emphasis should be placed on the two potent GHGs which are the main
emissions from agriculture – nitrous oxide and methane – and the actions that could be
taken to reduce this in the developed world, for example, by drastically decreasing use of
synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and by avoiding intensive industrial animal production
facilities dependent on liquid manure management, as well as addressing the
consumption issue head-on. Instead, the mitigation burden appears to be shifted in the
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
47
•
•
•
Report to developing countries and small farmers (e.g. p. 1 & 9) who did the least to
cause climate change and who are generally low-emitting but already facing the
consequences of climate change. While control of agricultural emissions from developing
countries is needed, this should start with a phasing out of input-intensive systems
where they occur, and be supported by financial resources and transfer of
environmentally-sound and appropriate technologies from the developed world.
The emphasis on soil carbon sequestration in the mitigation chapter, which by extension
focuses on the mitigation potential of billions of acres of land in developing countries,
diverts attention from the tremendous emissions reduction effort that is needed in
developed countries as well as from the adaptation support that developing-country
farmers need. Coupled with the reference to the importance of supporting the creation of
market-based mechanisms (p. 41), which is made without any supporting discussion,
evidence or references as to why this should be the case, this becomes extremely
problematic. In order to generate the market for offset credits, continued emissions are
required somewhere and this means that developed countries will continue on a path of
emitting GHGs, leaving developing-country agriculture at risk from continued emissions
and the ensuing climate change, while creating a disincentive for the necessary
transition to low-emissions agriculture in the developed world. Moreover, there are
technical and other difficulties to surmount, not least the fact that soil carbon
sequestration is only temporary, the cost of measuring carbon in soils is quite high, a
compliance market for soil carbon does not exist and the voluntary market is too small to
provide adequate funding for adaptation efforts, and small farmers stand little to gain.
While REDD-plus mechanisms may be viable climate mitigation measures (REDD is
mentioned on p. 38), implementation must be carried out with stringent adherence to
the safeguard measures (e.g. environmental integrity, land rights) as agreed to at the
UNFCCC Cancun meeting in 2010. There are also other reasons to be cautious: tropical
forests where REDD-plus projects are to be implemented are also regions in the world
where land conflicts are rife and resistance towards REDD-plus has been fuelled by
worries that giving additional value to these forests will further exacerbate those
conflicts. Some land grabs cases facilitate forest plantations disguised as reforestation.
Moreover, as with any mitigation measure, care should be taken to ensure that these do
not result in adverse effects; hence promotion of good forestry practices such as
conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks under REDD-plus should not be
done at the expense of traditional agriculture, which is the main source of food security
for indigenous communities.
The policy message on the importance of relatively free movement of food across
international borders as partial adaptation to climate change (p. 25) can be seen as
naïve. While trade can play an important role, the current imbalances in the
international trade framework have actually led to food security being compromised in
some developing countries. There is a need for international trade reform to sufficiently
reduce or remove harmful subsidies in the developed countries, while enabling
developing countries to have special treatment and safeguard mechanisms to promote
their smallholder farmers’ livelihoods and food security. Coupled with policies
supporting sustainable small-scale agriculture in developing countries, this would
improve local production for food security. Moreover, intensive, large-scale industrial
export-oriented agriculture has increased under the trade liberalization agenda and has
resulted in adverse consequences, including increased GHG emissions, so the policy
message as envisaged by the Report could be counterproductive.
Useful references:
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
48
Altieri, M.A., F.R. Funes-Monzote and P.Petersen (2011). Agroecologically efficient agricultural
systems for smallholder farmers: contributions to food sovereignty. Agron. Sustain. Dev. DOI
10.1007/s13593-011-0065-6
Altieri, M.A. and P. Koohafkan (2008). Enduring farms: Climate change, smallholders and
traditional farming communities. TWN Environment & Development Series No. 6. Third World
Network, Penang.
Badgley, C., J. Moghtader, E. Quintero, E. Zakem, J. M. Chappell, K. Aviles-Vázquez, A. Samulon,
and I. Perfecto (2007). Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture
and Food Systems 22 (2): 86-108.
Clements, R., J. Haggar, A. Quezada, and J. Torres (2011). Technologies for Climate Change
Adaptation – Agriculture Sector. X. Zhu (Ed.). UNEP Risø Centre, Roskilde.
De Schutter, O. 2010. Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De
Schutter. A/HRC/16/49. [on agroecology]
FAO (2011). Climate Change and Food Systems Resilience in Sub-Saharan Africa. FAO, Rome.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2230e/i2230e00.htm
Lin, B. B., M. J. Chappell, J. Vandermeer, G. R. Smith, E. Quintero, R. Bezner-Kerr, D. Griffith, S.
Ketchum, S. Latta, P. McMichael, K. McGuire, R. Nigh, D. Rocheleau, J. Soluri, and I. Perfecto
(2011). Effects of industrial agriculture on global warming and the potential of small-scale
agroecological farming to mitigate those effects. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture,
Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 6 (20): 1-18.
Holt-Giménez E (2002). Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in
Nicaragua: A case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93: 87–105.
UNEP-UNCTAD (2008). Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. United Nations
Publications.
Vandermeer, John, Gerald Smith, Ivette Perfecto and Eileen Quintero (2009). Effects of industrial
agriculture on global warming and the potential of small-scale agroecological techniques to
reverse those effects. The New World Agriculture and Ecology Group, Ann Arbor.
Lim Li Ching
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Pulau Pinang
Malaysia
23. Vanya Walker-Leigh, Nature Trust, Malta
These personal comments focus on the insufficient links and some unhelpfully vague references
in the Zero Draft to both the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the
negotiating process involving 193 nations within the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change and its related Kyoto Protocol.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
49
The final HLPE document could be of far greater use and relevance to stakeholders, whether
government representatives or others involved in the above processes if more specific
references were made and HLPE recommendations framed in such a way that they could then
become the basis for recommendations/advice from the Committee on World Food Security's
38th session to on-going work within both IPCC and UNFCCC.
I. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The text relating to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its work is inadequate.
(Section 2.2, page 21)
Periodically, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues assessment reports on
the
state of our understanding of climate science and interactions with the oceans, land, and human
activities20.
A more accurate description of IPCC documents than the 'our understanding' would be to say
that they report the agreed findings of a panel of several hundred (830 for the forthcoming 5th
Assessment Report) government nominated scientists who have peer-reviewed the existing
literature on climate change issues and whose collective opinion is then considered, and
endorsed, with or without amendments as the case may be, by governments.
Indeed, the final HLPE report should make a concrete forward-looking reference to AR 5 (to be
adopted by governments end October 2014) and its future expected significance both for policymaking at national level on food security related issues as well as for the UNFCCC negotiating
process launched at COP 17 in Durban South Africa (December 2011) aimed to culminate in the
adoption by 2015 of a comprehensive global agreement (exact legal nature still be be
determined) covering all aspects of climate change, for entry into force by 2020.
According to the IPCC website (www.ipcc.ch) the 5AR 'will put greater emphasis on assessing the
socio-economic aspects of climate change, and implications for sustainable development,risk
management and framing of a response through both adaptation and mitigation.It will aim to
provide more detailed information on regions, including on climate phenomena such as monsoons
and El Nino. To enhance overall integration, some aspects including water and the Earth system,
carbon cycle, ice sheets and sea level rise, and article 2 of the UNFCCC will be addressed in a crosscutting manner. Attention will also be given to consistent evaluationof uncertainties and risks,
costing and economic analyses and treatment of scenarios.
The IPCC Working Groups II and III will comprehensively review adaptation and mitigation
aspects relating to agriculture, forestry, water resources and ecosystems as well as food issues
(WG II).
•
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process
Recommendations/advice directed by the CFS 38 to the next ie 18th Conference of Parties to the
UNFCCC (Doha, Qatar 26 November-7 December 2012) on the basis of the findings of the final
HLPE report would be of special relevance since the issue of how or whether the topic of
agriculture should be addressed within the negotiations will be addressed once again in coming
months (during UNFCCC inter-sessional processes preceding the next COP). Previous
discussions failed to generate consensus.
One controversial topic, with strong proponents and opponents, is the proposal relating to 'soil
carbon credits' (generated by agricultural practices in developing nations) which could then be
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
50
used to 'offset' emissions in developed nations and incorporated into future emission trading or
other financial arrangements under the proposed comprehensive agreement.
Some of the comments and suggestions for action issued in the final HLPE document could also
usefully derive from to current UNFCCC-related mechanisms such as the 39 National Action
Programmes for Adaptation to Climate Change submitted since 2008 to UNFCCC by least
developed countries. Thus for example the final HLPE report could make a brief critical analysis
of food-security related issues contained in small selection of such NAPAs.
While these NAPAs are cast in a short-term perspective, 'urgent and immediate needs for which
further delays could increase vulnerability and to increased costs at a later stage', they remain
germane both to the concerns of the HLPE report and more long-term climate change resilience
policies to be developed by such nations.
The HLPE report could also issue at least general reflections on how best financial support for
climate-resilient food security programmes and policies in developing nations could be
addressed under the existing Adaptation Fund as well as the future operations of the UNFCCC
Green Climate Fund and whether additional mechanisms (within and outside of the UNFCCC
framework) should be contemplated.
As regards mitigation, ' (section 5.3.2, page 41)the terms used ie 'Meeting any of the emissions
goals of recent UNFCCC meetings will require both reductions in emissions'... are unhelpfully
vague.
Instead, a far more concrete reference should be made to the emission reduction commitments
made by some 80 developed and developing nations under the Copenhagen Accord (2009 – COP
15) and enshrined in the Cancun Agreements (2010- COP 16) and the extent to which these fall
far short of what is needed according to analyses in IPCC's 4th Assessment Report - 2007) to
attain a reasonable chance of limiting the increase in global temperature levels to +2c above preindustrial levels.
A discussion within the UNFCCC process of the level of 'ambition' of such reductions and how to
improve them has been mandated by the COP 17 decisions, while the desirability a second
commitment period for emission reductions under the Kyoto Protocol starting in 2013 was
endorsed. However, the level of Quantified Emission Limitation and Reduction Commitments
under th Protocol as well as the duration of the 2CP remain to be negotiated in time for COP 18.
The recent UNEP report (issued November 11 at UNFCCC-COP 17) 'Bridging the Emissions Gap'
demonstrates that this 'gap' can be bridged by 2020 using existing technologies.
As regards the forestry and agricultural sectors, the UNEP report finds that the following
reductions could be achieved:
The forestry sector: 1.3 to 4.2 GtCO2e per year through a reduction in deforestation, and changes
in forest
management that increase above and below ground carbon stocks.
The agriculture sector: 1.1 to 4.3 GtCO2e per year through changes in cropland and livestock
management that reduce non-CO2 emissions and enhance soil carbon.
The 'gap' issue is directly related to on-going reflections about the adequacy of the +2c goal,
endorsed by governments in 2009 which most current scientific thinking indicates could have
very severe impacts in particular on many developing nations and their food producing
capacities, as well as on the physical survival of numerous low-lying small island states (which
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
51
could be inundated by related expected sea level rise). Since before COP 15 (2009) over 100
developing nations have been advocating a maximum goal of +1.5C, and the issue will be
debated under the (2013-2015) Review process provided for under the COP 17 decisions which
will be inter alia informed by the IPCC 5AR findings.
While not entering into these issues in detail, the final HLPE report should indicate briefly a
greater degree of awareness of the above than appears in the current Zero Draft.
Vanya Walker-Leigh, economist and journalist, Malta.
She represents Nature Trust Malta (NGO) within Climate Action Network International and the
Malta Organic Agriculture Movement in the Civil Society Mechanism for the Committee on World
Food Security.
24. Geoff Tansey, UK
Thank you for the opportunity to make comments on the zero draft.
My most general comment is that the draft focuses too heavily on the physical challenges posed
for the future of food provisioning by climate change and pays insufficient attention to the socioeconomic and political challenges. While it may be argued it is implicit in the definition used for
food security on page 2, the issues around who has power and control in the food system and
where the risks / benefits fall from any changes are insufficiently addressed. By the way, the
definition used on page 2 for food security is different from the definition used on page 51 in the
glossary.
On page 3, while the rich may assume they will be okay in the short run we are also considering
the long run here. In the worst case scenarios for climate change the socio-political changes that
would be brought on by severe climate change would affect everybody and could precipitate
severe conflicts.
On chapter 3, where you asked for more specific feedback, on the 6 bullet point on page 27, the
need for reforms goes beyond the food system itself. Also you should address the need to rethink
the extension of the intellectual property system into food and farming, and its appropriateness
given the challenges faced. Many of these issues are discussed in the book I co-edited called the
future control of food.
I was surprised to find no discussion of the importance of the restructuring of the Committee on
Food Security and the broadening of the base of those involved in its discussions to include civil
society. On page 30, on the 6th bullet point, I would again suggests the need to address the rules
on intellectual property should be included. More generally, in this section, I think it would be
worth taking into account the struggle that is going on to define the future direction and control
of the food system. This is captured well in the characterisation of the 2 different approaches
under what they call the ‘productivity’ and ‘sufficiency’ narratives in the EC’s Standing
Committee on Agricultural Research’s (SCAR) 3rd foresight report. I suggest that the direction of
travel should be towards the sufficiency narrative, and this then would ripple through how we
would direct R&D funding and the areas to focus on. This would include, as you identify, more
funding of often neglected subjects such as agronomy and soil science (I should declare an
interest, my first degree was in soil science), but it needs to go much further than that.
On page 31, final section on agribusiness ,I think here you need to discuss issues around the
discount rates applied to investment decisions which tend to be far too short-term and therefore
skew the kind of decisions taken. Secondly, I think you need to address the issues on
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
52
financialisation within the food system and the trend to see food as an asset class and land as a
new opportunity for short-term investment gains.
Overall, I think there is too physical focus throughout this chapter. The challenges posed by
climate change in relation not just to food but to other basic human requirements will require
innovative social and political rethinking this century the like of which we may not have seen
before.
On page 43, what seems to be missing is the knowledge intensive traditional knowledge farming
experience that needs to be brought in and also the challenges posed to sharing knowledge
between those with such experience and those with a scientific training. Finally, I think there is a
need in the policy messages to look at fundamental economic changes that are required to
change the drivers behind private sector activity.
On page 38, you talk about secure property rights and I think this needs unpacking. Sometimes,
it may be about land rights but at others about clear Commons management systems that need
securing. It should also be made clear that the misleadingly-labelled ‘intellectual property
rights’ system–which in reality is a system of monopoly or exclusionary privileges–is itself
problematic.
I have not checked all the references but I did notice on p39 some of the references are not
included in the references at the end of the text. Also I'm not sure that the juxtaposition there
between ‘intensification’ and ‘extensification’ is the appropriate one. The SCAR 3rd foresight
report’s ‘sufficiency’ and ‘productivity’ narratives might be a better juxtaposition. I wonder too if
this whole report is too agriculture focused when you're talking about the issue of food security,
which is much wider than the impact on agricultural production of climate change.
On page 40, section 5.2 the 1st line I think you should add ‘tackle inequality’ after ‘be part of
efforts to’ as the growing inequality in the world is one of the key issues this will affect the
capacity to tackle climate change. In this section there should also be at least a brief discussion of
the implications of climate change on food provisioning for global and regional governance. New
systems of cooperation, reserves creation and systems management, as well as approaches to
food finance and investment are needed that are quite different from those that pertain to date.
We need changes from the short-term pressures for production approaches requiring quicker
returns to longer-term approaches requiring sharing knowledge and techniques, facilitating
provision of access to stocks in emergencies, and the like. Otherwise the probability that the
pressures induced by climate change will lead to undesirable conflicts is high. Indeed, as you
point out in section 5.3 local lessons learned are most valuable when they are shared. We need
better mechanisms to facilitate sharing and this is where one of the fundamental problems with
the extension of the intellectual property rights regime comes in.
Finally, in the glossary, the term ‘sustainable intensification’ is much more contested than your
definition would suggest. In particular, the last sentence may be misleading in that the term is
used by some to focus on a particular approach to the future that would be linked much more
closely to the productivity narrative of the SCAR report rather than the sufficiency narrative. It is
being used to promote a continuation of the industrial, fossil fuel based approach to farming
with the technocratic fix approach to the future rather than an ecologically based approach.
Thank you for the opportunity to feeding these comments, which have obviously focused on
areas where I see deficiencies rather than the many good points that are contained in the draft.
Geoff Tansey,
Writer and consultant
www.tansey.org.uk
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
53
25. People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS), Kenya
The People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS), a global network of grassroots organizations
of small food producers, peasants, women, indigenous peoples, fisherfolk, dalits, consumer
groups and their support NGOs, welcomes the comprehensive background on the state of
climate change and the nexus between agriculture, food security and climate change. PCFS
believes that expert discussions on these issues must include grassroots experts who have
practical experience tilling the land and engaging in small-scale food production. Given the
disproportionate responsibility for environmental degradation and GHG emissions of industrial
agri-corporations (as opposed to small-scale famers), PCFS maintains that climate change
adaptation and mitigation policies will be meaningless without addressing the practices of these
agri-corporations.
We therefore forward the following suggestions regarding the policies in this paper:
Policies to achieve Climate Change Adaptation: Chapter 3
1. PCFS strongly recommends that the paper adopt food sovereignty as a framework in place of
food security. Food sovereignty is a more encompassing concept, which takes into account food
producers’ ownership and control of food production as well as access to food. Food sovereignty
also establishes sustainable agriculture as a core element of rights to food. A food security
framework fails to address the structural causes of poverty and hunger and consequently will
fail to achieve long term poverty alleviation.
2. Climate change adaptation policies and strategies need to emphasise sustainable agriculture
and agro-ecological farming practices as opposed to mainly focusing on mitigation through soil
carbon sequestration. Improving farming methods with a focus on sustainable farming that
maintains the quality of the soil and surrounding ecosystems while producing high yields is
essential to ensure that fertile land is not destroyed.
3. The paper focuses disproportionately on the role of small-scale farmers in climate change
mitigation. It neglects to address the role of industrial agriculture in climate change. The High
Level Panel of Experts on Land Tenure and International Investments in Agriculture of the
Committee for Food Security has noted that industrial scale plantations have caused
deforestation in many areas and massive releases of carbon from peatlands. Industrial agricorporations also use higher proportions of fertilisers and intense livestock farming than smallscale farmers. One half of land use change and forestry emissions are due to expansion in forests
for feed crop and livestock production while a significant percentage is also due to land
conversion of forested areas for biofuel production (Steinfield et al. 2006) Industrial agriculture
produces far higher GHG emissions arising from almost every stage of production, aggressive
farming methods degrade the environment making it more vulnerable to extreme weather
conditions, they also pollute local water systems with run off chemical fertilisers and exhaust the
land through monocropping. Climate change mitigation and adaptation policies are futile
without addressing the practices of industrial agriculture.
4. Public-Private initiatives on climate change should not include alternative financing for
mitigation strategies such as developing carbon credits in agriculture. The carbon markets are
currently failing and there are little returns for small-scale farmers in using soil carbon credits (a
report by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy on research on the Kenya Agriculture
Carbon Project – one of the World Bank ideal case studies – shows that farmers involved in the
project are estimated to earn $1 a year from soil carbon sequestration in ideal conditions).
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
54
Furthermore, they do not reduce overall GHGs but merely justify the increased emissions of
Northern countries.
5. Initiatives improving resilience of agriculture livelihoods need to be based in grassroots
organisations and cooperatives. Including grassroots organisations in research, development,
implementation and dissemination of climate change adaptation techniques is a costeffective
method of developing and sharing techniques which are suitable to the local environment,
culture and context. It also develops ownership of projects and higher rates of participation and
success. Famers need to be active partners in climate change adaptation to achieve food security.
6. PCFS recommends that the adaptation strategies need to take account of current waste of food
– estimated at nearly a third of current food produced. Adaptation strategies need to include
techniques to reduce current waste of food through post harvest practices, poor storage and
transportation. It is also essential to tackle unsustainable consumption patterns and waste at the
marketing and consumer stages especially in Northern Countries where large quantities of food
are rejected while still edible.
On high level key messages for national and international policy makers, Chapter 5
It is essential that the key messages recognise the need for consultation of small-scale food
producers in developing policy at the national and international level. As outlined above, smallscale food producers are the intended beneficiaries of these projects and the primary actors in
their implementation. To ensure that they truly benefit from the policies, it is important to
include them in the formulation, planning and development of policies so that they can include
their insights from living, and working on the land as well as developing their ownership of the
policies.
On Chapter 3.4.2: Governments and International Organisations
PCFS recommends the adoption of accountability mechanisms related to climate change and
food security. For example, national legal systems should support land rights of small-scale
farmers in situations of land grabbing; there should be financial regulation to prevent food price
speculation; and there should be regulation of industrial farming to stop unsustainable farming
methods.
26. Gerhard Flachowsky, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Germany
Congratulation to your discussion on Food Security and some influencing factors. Many details
were discussed and valuable proposals to overcome/improve the situation were given by the
contributors.
Personally, I miss some substantial/fundamental proposals to overcome the situation and to
develop sustainable solutions for food security under consideration of potential climate changes,
but also under consideration of resource efficiency, environmental aspects and other important
influencing factors.
The present situation is characterized by a growing world population and a higher need for food
and natural resources such as water, arable land, fuel and minerals as well as by growing
emissions with greenhouse potential. Activities in food production contribute to a certain degree
to resource needs and pollution.
The efficient production of phytogenic biomass under consideration of potential climate changes
is a real challenge for all those dealing with sustainable food production, food security and using
such biomass. Plant breeding in the traditional way and/or green biotechnology can be
considered as the starting point for the whole food chain and many other processes on the basis
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
55
of phytogenic biomass. High and stable plant yields with low external inputs of limited resources
(e.g. water, fuel, land, minerals etc.) and under consideration of expected climate changes are
among to the most important objectives of plant breeding. The plants should be more resistant
against biotic and abiotic stressors incl. climate changes (such as heat, coldness, drought etc.)
and they should use very efficient unlimited natural resources such as sun energy, nitrogen and
carbon dioxide from the air. Higher plant yields and more efficient conversion of feed into food
of animal origin may also contribute to a lower need for arable land per inhabitant. Calculations
of the need of arable land for food production for humans under consideration of plant and
animal yields, human intake (e.g. edible protein and other nutrients) and other influencing
factors on the global view may be helpful to assess the necessary intensity of plant and animal
production in the future.
Enough high quality phytogenic biomass for animal feeding and animal breeding may also
contribute to a more efficient conversion of feed into food of animal origin and lower emissions.
One of the most important objectives of animal breeding should be a high dry matter/energy
intake in order to have more energy for animal yields and to relatively reduce the portion for
maintenance of animals.
Public and private research in these fields has to contribute to a sustainable food security, also
under consideration of various influencing factors (incl. potential climate change).
Gerhard Flachowsky (Prof. Dr.)
Institute of Animal Nutrition
Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute (FLI)
Federal Research Institute for Animal Health
Germany
27. Germany, through the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection
Germany highly welcomes the consultation paper of the HLPE on Food Security and Climate
Change. Overall, it must be mentioned, that the paper, which is of high relevance for the
eradication of hunger and malnutrition, contains structural and substantial weaknesses, which
comprise the overall findings of the study. In this regard, we recommend for a comprehensive
revision of the Draft Consultation Paper.
First set of questions:
• Does the report include sufficient information to support the policy messages and is it written
in a way that captures the complexity of the challenges to food security from climate change,
while not being too technical?
The study is attempting to cover the complexity of the issue at stake and has been written in a
comprehensive language, especially with regard to the claimed target group of policy-decision
makers. However, due to the fact that only a relatively limited number of publications have been
consulted, the study is missing to address some relevant issues. For example, current initiatives
concerning for instance “climate smart agriculture” (WB), “sustainable intensification” (FAO) as
well as the potential of mechanisms such as CDM or UNFCCC’s initiatives like NAPAs and NAMAs
are failed to be mentioned and discussed.
The study also lacks to mention controversial topics like, “zero tillage” and “biochar” as
examples for climate smart technologies, the usage of GMOs for increased agricultural
production and productivity, the importance of responsible governance of Tenure of Land, the
role of marginalized groups like pastoralists and indigenous people.
Moreover, the study mentions cross-cutting issues like gender and economic development.
However, by doing so, the focus of the study diverts from the three high level policy messages it
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
56
attempts to cover. This causes distractions and averts from the needed attention the crosscutting issues “gender” and “economic development” deserve.
The discussion of future climate scenarios is honorable, but too technical to be understood by
the target group and not necessary in this depth given the focus of the study.
Second set of questions:
• Have we chosen the best set of topics? How could our policy messages be improved? Have
important messages been omitted?
The structure of the study is not quite comprehensive and logical. For instance, the reader only
partly understands why the text is broken down into the two main chapters “Assessing Impacts
today” and “Assessing impacts tomorrow”. Additionally, there is an incoherent logic in the way
that in some sub-divisions of the text certain subjects are mentioned, whereas in others the
same subjects are missing. For example, while the topic “agro-climate vulnerability of special
zones and regions” is mentioned in 1.3., it is not even addresses in 1.4.1.. The way in which the
topic food security is divided into the its four categories is not comprehensive for the target
group as well. Overall, contextual messages are often selective, therefore not balanced and
sometimes even partly false. For example, on page 5 the description of the diagram states
“Within the group of non-annex 1 countries, South Asia has the lowest per capita emission”.
However, South Asia is not a country, but a region.
Important messages that have not been omitted include institutional questions. For instance:
“How can institutional development be facilitated on community, regional and national level in
order to increase the resilience and inhibit vulnerability?”
Third set of questions:
• Do the concepts presented in annotated outline form cover appropriate material? Do
additional topics need to be covered? Do some current topics need to be eliminated?
Overall, the structure of the study is not comprehensive. The structure lacks to include an
introduction to the climate change phenomenon and additionally does not mention the
significance of the different sources of emissions, which is necessary to capture the complexity
of the issue.
For further detailed answers please consider the comments made above.
Fourth set of questions:
• Are the three high level policy messages the most important messages for national and
international policy makers?
The three high level policy messages are highly relevant and important, however the study itself
seems to stand a little isolated. It is not well integrated with overall FAO strategy and does not
mention the overlapping issues. Nevertheless, Germany has no objections against the three high
level policy messages.
Fifth set of questions:
• How can the text be improved to convey these (or other) messages?
As mentioned above, we suggest that the whole study and its policy recommendations are better
integrated and linked with FAO strategy. However, the three high level policy messages are
clearly communicated and do not need to be stressed any further.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
57
28. Christine Negra, CCAFS Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change,
USA
Thank you for your invitation to comment on the work by the CFS-HLPE. I have reviewed the
climate change report and offer the following suggestions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
First, you will not be surprised by my suggestion to draw upon the work of
the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change which recently released
its final report on Achieving Food Security in the Context of Climate Change. For
example, I would point toward the topic of food waste as something the Commission
addressed that is treated relatively lightly in the VO draft. (The requested citation for the
report is: Beddington J, Asaduzzaman M, Clark M, Fernández A, Guillou M, Jahn M, Erda L,
Mamo T, Van Bo N, Nobre CA, Scholes R, Sharma R, Wakhungu J. 2012. Achieving food
security in the face of climate change: Final report from the Commission on Sustainable
Agriculture and Climate Change. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change,
Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Copenhagen, Denmark. Available online
at: www.ccafs.cgiar.org/commission.)
Importantly, the VO draft focuses on vulnerable populations. It is also important to
highlight the role that agriculture and food systems in developed and rapidly developing
nations can play in mitigating climate change (eg, efficient fertilizer and fossil fuel use).
The contribution of Annex I countries to GHG emissions globally is usefully highlighted in
Figure 2 and 3 and in the statement "Meeting any of the emissions goals of recent
UNFCCC meetings will require both reductions in emissions from Annex 1 countries and
reductions in emissions growth in non-Annex 1 countries." Also, it seems useful to strike
a careful balance between calling for explicit action in support of vulnerable populations
while emphasizing that future climate and food system risks are faced by the entire
global population both directly and indirectly (eg, through food price shocks, civil unrest,
disease burden, etc). In this context, the business case for focused investment by global
donors in support of vulnerable regions and populations is both humanitarian and
pragmatic.
The first sentence of section 1.4 is a bit unclear and seems to suggest that food insecurity
largely stems from increase in population and income in developing countries. Can this
discussion be expanded to capture a broader range of drivers of food insecurity?
Section 1.4.3 eloquently conveys the importance of farming as fundamental to food
security and points to social transitions in percentage of people in farming. Could this
section say more about projected impacts on livelihoods if rural, agrarian nations were
to follow this same development path?
Conclusions from Section 1 might say more about other strategies beyond boosting
production (eg, increasing storage options, risk management strategies). Ideally this
section would provide greater granularity in recommending specific types of policies
and programs.
It's not immediately clear what "Use" refers to in section 2.5. In this section, the
conclusion regarding enhanced food trade, while not an unreasonable position to take, is
not well supported by the preceding discussion — perhaps a more robust development
of this section would help. Also, while reducing barriers to food trade is considered by
some but not all to be part of the solution to managing food price volatility — can the
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
58
•
•
•
•
•
•
report address the current state of knowledge and political agreement on this topic?
Could section 2.7 offer some options for addressing the gaps in data and modeling
capability?
For broad statements such as on p34 regarding the likelihood of a 4 degree C global
temperate rise, it might be useful to provide high-credibility citations.
The last bullet item on p34 is quite important to emphasize and substantiate with
evidence and examples as it is not a universally held view.
Section 4 is especially well-developed although its focus is restricted to the technical
dimensions of mitigation and doesn't include much discussion of the socio-economic
dimensions — could this be strengthened? Also, can the role of shifting diets (both as a
contributor to the food system's GHG emissions and as a potential area for policy
response) be included?
It's hard to disagree with the idea that "Both public-public and public-private
partnerships are essential" but has the case been made sufficiently for why this is true
and how these can be enhanced and better coordinated?
Overall, the VO draft has identified many of the important issues, but in a somewhat
fragmented way. A next iteration would ideally provide a bit more connectivity across
the issues and the proposed responses. This would be particularly helpful in Section 5.
I appreciate your consideration of these ideas.
Regards,
Dr Christine Negra
Coordinator, CCAFS Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change
29. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), Germany
IFOAM is the global umbrella organization for organic food and farming with 870 member
organizations operating resilient, affordable, ecosystem based and people-centered green
economies in 120 countries worldwide. We thank you for pulling this very useful report together
and for the chance to contribute.
The CFS is a very important vehicle for guiding the transformation of agriculture towards
sustainability and greater equity and we urge the CFS to provide leadership in helping organic
agriculture to achieve its potential as a very important tool in addressing food security and
climate change.
We have provided below brief responses to some of the questions poised in your guidelines as
well as have attached a document that we have prepared for consideration in the final version of
the HLPE report. (please follow the link to read the document, Ed.
http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/fsn/docs/HLPEII/IFOAM_Submission_to_CFS_HLP
E_on_Climate_Change_and_Food_Security.pdf )
Have important messages been omitted?
While the report recognizes the need to evaluate organic practices along with other systems for
location specific appropriateness we would urge the recommendations to go further and
encourage national policies to specifically support the development of certified and non-certified
organic systems and practices as an affordable and sustainable means for addressing food
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
59
security, combating climate change, regenerating degraded lands and livelihoods and protecting
natural resources and ecosystem functions such as water conservation, carbon sequestration,
pollination, soil building and so on. This can of course include evaluation but it should also
support those farmers, communities, entrepreuners, agencies etc that wish to adopt organic
practices and systems but lack access to capacity building in particular. To this end we suggest
the messages and recommendations call for more proactive approaches to supporting and
unleashing the potential of organic agriculture through its mainstreaming into policies,
programs such as CAADP, into CGIAR and GCARD, into climate smart agriculture initiatives, into
the activities of FAO, IFAD, WFP etc as well as national policies and overseas aid programs of
governments etc as a very promising and already existing system that warrants greater support
and which can deliver significant benefits for all agriculture systems.
The chapter on adaptation is incomplete / additional topics that need to be covered.
IFOAM has prepared a document outlining the adaptation and mitigation benefits and potential
of organic agriculture which it is attaching to assist the HLPE. While the HLPE report recognizes
that organic matter (living and dead) is fundamental to addressing both adaptation and
mitigation but it doesn't recognize the 70 years plus of production experience, adapted to local
conditions and ecosystems around the world that are in place and being constantly improved by
organic farmers. We would like to see greater support and development of organic agriculture as
a key tool for adapting to climate change while simultaneously mitigating global warming.
Climate change responses should be complementary to, not independent of, activities that
are needed for sustainable food security
Organic agriculture was consciously developed as a web of sustainable agriculture models that
intrinsically avoid (and address) food and agriculture driven climate change as well as a long
term solution to addressing food security. As we can see in the support of organic agriculture by
the African Union and the increasing recognition of organic agricultire in the Rio+20
negotiations as a critical tool for implementing a green economy (stated by the US Government
last month in the prep meeting in NYC) organic agriculture offers existing climate smart models
that are sustainable, clearly defined, affordable and therefore accessible, social inclusive and
ecosystem based. To this end the report should clearly use organic agriculture as an example
that is complimentary on many levels due to its multi-functionality and again recognize as a
valuable existing model that can be replicated and enhanced through research and capacity
building and its mainstreaming into agriculture initiatives around the world.
Climate change adaptation and mitigation require national activities and global
coordination
As stated above we suggest the messages and recommendations call for more proactive
approaches to supporting and unleashing the potential of organic agriculture through its
mainstreaming into policies, programs such as CAADP, into CGIAR and GCARD, into climate
smart agriculture initiatives, into the activities of FAO, IFAD, WFP etc as well as national policies
and overseas aid programs of governments etc as a very promising and already existing system
that warrants greater support and which can deliver significant benefits for all agriculture
systems.
Public-public and public-private partnerships are essential
IFOAM agrees and the global organic movement is ready to help in the transition to food security
and sustainable climate smart agriculture by making it easier for stakeholders to access organic
knowledge, expertise, practices and systems by building partnerships with its global network.
The HLPE can encourage public private partnerships with those organizations with initiatives in
place that can be leveraged and expanded. Further more in the context of facilitating the shift to
food security and effective climate adaptation and mitigation in the context of green economies
there is a huge potential for much greater uptake of organic agriculture by individuals,
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
60
entrepreneurs, communities in both the developing and developed world if it is systematically
mainstreamed into policies and programs.
30. Damiano Luchetti, FAO, Italy
Dear HLPE Secretariat,
In response to the consultation process established in the message below, and as a contribution
to the study on Food Security and Climate Change, I would like to provide you with some
comments that have been agreed within the Inter Departmental Working Group on Biodiversity
(copied).
Genetic resources have been and are key to the adaptation of the agricultural sectors to changing
conditions. They are essential to the adaptation of agriculture to climate change and to food and
nutrition security. At the same time they will be threatened by climate change. Genetic resources
are very rightly mentioned as the first recommendation under adaptation in the
recommendations part (part 5) but it lacks mention of the increased necessity for proper
conservation and characterization. Also it is restricted to cultivars and animals and should also
mention the importance of all genetic resources including invertebrates, wild relatives of
cultivated plants, trees and aquatic resources. It is surprising that this essential topic is not
treated in the third part on adaptation.
At the request of Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, FAO recently
developed a number of sectoral studies on the state of knowledge, risks and opportunities
related to genetic resources for food and agriculture and climate change. Upon request of the
Commission, these studies were officially transmitted to the High Level Panel of Experts on Food
Security and Nutrition, on 11 October 2011, as a contribution to the study on Food Security and
Climate Change.
The studies, which are available at http://www.fao.org/nr/cgrfa/climatechange/, were
prepared and peer-reviewed by international scientists and researchers, under the overall
supervision of the relevant FAO Technical Departments and of the Secretariat of the Commission
on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. The studies present information and knowledge
that could increase the scientific basis of the process and significantly contribute to the further
development of the study, including on the use of the most appropriate terminology. The
analysis of the studies could provide specific knowledge and evidences of the relations between
climate change and food and nutrition security as well as helping identifying solutions at both
local and policy levels.
The studies highlighted the relevant roles that genetic resources for food and agriculture play
for adaptation to the consequences of climate change in supporting the efforts to achieve food
and nutrition security, now, and in the future, and for climate change mitigation. Genetic
resources for food and agriculture, being key for the maintenance of ecosystem services and for
ensuring environmental resilience, play a crucial role in maintaining options for food and
nutrition security while facing the challenges of climate change. Biodiversity also helps to
maintain, despite changing conditions, local and traditional production that helps providing the
necessary nutrient requirements and is more culturally accepted food for people living in rural
or urban areas, therefore contributing to sustainable diets and to more resilient food systems.
Amongst the main outcomes of the studies, we can highlight the following:
A. While better knowledge still needs to be developed in specific sectors, many evidences
and practical examples exist that genetic resources are key to adapt agriculture to
climate change and achieve food and nutrition security in times of climate change.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
61
B. Awareness on the potential roles of genetic resources to cope with climate change,
especially when addressing the needs of the most vulnerable people in rural and urban
areas, needs to be raised at the local level and in the higher policy processes.
C. Genetic resources for food and agriculture are also essential to increase the resilience of
agriculture and food systems and to build the capacity of the communities of farmers,
livestock keepers, fisher folks and foresters, as well as processors, marketers and
vendors to cope with climate change.
Please also note that we all agree on the importance of the study and are looking forward to its
further development.
Best regards,
Damiano Luchetti (MSc)
Secretary IDWG Biodiversity
Inter Departmental Working Group on Biodiversity
FAO - The Food and Agriculture Organisation
31. ActionAid
ActionAid welcomes the HLPE for undertaking this report which would provide “credible
scientific and knowledge-based advice” to the CFS in developing the policy options to tackle the
effects of climate change on food security and nutrition, with a focus on the most affected and
vulnerable regions and populations. Looking at the purpose, the report has set itself high
expectations that need to be met. We strongly agree with the assumption made by the report
that programme and policies that deal with climate change must be part of the efforts to reduce
poverty and enhance food security, and in doing so the report should go into details by clearly
indicating what policies and activities are missing and what farmers, policy makers,
governments form the North and the South, social movements and NGO´s must do to adapt and
mitigate climate change and increase food security.
ActionAid is concerned, that the current draft is too general, and does not have a strong analysis
of the real causes and responsibilities of climate change and is quite hesitant in offering possible
solutions.
General comments:
Analysis of the causes of climate change:
- The report lacks a deep analysis of the current model of agriculture production and the overall
impacts of the industrial, input intensive agriculture on climate change and food security.
Without this analysis, the whole document looks like business as usual. While affirming several
times in the document the importance for small scale farming, the draft does not carry out an
adequate analysis on the negative impacts of industrial agriculture nor showing how small scale
farming can represent the viable solution to climate change.
- The document doesn’t mention how biofuels, carbon markets, speculation etc will affect the
availability, access, use and stability of food. The whole discussion about the impacts of biofuels
production on deforestation, direct and indirect land use changes, the contribution of biofuels
production on the increase of agriculture inputs prices and the connection of biofuels
production with food price volatility is missing. As the last food price crises has shown, the
increase in biofuel production can affect food security. Furthermore, there are many questions
that still need to be answered regarding the real implication of biofuels on the increase or
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
62
reduction on CO2, CH4 and N2O production. It is not possible to discuss climate change and food
security without seriously addressing these issues.
Policy solutions:
- The focus in the report remains on enhanced productivity. The issues of soil conservation and
water management remain confined as to how they are means to achieve increased productivity.
The document refers very often to how to promote intensification without mentioning the
negative impacts of intensive ways of production. The reference to “climatesmart agriculture”
(page 26) is made without further explanation about its real meaning. Climate-smart agriculture
is a controversial issue. Stemming from the examples and documents produced by its
supporters, it is difficult to affirm that climate smart agriculture is a new and innovative
approach towards a more sustainable agriculture or just a different way to name a high
conventional and unsustainable way to produce.
- There is a strong need to discuss the role of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation
and mitigation. Since the problems we are facing are site specific, the real alternatives are the
ones designed to fit the real needs of a specific place, which take in consideration the specific
social, cultural, economic and environmental context. The combination of local traditional
knowledge with science and technology is key. The document should further explore how to
build stronger links between traditional knowledge and modern science and should pay more
attention to discovering and promoting existing practices and knowledge used by local
communities to adapt to climate change, rather than bringing in new hi-tech solutions. (section
3.4.3).
- Along these lines, the importance of traditional seeds, and the need to preserve, protect and
improve them is missing, as well as the important role of neglected and underutilized crops to
enhance food security at local level, particularly in adverse climatic conditions.
- With regard to climate change mitigation, the document doesn’t discuss the implications of the
“common but differentiated responsibilities” concept. Although it is desirable that both, developed
and developing countries, contribute to climate change mitigation, it is quite clear that they have
different capacities and different historical responsibilities. The document pointed out that…
…“Meeting any of the emissions goals of recent UNFCCC meetings will require both reductions in
emissions from Annex 1 countries and reductions in emissions growth in non- Annex 1
countries”.(page 6)
And on page 41, it reads as following: .
…”Meeting any of the emissions goals of recent UNFCCC meetings will require both reductions in
emissions from Annex 1 countries and reductions in emissions growth in non-Annex 1 countries.
Mitigation activities should be undertaken where the costs, both financial and in terms of
sustainable food security, are lowest and the benefits the highest. This might result in mitigation
activities being undertaken in countries with relatively low historical or current emissions. While
emissions are currently low in developing countries, they are likely to grow rapidly unless lowemissions development strategies are followed”…
Without a serious analysis of different countries’ responsibilities, such paragraphs can be
misinterpreted as an attempt to put the responsibility of climate change mitigations on the
developing countries shoulder and to represent a diversion from rich countries obligations to
reduce their own emissions and to provide substantial, stable, predictable, new and additional
public finance to support developing countries activities on adaptation.
Specific comments
In addition to the above general comments, we offer the following specific comments:
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
63
- Power imbalances in the social and political spheres as addressed in section 1.4.3, page 16 have
been dealt inadequately and should be given a more in depth analysis.
- It is positive that the report addresses the role of women in farming and their lack of adequate
and secure access to resources. However the report calls for their enhanced involvement either
from welfare or efficiency perspective but not from a rights perspective.
- Section 1.4.5 on utilization talks about dietary trends and the negative health consequences of
increasing consumption of processed food versus the positive effects of larger consumption of
fresh fruit and vegetable. Although the report highlights the gains for smallholder farmers in
terms of higher income and more jobs deriving from the sustainable production of fruits and
vegetables, in the final recommendations the report doesn’t advocate for strengthening of local
production and preferential support for local consumption model.
- Section 2.5 points out the importance of the economic development in addressing vulnerability
and describes the interrelation between the economic development and the resulting decline in
malnutrition rates. Yet it does not make adequate references to the social and political
conditions necessary for economic development, and their contribution to reduction in
malnutrition.
- Section 3.3.1 (page 29) should include among the anticipatory strategies and options for
adapting to climate change the need for strengthening local institutions particularly strong
producer organizations including women’s producer groups. Furthermore, there needs to be
greater recognition of promoting creation and strengthening of seed and grain banks from local
to global levels to help adapt to climate change.
- In section 3.3.4, insurance is conceived as a silver bullet for developing countries and not just
as a tiny part of an overall disaster risk reduction strategy, where access to social protection is
often more effective than micro-insurance for the poorest.
- Section 3.4.1.2 falls short of calling ‘hoarding’ a major problem; rather subtly deals with it by
suggesting “just-in-time” stocking.
- Section 3.4.1.3 again mentions micro insurance as a solution without taking into account that
successful models hardly exist in developing countries. The document doesn’t explain who
will/should pay the premium, especially when the problem is not caused by poor people and
developing countries, and how the system will be in conformity with the principle of “common
but differentiated responsibility”.
- Chapter 4 pays a lot of emphasis on the potential of soil carbon sequestration without
mentioning its weakness. Soil carbon sequestration should be merely seen as co-benefit strategy
action and not the main strategy for reducing emissions. Furthermore, soil carbon sequestration
must not be used to create soil carbon markets.
32. Rasmus Heltberg, World Bank, USA
Looking at your two discussions on SP and food security and CC and food security, I would like
to contribute by sharing a report we just finished that links these two topics by detailing how SP
can better take CC into account.
http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/fsn/docs/HLPEII/CRSP__SP_Discussion_Paper_1210.pdf
Regards,
Rasmus
33. Vittorio Fattori, FAO, Italy
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
64
We have reviewed with interest the zero draft document on Food Security and Climate Change,
and we would like to offer the following comments and suggestions from a Food Safety
perspective.
Section 1.2 - Assessing direct and indirect impacts of climate change on food and nutrition
security today.
Some of the challenges posed by CC in achieving Food Security are also due to Food safety
implications, and we feel this should be captured up front in the document.
May be even something very short would do, and we can leave more specific food safety inputs
for other sections:
• Current text
Climate change will make the challenge of achieving food security even harder. Its effects on
food production and distribution may increase poverty and inequality, with impacts on each of
the four pillars, and consequent effects on livelihoods and nutrition.
• Proposed new text
Climate change will make the challenge of achieving food security even harder. Its effects on
food production and distribution may increase poverty and inequality, with consequent effects
on livelihoods and nutrition.
Climate change can also have implications for Food Safety thus resulting in further challenges to
food and nutrition security, particularly for the most vulnerable populations.
Section 1.4.3.1 - Biological effects of climate change on crops, livestock, and agricultural systems
In this section we should say something on how raising temperatures can also impact on for
example some pathogens entering the food chain and creating food safety risks.
We propose to add something like this
Global warming may contribute to the proliferation and dissemination of certain microbial
hazards. Climate change can potentially promote microbial mechanisms to survive extreme
changes in pH and temperature (e.g. Escherichia coli O157:H7), and facilitate gene transfer
which underpins antimicrobial resistance. Food borne diseases such as salmonellosis have been
found to increase by 12% for each degree increase in weekly or monthly temperature (Kovats et
al. 2004). Incidence and occurrence patterns of diarrhoeal disease associated with consumption
of shellfish contaminated with Vibrio parahaemolyticus are changing. Densities of Vibrio
parahaemolyticus increase concomitant to rising water temperature (McLaughlin et al., 2005,
Zimmerman et al. 2007) and climate anomalies have already expanded the risk area and season
for vibrio illnesses (Martinez-Urtaza et al, 2010).
Rising temperatures have also been linked to increases in certain chemical contaminants. The
occurrence of naturally occurring contaminants such as mycotoxins is greatly influenced by
environmental factors, mainly temperature, relative humidity, insect attack, drought, and the
condition of the plants. The effects of climate change on mycotoxins is of particular relevance
since affecting staple crops such as maize, sorghum and other grains and nuts can have a major
impact on food security. Similarly, warmer seas may contribute to increased cases of human
shellfish and ciguatera poisoning and poleward expansions of these disease distributions. Higher
ocean temperatures are also leading to increased levels of methyl mercury in fish and marine
mammals. Concentrations of methyl mercury in fish increase by 3–5% for each 1ºC rise in water
temperature (Booth et al. 2005). The risks posed by this potential increase have prompted
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
65
recommendations to limit intake of certain fish species and marine fats (Kuhnlein et al., 2002;
Booth and Zeller, 2005).
Section 1.4.5 - Utilization
• Current text
By altering the pattern of pests and diseases, climate change can affect utilization by impacting
human health and food quality and safety (FAO, 2008). Weather changes, increased droughts
and flooding, greater variance in precipitation are all likely to pose an increased risk to human
health
• Proposed new text
Climate change can present a number of direct and indirect challenges to food safety.
Direct effects on food safety hazards relate to such issues as impact of ambient temperature,
salinity, and pH on the survival, multiplication and distribution of micro-organisms. Indirect
effects might include: mis-use of agricultural chemicals in response to unexpected patterns of
plant and animal disease which could lead to unacceptably high chemical residues in foods;
heightened or altered food safety risks due to changes in food-related behaviour provoked by
new weather patterns; and food safety problems that result from the difficult conditions that
follow natural emergencies. Climate change is also expected to affect occurrence and
distribution of both chemical and biological hazards. While there is growing evidence of some
expected effects on food safety, for others more research and investigation is needed (FAO,
2008).
In order to identify, and proactively address the challenges posed by climate change to food
safety, it will be important to strengthen systems of integrated disease surveillance and to
develop models that allow better understanding of the direct and indirect impacts on food safety
hazards of selected environmental factors that are being affected by climate change.
Thank you and best regards
Vittorio
Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division
34. Robynne Anderson, World Farmers Organisation, Canada
The HLPE has assembled important information in many key areas that is accessible at a policy
maker level. The report could be strengthened in two key areas:
1) Extension
As agriculture faces increasing pressure environmentally, climatically, and productively;
extension plays a key role to encourage adoption of improved practices, better techniques, and
innovations. It all comes down to knowledge-sharing. Many strides have been made – such as
conservation agriculture that sequesters carbon – but production must be continually adapted
to address food requirements and climate change, thus increasing output while minimizing the
footprint of agriculture. That is true for all forms of agriculture in both the North and South.
Good agricultural extension services provide capacity to continually improve farming in a
manner reflecting local conditions and approaches as varied as pastoralism, horticulture,
cropping and beyond.
This should be part of the key policy recommendations. Research makes a difference when it is
applied in the field.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
66
2) Farmer Organisations
Particularly in section 3, farmer organisations are notably absent from the categories of policy
recommendations. As those on the front lines of adaptation to climate change, the users of
service, and in many cases the deliverer of key services, it is important to facilitate direct
participation of farmers organisations in policy plans.
35. Oxfam Novib, the Netherlands
Dear HLPE Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the V0 draft report on food security and climate
change. Please find below Oxfam’s inputs on the overall report, on the chapters on adaptation
and mitigation and on the policy messages.
1) Overall report and analysis
The report provides helpful background concerning the impacts of climate change on agriculture
and food security in chapters 1 and 2. Throughout, the report’s attention to small-scale farmers
and strong focus on women small-scale farmers in particular is important and welcome.
However, the discussions concerning adaptation and mitigation do not adequately reflect the
complexity of the challenges in undertaking action to address food security.
The report does not adequately address the key role small-scale food producers must be able to
play in the development and implementation of responses to climate change, including both
adaptation and mitigation. Without the active participation of small-scale food producers,
the most appropriate and most effective approaches to climate change and food security will not
be achieved.
The report also needs to address the complex issues and potential trade-offs involved in
mitigation. It is especially critical to examine the nature of the role that could be appropriate
for small-scale food producers in developing countries to play in mitigation, taking into account
their need to prioritize food security and adaptation. Also, given the relevance of land-use
change issues, the rights of small-scale food producers, including land tenure rights, must be
taken into account.
The case for the essential link between protecting and restoring natural resources, on the one
hand, and improved resilience to climate change impacts, on the other, has not been made
strongly enough in the report. We propose the inclusion of a more elaborated analysis of agroecological approaches that can improve the resilience of the environment to cope with shocks
as well as increase smallholder yields, incomes and food security.
2) Adaptation
Chapter 3 on adaptation contains promising points, but needs more elaboration.
Climate change adaptation plans and financing must focus on those most vulnerable to
risk – small-scale food producers and in particular women. Developing country
governments should work with vulnerable communities, especially women, to create or
improve national climate change adaptation plans to prepare for average global warming of 2.55°C this century, in light of the most recent scientific projections of average global temperature
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
67
increases.5 This must include a major scaling-up of land-based observation and data collection
systems (e.g. for weather, land-use, water availability, soil quality, and crop and livestock
distribution data). A major barrier to the implementation of effective adaptation strategies is the
major gap in such data at a scale and in a form that is appropriate to both national and local
needs.
The active participation of small-scale farmers and other food producers, particularly
women, in the development and implementation of adaptation responses is essential. While
provision of climate data and information and extension services to small-scale food producers
is absolutely necessary to addressing climate change, those farmers and food producers must be
able to participate in driving the appropriate adaptation responses. Without their full
engagement and participation, especially at the local level, the needs and interests of small-scale
food producers in adapting to climate change cannot be met. Particular attention and
appropriate measures must be taken to enhance the participation of women and other
marginalised groups.
To achieve this, engagement of small-scale food producers should include support for local,
traditional and indigenous approaches to adaptation. The Indigenous People’s Bio cultural
Climate Change Assessment Initiative, through which Indigenous Peoples monitor the effects of
climate change on their agricultural practices and food security, as well as assessing their own
strategies for adaptation and the limits of those strategies, provides an example of the ways in
which small-scale food producers and those in rural communities can play a lead role in
adaptation approaches. 6
For research, it is of major importance to take farmer-led research systems and indigenous
knowledge into account. Additionally, knowledge of gender and women’s roles and practices
should be taken fully into account in research. The report should explore the ideal set-up of
governance and institutional settings of research and what the current gaps are.
Women are mentioned in the chapter, as vulnerable food producers facing significant
constraints, but their strength as agents of change is not addressed. Women must have
meaningful participation in all decision making processes related to adaptation. Developing
country governments should include measurable targets in R&D and extension to provide
services for women food producers, including , for example, establishing a minimum female
recruitment target, establishing women-only producer organizations, and holding a specified
number of meetings with women farmers and producer organizations per month.
The section on governments (3.4.2) should also mention: the development of National
Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) and the new process for National Adaptation Plans
(NAPs) under the UNFCCC, which should address food security issues with the full participation
of small-scale food producers, especially women. It is also important to mention appropriate
processes to access international adaptation funding which should facilitate participation of
afore mentioned groups, including through the direct access modalities of the Kyoto Protocol
Adaptation Fund and via National Designated Authorities under the Green Climate Fund. In
addition, national level agriculture plans and strategies, such as the country compacts for the
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), should fully include
climate adaptation approaches based on the input and participation of small-holder farmers.
5 UNEP 2011. Bridging the Emissions Gap. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), p
16
6 http://ipcca.info/
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
68
Agro-ecological practices need to be considered and examined more thoroughly. Oxfam calls
for donors to invest in the scale up of sustainable, equitable, resilient and agro-ecological
small-scale food production. Also governments should invest in reformed extension
services and scaling up uptake of agro-ecological practices.
Fisheries are mentioned, but the report needs to contain more analysis on this important
source of food and income for island states and coastal communities.
Adaptation is a learning process. Adaptation is not a choice between reducing general
vulnerability or preparing for specific hazards, such as floods; adaptation requires both, in an
ongoing change process whereby people can make informed decisions about their lives and
livelihoods in a changing climate. Learning to adapt (including having the space to make
mistakes) is as important as any specific adaptation intervention.
On insurance (3.3.4), programs such as weather-indexed micro-insurance for the poorest smallscale farmers can be fully integrated with holistic climate resilience approaches. The HARITA
(Horn of Africa Risk Transfer for Adaptation) program, initiated in 2007 by Oxfam America and a
host of partners, including the Government of Ethiopia, the Relief Society of Tigray and Swiss Re,
has shown the potential for an integrated risk management approach. The Ethiopian
government has incorporated the program into its Productive Safety Net Program and has
enabled farmers to pay for insurance premiums by undertaking climate resilience projects.
A key element to stabilize food markets and supply against shocks is missing: the development
and scaling-up of food reserves at the local, national and regional level in developing countries.
3) Mitigation
Chapter 4 on mitigation does not address many of the key issues involving mitigation,
particularly those involving small-scale farmers and other food producers.
In addressing mitigation, the report should more fully explore the differences between highinput and large-scale industrial agriculture and small-scale, low-input agriculture. In
addition, consideration of agricultural mitigation efforts involving small-scale food producers in
developing countries must clearly take into account the broader context of historical
responsibility and capability for emissions reductions. Mitigation in developed countries’
agricultural sectors should therefore be the highest priority mitigation issues to address.
As with adaptation, the active input and participation of small-scale farmers and other
food producers in the development and implementation of any mitigation plans is essential.
Agriculture mitigation measures in developing countries must be consistent with and not impair
the needs, interests and rights of small-scale food producers. Adaptation and food security in
particular are foremost priorities, and agriculture mitigation approaches must be considered
only in light of those imperatives.
The benefits and risks for small-scale food producers stemming from mitigation practices must
be better understood, particularly in terms of possible trade-offs involving certain mitigation
approaches. Mitigation measures may prioritize mitigation in ways that sideline or
inappropriately deprioritize adaptation and food security objectives and may create logistical
complications and transaction costs that small-scale farmers cannot bear economically. Most
importantly, farmers must retain the flexibility to adopt and shift practices in anticipation of, or
in response to, a changing climate.
It will also be vital to ensure that any agricultural mitigation approaches in developing countries
are developed with the engagement and meaningful input of small-scale women farmers.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
69
Furthermore, it is essential that agriculture mitigation efforts do not undermine the rights of
small-scale food producers. Given that land-use issues are important ones, land tenure rights
and rights to water must not be undermined by any agricultural mitigation strategies. The rights
of women, who frequently lack land tenure rights and have less access to decision-making
processes, must in particular be assured. This is also relevant to REDD+ approaches in
developing countries, since they may increasingly intersect with agricultural mitigation
strategies. It will be important that the same considerations regarding agricultural practices and
the rights, needs and interests of small-scale food producers are fully taken on board in any
REDD+ related examinations that involve agriculture.
Additionally, the ways in which developed country consumption drives unsustainable
agricultural production and land use practices in developing countries, such as with biofuels
production, should also be considered and addressed in assessing responsibility and
developing policies for emissions reductions.
4) The policy messages
The policy messages should be clarified:
• In addressing the statement “Climate change responses should be complementary to, not
independent of activities that are needed for sustainable food security“, the following
should be articulated to place the focus on the small-scale farmers and food producers
who actually deliver food security:
“Any agriculture approaches in developing countries must be consistent with and not
impair the needs, interests and rights of small-scale food producers, especially their
foremost priorities of adaptation and food security. “
• To the message that “Public-private and public-public partnerships are essential” we
would like to add that private sector action must be shaped around small-scale farmers’
interests and needs.
Whenever the private sector plays a role in the development and implementation of
adaptation and mitigation activities, including through public-private partnerships, this
must be done in full partnership with communities. Adaptation efforts should build
from approaches that prioritize vulnerable communities, and the types of activities that
the private sector should invest in include: assessment of risks, impacts and vulnerability
at the community level; adoption of practices and activities that do not undermine the
resilience of small-scale food producers and rural communities; development and
deployment of adaptation products and services that benefit communities; knowledge
sharing with vulnerable communities; technology development and transfer; investment
in disaster risk management and insurance models in partnership with vulnerable
communities.
Most importantly, in any public-private partnership, the decision-making power must
reside firmly with the national government, and private sector actions in the field of
adaptation must be in an addition to and complementary to government- and
community-led and publicly financed action, and not a substitute for them.
36. Helena Paul, EcoNexus, UK
We are somewhat shocked that a paper coming out under the heading of the reformed CFS
should adopt a top-down, technocratic approach, focused on providing “new inputs and seeds”
__________________________________
70
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
to farmers as passive recipients. There is no mention of relationships between farmers,
ecosystems, communities, varieties and local knowledge. The paper is abstract, it lacks
particularity and would benefit from referring to case studies. We have listed some key
references at the end as our main contribution towards the next draft. We have also made some
comments on the paper, which we have had to do very quickly due to time pressures.
We are surprised that the paper does not mention land rights, water rights, food or seed
sovereignty. It does not even mention access to land. It fails to discuss local knowledge and
practices such as seed banking, seed exchange, water harvesting, farmer experimentation,
(woman) farmer-centred research. There is much existing and well-documented farmer
knowledge about locally adapted seed and climate change for example. Farmers have the
capacity to develop locally adapted varieties that are more resilient to climate change. See for
example the work of MASIPAG:
“From their communities, farmers collected 54 traditional rice varieties and pooled resources in
a project called "Piso-Piso Para sa Binhi" (A Peso for the Seeds) to initiate research on the
genetic conservation and improvement of traditional rice varieties. Scientists from the
University of the Philippines in Los Banos developed accessible and appropriate research
designs and tools for farmers, encapsulized in the MASIPAG trial farm.”
http://www.masipag.org/news_india.htm
Unfortunately, the paper currently contains a number of statements such as the following:
“There is an urgent need to undertake these investments quickly, because [of] improvements
will take time to development and deliver to farmers.
To make sure that productivity and resilience enhancing technologies are adopted, extension
programs should target those who are making the management decisions, which in many cases
are women.”
This kind of language implies imposing solutions on small farmers, rather than putting them at
the centre of research and working with them, as MASIPAG does.
Land rights not mentioned – not even access to land, only to food
The paper does not even mention collective land use practices, shifting, seasonal and rotational
or returning practices.
Access to wild food is mentioned as crucial, but without any context: in order to access wild
food, people need to be able to access the land where it grows. Such land may be considered
marginal and may be designated for production, so excluding local communities from a
potentially vital resource.
In the same way the paper headlines access to food, but again says nothing about access to land
on which to produce food.
The paper mentions the IAASTD report, but apparently fails to take up any of its
recommendations.
Women
The paper currently states: “For example, targeting women with extension advice would seem to
be the most cost-effective way to deliver information about improved farming practices
generally and climate change responses in particular. Yet women are almost always
underrepresented in extension services as Figure 5 shows for selected African countries.”
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
71
It does not mention any of the different reasons why women might be underrepresented – which
include the fact that in many parts of the world women still do not have property or inheritance
rights and thus only have limited or temporary access to land. Nor does it have any suggestions
about how to address such issues, yet they are crucial to food security, especially at household
level.
Abstract policy statements
Instead of prioritising local production and consumption, relationships between producers and
consumers, and shorter food chains, the report makes abstract recommendations such as the
following:
“Levels of consumption of food with high input demands are environmentally unsustainable and
often are damaging to human health. Research is needed on levers of demand modification.
Informed debate on issues of consumption needs to be facilitated amongst all consumers.”
Working with farmers to conserve crop and animal varieties
“To take a long-term view of investment in food production and to commit resources to
producing crops and livestock breeds better able to withstand the challenges of a changing
climate…”
Once again, this proposes a top-down approach. What about working with local communities on
conserving existing crops and breeds?
What kind of research - top-down or participatory?
The report states the following:
“There must be a continued refocusing of research from just higher yield to a more complex set
traits to optimise, in particular increased efficiency and increased resilience.
Climate change will require crops with enhanced resistance to drought, flooding and salt-water
intrusion (both through seawater flooding and from groundwater).”
Again there is no mention of existing knowledge and seed resources. The quoted language
clearly highlights technological approaches, such as the development of GM crops, rather than
participatory breeding in situ.
Water
There is little mention of water issues, which are crucial to any discussion of both climate change
and food production, as well as the impact of one on the other. There is for example, no mention
of exsting local patterns of water conservation and management already in existence. Some of
these are well-established, sophisticated practices, see for example:
Enduring Farms: Climate Change, Smallholders and Traditional Farming Communities by Miguel
A Altieri and Parviz Koohafkan, Third World Network, 2008:
www.fao.org/nr/water/docs/Enduring_Farms.pdf
The paper supports market mechanisms for addressing mitigation
“Public policies that support mitigation in agriculture are an essential element of ensuring
globally-efficient mitigation activities. It is also important to support the creation of market
based mechanisms.”
This statement is made in spite of the fact that, to date, market mechanisms have shown little
sign of actually addressing either food security or climate change. Carbon markets have made no
contribution to reducing emissions. Assertions of this kind, therefore, are not acceptable in such
a paper. It suggests that the writers are simply adopting claims made elsewhere without
applying a critical lens to them.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
72
No distinction between the contributions of different kinds of agriculture to climate
change
The paper completely fails to distinguish which kinds of agricultural activities are the main
causes of climate change. For example, nothing is said when discussing livestock emissions
about the difference between industrial and smallscale or pastoralist practice. Yet there is
research showing what important contributions pastoralism can continue to make, given the
right policy context:
Forgotten Services, Diminished Goods: understanding the agroecosystem of pastoralism
data.iucn.org/wisp/documents_english/WISP_PN8_en.pdf
A standard industrial approach to livestock:
“Emissions associated with ruminant agriculture are likely to grow rapidly unless technologies
become available to farmers that allow them to reduce substantially the GHG emissions per unit
of output (meat and milk).”
This sentence would include technical practices such as reducing the time between birth and
slaughter for animals to the absolute minimum with the stated impact of reducing emissions –
and potentially earning carbon credits. See for example:
http://environment.alberta.ca/02300.html
“This protocol quantifies decreases in greenhouse gas emissions associated with the raising of
beef cattle by reducing the number of days required to get a feeder calf from birth to harvest.
This applies to youthful cattle, or those cattle under 24 months of age, which includes calf-fed or
yearling-fed heifers, steers or bulls. In this context, feeder cattle that spend less time in
backgrounding lots, on pasture and in the feedlot result in decreased greenhouse gas emissions
from the following areas:
- Enteric Fermentation: less methane is produced from the cattle as a result of fewer days to
market and fewer days on lower quality diets;
- Manure Production: less manure is produced, stored and handled as a result of fewer days to
market and fewer days on lower quality diets.”
Such practices reduce animals to input-output sums and represent an approach to food
production that is unacceptable to many on ethical terms without even considering the
agronomic implications.
The paper strongly asserts the need for private sector involvement without providing
working examples of good practice:
“5.4 Public-public and public-private partnerships are essential
The private sector, including farmers, traders, input suppliers, and seed companies are the
actors who undertake adaptation and mitigation activities. Partnerships between the private
and public sectors will make it more likely that public policies and programs will be designed
appropriately to address climate change challenges.”
This is another example of assertions made without any evidential support. In fact inputs such as
nitrogen fertilizer are an important source of emissions. Smallscale farmers are undertaking
vital adaptation activities and should be consulted about the kind of partnerships they would
like to make and under what terms and conditions. See for an example of farmer research and
breeding:
FIPAH: Research with Honduran Farmers: the work of indigenous people of Honduras,
researching and improving crop yields and productivity and diversifying the varieties within
each crop in order to address climate change.
See: http://usc-canada.org/what-we-do/where-we-work/honduras/
REFERENCES
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
73
• The Challenges of the Multiple Crisis for African Small-­scale Farmers: The
Via Campesina Notebooks: Notebook No. 2 July 2010
http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=942%3
Athe-challenges-of-the-multiple-crisis-for-african-small-scalefarmers&catid=14%3Apublications&Itemid=30
• Understanding Climate Change Adaptation: Lessons from Community-based Approaches
by Jonathan Ensor and Rachel Berger
Contains case studies from different places
http://developmentbookshop.com/understanding-climate-change-adaptation.html
• Biodiverse agriculture for a changing climate Prepared by Jonathan Ensor, Climate
Change Policy Researcher Practical Action, July 2009
practicalaction.org/media/download/5807
• FIPAH: Research with Honduran Farmers: the work of indigenous people of Honduras,
researching and improving crop yields and productivity and diversifying the varieties
within each crop in order to address climate change.
See: http://usc-canada.org/what-we-do/where-we-work/honduras/
• Establishing a Community Seed Supply System - Community Seed Bank Complexes in
Africa Chapter 16, by Melaku Worede
www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2230e/i2230e13.pdf
• Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa, UNCTAD, UNEP, 2008
www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
• Agroecology and the Search for a Truly Sustainable Agriculture by MA Altieri, United
Nations Environment Programme Environmental Training Network for Latin America
and the Caribbean www.agroeco.org/doc/agroecology-engl-PNUMA.pdf
• Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: contributions to
food sovereignty
Miguel A. Altieri, Fernando R. Funes- Monzote & Paulo Petersen
www.agroeco.org/socla/pdfs/Altieri-Funes-Petersen-Palencia.pdf
• Enduring Farms: Climate Change, Smallholders and Traditional Farming Communities by
Miguel A Altieri and Parviz Koohafkan, Third World Network, 2008:
www.fao.org/nr/water/docs/Enduring_Farms.pdf
• Forgotten Services, Diminished Goods: understanding the agroecosystem of pastoralism
• data.iucn.org/wisp/documents_english/WISP_PN8_en.pdf
• No Idle Threat to the Marginalised: The Focus on “Marginal and Idle” Land for Biofuels
(Agrofuels)
Helena Paul, EcoNexus, published as 'Biofuel 2.0', The Ecologist, February 2009
http://www.econexus.info/publication/no-idle-threat-marginalised
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
74
• Feed the world? November 2008, R. Steinbrecher & A. Lorch: The Ecologist, November
2008 (see especially LER – Land Equivalent Ratio: In Ethiopia, researchers observed
that the yields of wheat and faba beans grown together were about 20 per cent higher
than when grown on two separate fields; the mixed (intercropped) field also had 20 per
cent less weeds, and viral damage to the beans was reduced by a third).
http://www.econexus.info/publication/feed-world
• Agriculture and Climate Change - Real Problems, False Solutions: Helena Paul, Almuth
Ernsting, Stella Semino, Susanne Gura & Antje Lorch: EcoNexus, Biofuelwatch, Grupo de
Reflexion Rural, NOAH - Friends of the Earth Denmark, and The Development Fund
Norway, December 2009, 44 pages:
http://www.econexus.info/publication/agriculture-and-climate-change-real-problemsfalse-solutions
37. Compassion in World Farming, UK
Compassion in World Farming appreciates the research and strategic thinking which has gone
into this paper. We shall make a general comment and then comment on a few areas.
Overall Comment: The paper focuses rightly on the challenges facing the world’s poorer
populations, in particular small-scale farmers (allowing for the difficulty with that definition).
However their problems cannot be viewed in isolation. What happens in high-tech agriculture in
e.g. the US and Europe directly affects farmers elsewhere and the global poor. This has been seen
recently with the increase in energy prices affecting global food prices, but it can also be seen in
the work of lending banks and philanthropic organisations who promote intensive agricultural
practices such as high fertilizer use, which can adversely affect the climate and increase
dependency of small farmers on expensive inputs (often imported). Dumping of e.g. cheap
chicken meat from the European Union on the markets in West Africa has adversely affected
chicken farmers in the region. An objective view should also look at the role of GM crops, which
are being widely promoted in developing countries. Do some of these crops actually end up
requiring unsustainable amounts of fertilizer application or increased pesticide use?
We think the paper needs to take a more critical look at these external influences.
1.4.3.3. More detail should be given about the proportion of the global grain and soya harvest
which is used as animal feed. More common figures are 33-40% of the global cereal harvest goes
to livestock feed (Steinfeld 2006, Lundqvist 2008). With poor feed conversion efficiency via
meat, (Smil 2000) and to a slightly lesser extent for milk, this use of the global harvest seems
ethically questionable. The report should deliver a much stronger “dietary change/reduce
consumption” argument aimed at high-consuming populations, be they in New York, Beijing or
Rio de Janeiro.
One way to tackle this problem is to adopt the contaction and convergence paradigm, as set out
by Mc Michael and others (Mc Michael 2007).
UNEP has calculated that the cereals that are expected to be fed to livestock by 2050 could, if
they were instead used to feed people directly, provide the necessary food energy for 3.6 billion
people i.e. for more than the projected growth in world population (Nellemann 2009).
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
75
Compassion in World Farming believes that, rather than feeding grain and soya to pigs and
poultry, they should be fed with food wastes and be allowed to forage. Ruminants should be kept
in smaller numbers and allowed to graze on permanent pasture, thus enabling their natural
feeding behaviour and securing carbon sequestration at the same time (Food Sense 2012).
The report says surprisingly little about global water resources and what many see as a looming
crisis, likely to be exacerbated by climate change. Again, the role of water use in producing
animal feed crops needs to be emphasized (Steinfeld 2006).
1.4.5. You rightly talk of the benefits of increased vegetable and fruit production and
consumption. However you seem to fatalistcally accept the dietary trend towards increased
consumption of animal products. Surely it is time for the CFS to take a stronger position on this?
It is now widely accepted that if everyone ate as much meat as the average US citizen, then we
would need at least another two planets to produce all the food for all the animals (WWF 2010).
There has to be a global call for reduced consumption and where better for it to come from? This
would allow for increased consumption in populations who cannot afford such products at the
moment.
3.3.1. In this section the paper does begin to engage with the global agribusiness/food
industry/financial sector. However where are the policy recommendations which they need to
address? These must be spelt out much more strongly.
We are seriously concerned at the recommendation: “Investment in research is needed into
producing crops, animals, and fish with higher yields...”. Most species of farmed animal are
already being pushed to their metabolic limits in order to increase productivity. This is having
major adverse impacts on their health and welfare. Several reports from e.g. the European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA) have highlighted the huge problems being caused to dairy cows, pigs
and meat chickens (broilers) due to selective breeding for fast growth and productivity (EFSA
2009, 2010).
A far more sustainable and humane way forward is to focus on using hardy native breeds, which
are often dual-purpose, thus avoiding the extreme breeds of highly vulnerable animals. Such
animals are likely to be best adapted to local climatic conditions, local feed crops and resistant to
local diseases.
3.3.3.The report rightly recommends: “Informed debate on issues of consumption needs to be
facilitated amongst all consumers.” We think it is far too late just to encourage informed debate,
essential though that is. We need leadership in this area and as said before, who better to
provide it than the CFS?
4.2 Rather than just recommending ways to manage livestock emissions, surely you should be
recommending a reduction in livestock numbers alongside this?
4.4.Again we highlight the risks of favouring changes in animal breeding as a solution to
methane emissions. Any changes to animal breeding or severe dietary changes for animals
should be subject to a health and welfare impact assessment – and we hope you will say so!
4.6.The report says:
“Since demand for livestock products (meat, milk, and eggs) will likely grow, policies and
programs that directly or indirectly contribute to reduced emissions of both CH4 and N2O per
unit of output are especially important.”
Again we believe the CFS should show leadership in calling for a limit to this growth. This may
not be an easy thing to do, but no other international body, except UNEP (Nellemann 2009), has
yet had the courage to do so.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
76
Joyce D’Silva
Ambassador for Compassion in World Farming. [email protected]
References.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Steinfeld 2006. Steinfeld, H et al., 2006, Livestock’s Long Shadow: environmental issues
and options. FAO. Rome.
Lundqvist 2008. Lundqvist, J et al., 2008. Saving Water: From Field to Fork – Curbing
Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain. SIWI Policy Brief. SIWI.
Mc Michael 2007. Mc Michael, A. J., 2007. Food, livestock production, energy, climate
change and health. The Lancet. Published online 13 Sept. 2007. DOI:10.1015/SO1406736(07)61256-2.
Nellemann 2009. Nellemann, C., MacDevette, M., Manders, et al. 2009. The environmental
food crisis – The environment’s role in averting future food crises. A UNEP rapid
response assessment.
Food Sense 2012. Lymbery, P. (2012) Food Sense: A common sense approach to feeding
the world. Compassion in World Farming, www.ciwf.org/publications .
WWF 2010. Living Planet Report 2010. WWF.
EFSA 2009. Scientific Opinion of AHAW Panel: Scientific opinion on welfare of Dairy
cows in relation to leg and locomotion problems based on a risk assessment with special
reference to the impact of housing, feeding, management and genetic selection
www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1142.htm
Scientific Opinion of AHAW Panel: Scientific opinion on welfare of Dairy cows in relation
to behaviour, fear and pain based on a risk assessment with special reference to the
impact of housing, feeding, management and genetic selection
www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1139.htm
Scientific Opinion of AHAW Panel: Scientific opinion on welfare of Dairy cows in relation
to metabolic and reproductive problems based on a risk assessment with special
reference to the impact of housing, feeding, management and genetic selection
www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1140.htm
EFSA 2010. Scientific Opinions by the European Food Safety Authority July 2010 on the
welfare aspects of the management and housing of the grand-parent and parent broilers
raised and kept for breeding purposes and on the influence of genetic parameters on the
welfare and resistance to stress of commercial broilers.
38. Tearfund, UK
Tearfund (UK) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the zero draft of the important HLPE
study on climate change and we make some suggestions on key topics and recommendations on
adaptation below. These are based on Tearfund’s 40 years’ experience with smallholder
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
77
farmers in over 50 developing countries, including over 10 years’ experience of climate change
and disaster risk reduction policy and practice.
Overall, we are concerned that the report emphasizes the need to improve agricultural
production to adapt to climate change, at the expense of exploring how to build the resilience of
smallholder farmers and pastoralists; tackle the causes of vulnerability to climate change like
inequality; and integrate adaptation and disaster risk reduction into development planning.
The 3 high level policy messages in the study should focus on the following themes. Policy
makers should:
• Support the development of comprehensive and country led national food security
strategies across Ministries that will ensure availability, access, and utilisation of food, as
well as stability and resilience to climatic and economic shocks. The focus should be on
female small-scale farmers, landless labourers and pastoralists in rural areas.
• Integrate climate change adaptation and risk reduction into agricultural development
planning and food security policies to build resilience to climate shocks.
• Tackle political, economic and cultural policies, practices, institutions and processes that
increase people’s vulnerability to climatic shocks and use appropriate tools when
assessing how to adapt to climate change in specific contexts.
Our submission covers other recommendations including:
• Set up drought contingency funds with pre-agreed triggers to preserve the livelihoods of
farmers and pastoralists. Investing now will reduce the need to respond to future food
crises
• Build on existing approaches to minimize vulnerability to climatic shocks and build
resilience of smallholders with diverse and flexible strategies e.g. diversify income
sources through off-farm livelihood strategies, building and protecting key assets, access
to credit, disaster risk reduction, and community disaster preparedness committees
Section 1.4.6. on the impact of climate change on stability, as it stands, focuses on
uninterrupted availability and access to food. The study would benefit from exploring the
factors that prevent stability i.e. access to sufficient healthy food at all times, by focusing on why
food systems and smallholders are vulnerable to climatic shocks. Political, social, economic,
environmental, and cultural structures and processes can increase vulnerability e.g. laws, lac of
access to land, credit systems and deforestation.
Section 2.8 on policy messages on climate changes scenarios in the future
We would argue that the report should use the term “climate resilient agriculture”, rather than
“climate smart agriculture”. The latter is a new term, used by a few and there is concern
amongst civil society that the concept is more associated with making profit from soil carbon
markets rather than focusing on smallholder farmers.
Section 3.1 on adaptation and response options should include the following topics and key
points.
• This section neglects the need to address the causes of vulnerability in the face of climate
change.
The study should highlight people’s vulnerability that can often be linked back to economic,
political and social drivers such as poor governance, lack of entitlements, poor access to
services, inequality, gender issues, greed and prejudice.7
Policy makers should tackle the structural reasons behind people’s vulnerability and to improve
access to resources, markets and governance. They need to build just and equitable social,
7 Beyond Any Drought: Root causes of vulnerability in the Sahel, June 2007, Sahel Working
Group
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
78
economic and political structures, processes and practices, which would reduce vulnerability to
climatic shocks like droughts and floods.
The study should take into account the impact of non-climatic factors such as conflicts, lack of
access to markets, volatile food prices and restrictions on mobility of pastoralists and
access to key resources. Whether food insecure communities are able to respond well to
climate change depends on these pressures which compromise responses to climate changes.8
The study should acknowledge the impact of political and economic contexts on adaptive
capacities. Factors such as wealth and gender are key to deciding who can access resources, such
as land and water, and take advantage of new opportunities. Thus, improved access to seeds and
other new technologies may not improve resilience unless structural constraints such as labour
shortages or gender-based hindrances are addressed at the same time.9
• The value of cost benefit analysis was recognized in the summary of the consultation
on the scope of this study in July 2011, particularly looking at the costs of adaptation
strategies and the potential costs of not adapting.
Accordingly, the study should identify costs and benefits of adaptation options for decision
making, especially to reinforce the argument of the need to invest in preparing for climate
shocks and preventing food crises, which would reduce the need for costly humanitarian aid.
Very few cost benefit analyses (CBAs) have been done in the context of drought, as a slow onset
disaster, compared to many CBAs done looking back at rapid onset disasters. Tearfund’s
report10 showed that for every £1 invested over 4 years, agricultural and risk reduction
activities yielded at least £24 of net benefits to the community.
However, quantitative data on its own is not sufficient, especially when it can be quite
controversial e.g. measuring avoided loss of life through lost labour time. It needs to be
balanced with qualitative data to show the social, human, natural and physical benefits of
adaptation and ensuring food security as well as the financial benefits. Baselines will also need
to be established at the national and local level and advice should be given on integrating CBA
into decision making processes and the project cycle.
Section 3.3 which focuses on anticipatory strategies and options for adapting to climate
change, should include appropriate tools for programme staff and policy makers to use when
assessing how to adapt to climate change in a specific context at the national or local level. For
example the tool Climate change and Environmental Degradation Risk and Adaptation
assessment (CEDRA) is widely used by NGOs and policy makers.11 It helps to access climate
science information and prioritise which environmental hazards may pose a risk to project
locations, enabling them to make decisions to adapt projects or start new ones. Adaptation
options are discussed, and decision-making tools are provided to help organisations make their
projects resilient.
Section 3.3.1 on response options for availability
Agricultural growth is critical, but simply focusing on increasing food production is not sufficient
to reduce people’s vulnerability to climate change, especially if they continue to rely on rain-fed
agriculture whilst rainfall is erratic and certain regions face cyclical droughts and severe food
crises. Social, economic and environmental issues need to be addressed in a joined up way.
8 Changing Climates Changing Lives: Adaptation strategies of pastoral and agro-pastoral
communities in Ethiopia and Mali, May 2010, Tearfund, IDS, ACF
9 Idem
10 Investing in Communities: the benefits and costs of building resilience for food security in
Malawi, Nov 2010, Tearfund
11 CEDRA: Climate change and environmental degradation risk and adaptation assessment,
2009, Tearfund
__________________________________
79
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
Policy makers should implement the following recommendations:12
• Invest more wisely in agriculture to accomplish multiple goals, rather than focusing on
maximizing production using agro-industrial techniques. These techniques require high
levels of external inputs, which small-scale farmers cannot afford.
• Boost household food production and livelihoods through sustainable intensification
using agro-ecological techniques and for the poorest households, through support for
increasing labour income through diversification of livelihoods in off-farm work.
Agro-ecological approaches are essential to improving food security, help vulnerable
farmers adapt to climate change, and regenerate the natural resource base.
The study suggests improving early warning systems which is not sufficient alone. It should
look at how to overcome barriers of making decisions quickly after early warning of an
imminent food crisis, especially in regions with recurring crises e.g. the Horn of Africa and the
Sahel.
• Policy makers should prevent, prepare and plan for food crises better by developing
unambiguous, clearly defined triggers which are specific to distinct livelihood systems
(including pastoralism). When the trigger is reached, a contingency plan can be
launched.13
Slow onset disasters, like food crises, often have a window of 6 months to reduce the impact and
help prepare communities before they reach a peak, when it is too late to save livelihoods and
assets. And yet, the dominant policy response of the international community and governments
over the past 20 years or so has been to treat food and hunger crises as a series of unexpected
disasters that can be addressed by the provision of humanitarian relief.
Section 3.3.2 on response options for access should mention the importance of livelihood
diversification as a way to increase income to buy food, rather than relying on one harvest per
year.
• Policy makers should strengthen resilience by diversifying income sources of the poorest
households, through the promotion of non-farm and off-farm livelihood strategies.
Training and support in alternative livelihoods gives people a greater range of adaptive
strategies and the opportunity to build assets.
Section 3.3.4 on response options for stability
The 4th pillar of food security (ensuring stability in the first 3 pillars of food security) is often
neglected in research and by governments and donors in decision making, and it is given little
attention in the draft of this study too. Stability is particularly relevant to climate change
because of the need to build resilience to climatic shocks like drought and floods, whilst also
trying to reduce the impact of high food prices and malnutrition.
• Undertake research to identify indicators for building resilience to ensure food
security, which will make it easier to measure progress. See Tearfund’s adapted version
of the Characteristics of a Disaster Resilient Community (John Twigg), tailored for food
security contexts, which can also be used as a list of activities to ensure the 4th pillar of
food security.14
Often, there is a narrow reliance on production, early warning systems, and humanitarian
response to food crises. Limited measures have been taken by policy makers to reduce risk and
integrate DRR and adaptation into food security policies and practice. The draft study mentions
insurance which is not the only way to increase stability.
Policy makers should:
• Use existing approaches to build capacities and minimize vulnerability to climatic shocks
with diverse and flexible strategies. e.g. livelihood diversification, building and
12 Escaping the Hunger Cycle: Pathways to resilience in the Sahel, October 2011, Sahel Working
Group
13 Idem
14 Changing Climates Changing Lives p.51, May 2010, Tearfund, IDS, ACF
__________________________________
80
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
protecting key assets, access to credit, triggers and contingency planning based on
early warning, disaster risk reduction, community disaster preparedness
committees, increasing the resilience of smallholder farmers, and destocking
livestock before drought gets more severe. This approach should recognize the
similarities and differences between climate change adaptation and disaster risk
reduction.15
Households need to be prepared for multiple climatic shocks. When one shock is compounded
by another, repeatedly, over a number of years, households’ ability to bounce back becomes
compromised and resilience diminished. To exacerbate the situation, the type and severity of
shocks are changing and new risks and vulnerabilities are emerging. Not only are people
affected by climatic shocks, but there are also other social, economic and environmental factors,
such as volatile food prices, institutions and policies which affect livelihoods. A disaster risk
reduction approach tackles the vulnerabilities and builds on capacities of communities in order
to build their resilience to the next drought or flood.16
Section 3.4 is titled sectoral approaches to adaptation, when the content is more focused on the
activities of different types of actors, rather than sectors of policies and practices.
Section 3.4.2 on governments and international organizations should include the need to
improve access to meteorological information by farmers at the local level.
The draft study is right to mention that national disaster management policies are essential.
• Governments should implement the Hyogo Framework for Action and draw on
existing frameworks, tools, approaches and experience from disaster risk reduction.
They should also build the capacity of inter-ministerial committees, national platforms
on Disaster Risk Reduction and Food Security Task Forces, which can bring together a
range of development and humanitarian actors to prepare for climatic shocks that can
lead to food crises.
Section 3.5 Policy messages
Some of the recommendations in the draft study include more research which is important, but
policy makers need to take more concrete action, given the urgency of the impact of climate
change.
Governments should prioritise dealing with the underlying causes like unequal access to food,
develop national food security strategies which put smallholder farmers (particularly women) at
their centre and which take an integrated approach to tackling climate change – building
resilience against future slow onset disasters like food crises.
Policy makers should:
• Invest in risk reduction, climate change adaptation and resilience measures, and
integrate them into national poverty reduction plans, and sectoral plans
(agriculture, water, environment, health) as high political priorities with sufficient
budgets and indicators. This means prioritising risk analysis and reduction, drought
management, and tackling the underlying causes of vulnerability
•
Base agricultural development planning and policies (and food security
assessments) on climate risk information and analyses in order to:
- have a better understanding of socio-economic and political factors, local realities, access to
institutions and why some people in a particular context are vulnerable and less able to
adjust their livelihoods while other actors and groups are more resilient
15 Linking Climate Change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, July 2008, Tearfund
16 Changing Climates Changing Lives, May 2010, Tearfund, IDS, ACF
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
81
- identify other ways of strengthening people’s climate resilience, such as through social
protection measures and other forms of livelihood support and asset-building
•
Strengthen local adaptive capacity. Financial and technical support is needed to
develop long-term sustainable adaptation solutions by building on existing local
approaches/community based strategies e.g. adaptive approaches to water resources
management, disaster risk reduction (DRR) and wider natural resource management
strategies.
Section 5.3.1 should take into account the following recommendations on adaptation for
national and international policy makers
•
Support the development of comprehensive and country led national food security
strategies (guided by the UN Comprehensive Framework for Action), across Ministries
that will ensure availability, access, and utilisation of food, as well as stability and
resilience to climatic and economic shocks (as part of wider poverty reduction and
climate change adaptation strategies). The focus should be on female small-scale
farmers, landless labourers and pastoralists in rural areas.
The multidimensional nature of food security and livelihoods requires a multi-sectoral and
holistic approach with coherent policies, especially as outcomes are determined by complex
interactions among people, policies and the environment. This means better coordination
between the agendas, actors and existing policies on food security, DRR, climate change
adaptation, social protection, natural resource management, water resource management and
poverty reduction.
A good example is Bangladesh, where the government has developed a national action plan
uniting the areas of agriculture, health, livelihoods, environment, disaster management and
development to cope with natural disasters like floods.17
•
Development and relief work should be underpinned by analyses of what determines
food insecurity and tackling political, economic and cultural policies, practices,
institutions and processes that increase vulnerability to climatic shocks.18
•
Build on existing policies and approaches to ensure food security e.g. integrated natural
resource management, water resource management. Strategies for drought
management, climate change adaptation and DRR should be incorporated into
sustainable agricultural policies.
•
•
Improve linkages and communication flows between early warning departments, food
security agencies and safety net programmes to ensure timely assistance, protection
of assets and flexibility to adapt to future change
Set up drought contingency funds with pre-agreed triggers to preserve the
livelihoods of farmers and pastoralists. Investing now will reduce the need to respond to
future food crises (reversing the trend of reacting to food crises after irreversible
damage has been done).
One major area missing from the draft of the study is the implementation of global funding for
adaptation e.g. Fast start finance for adaptation discussed at the UNFCCC negotiations, which
17 Adaptation United: Building blocks from developing countries on integrated adaptation, Feb
2011, Tearfund
18 Prepare to Live: Strengthening the resilience of communities to manage food insecurity in the
Sahel region, July 2007,Tearfund
__________________________________
82
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
could be used for the implementation of National Adaptation Plans for Action (NAPAs) and how
this is integrated into national development budgets. The study should identify ways to ensure
country-wide ownership of the implementation of the NAPAs, coordination between different
Ministries and consultation. This is particularly important, considering that NAPAs in many
countries have identified agriculture as a key priority, as one of the sectors most vulnerable to
climate change.
More generally, coordination between the UNFCCC process and the CFS needs to be improved.
Policy makers and lead government negotiators on agriculture, who are engaged in the UNFCCC
process, should take a steer from CFS recommendations, not vice versa. Negotiations at COP 18,
which are set to achieve a decision on agriculture and potentially a work programme on
agriculture, should take into account decisions adopted by the CFS in October 2012, as the
foremost global governance body on food security, particularly the findings of the study on food
security and climate change by the High Level Panel of Experts.
39. Angel Leyva Galan, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Agrícolas (INCA), Cuba
Spanish original
Estimados Moderadores:
Aunque no logré encontrar las preguntas, que desean sean contestadas, por falta de tiempo
INTERNET, quiero expresar dos ideas, que quizás puedan ayudar, o al menos estar tranquilo por
haberla puesto a disposición del FORO
Para mitigar los efectos del cambio climático,
1. Es necesario evaluar los germoplasmas locales de especies alimenticias (conservadas de
generación en generación, resistentes a condiciones de estrés al calor, frio y salinidad y
seleccionar (también para los que obtienen nuevas variedades por la vía académica) las
especies resistente a estrés como indicador supremo en lugar del rendimiento.
Hay que depositar dinero para los productores capaces de evaluar germoplasmas bajo
condiciones de estrés y dar respuestas
Gracias
Dr LEYVA
English translation
Dear moderators:
Although I could not find the questions you want to be answered, for lack of time and Internet, I
want to express two ideas that may be helpful, and would like making them available to the
FORUM
To mitigate the effects of climate change
1-It is necessary to assess the local germplasm of food species, preserved from generation to
generation, resistant to heat stress conditions, cold and salinity and to select (also for those who
get new varieties through academic research) species resistant to stress as the best indicator
compared to yield.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
83
We have to give money to producers able to evaluate germplasm under stress conditions and
give answers
Thanks
Dr LEYVA
40. Joachim Bénébamba Tamalgho, Burkina Faso
French original
Les changements climatiques sont des phénomènes qui touchent toutes les nations. Il est donc
nécessaire que tous les pays se donnent la main pour faire face à une telle crise qui menace la
paix et la stabilité de différents Etats. Pour ce faire, différentes mesures doivent être prises qui, à
notre sens peut aider à lutter contre les effets des changements climatiques.
Nous avons entre autre la mise en oeuvred’une cellule de crise dans tous les pays. Elle sera dotée
de moyens technologiques, humains, financiers, matériels conséquents. Cette cellule sera apte à
anticiper différents catastrophes naturelles (inondation, tsunami, canicule, sécheresse) et à
gérer les éventuelles conséquences.
En outre, il est nécessaire que chaque pays identifie les catastrophes récurrents sur sont
territoire en vue de prendre les mesures adéquates. Dans les pays inondables nous proposerons
un plan très ambitieux qui sera la construction d’îles artificielles. Ces iles auront deux avantages
: en premier lieu la rétention d’eau, en second lieu comme des fermes pour éviter que l’excès
d’eau n’endommage les cultures. Dans les zones ou la sécheresse prédomine, encouragé l’usage
des cultures de courte durée ; construire des barrages pour encourager les cultures de contre
saison.
English transation
Climatic changes are phenomena that affect all countries. It is therefore necessary for all
countries to work together in order to confront such a crisis that threatens peace and stability
of different states .To do so, various measures should be taken which, in our opinion, could help
mitigating the effects of climate change.
We propose, in particular, the setting up of a crisis management unit in all countries, equipped
with substantial technological, human, financial and material resources. It will be capable of
anticipating different natural disasters (floods, tsunami, heat wave, and drought) and of dealing
with the eventual consequences.
Furthermore, it is necessary that each country should identify the disasters that recur in their
country so that appropriate measures may be taken. In countries prone to flooding, we would
propose a very ambitious plan for the construction of artificial islands. These islands will have
two advantages: firstly, holding back the water, and secondly, as farms which will prevent the
floods from destroying crops. In the areas where drought prevails, we recommend to encourage
the use of crops of short duration and to build dams to facilitate off season cultivation.
41. Dang Kim Son, Institute of Policy and Strategy for Agricultural and Rural Development
– IPSARD, Viet Nam
As stated in this report, climate change has a close connection with issues addressed in 2011
report by HLPE “Price Volatility and Food Security”. Under the influence of climate change, food
security has been threatened, leading to serious problems of food price volatility. Although there
are some clear policy recommendations proposed in the report as well as in FAO 30th APRC
meeting (which was held recently in Hanoi, Vietnam), those recommendations seem not to be
sufficient to deal with the problems of food price volatility and food security. While climate
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
84
change is a rapidly unfolding challenge of global catastrophic threat, it is expected to become
even more serious problem in future. It implies that we need to make stronger efforts and
consider options to change the fundamental causes of food price volatility and food insecurity.
Even if there is a balance of food supply and demand, one of the factors contributing to price
volatility is the lack of trust among the trading partners (between producers and exporters,
importers-exporters and governments, exporting and importing countries, importing agencies
and its consumers…). This lack of trust leads to serial trading intervention policies of
governments in combination with incentives for food speculation activities.
Although some policy recommendations proposed in the proposed in “HLPE Price Volatility and
Food security Report” may indirectly help to improve the trust among trading partners (improve
market information system; improve transportation and communication infrastructure;
strengthen grading and standard control system…), there is no comprehensive measure to solve
the problems at the root. With a lot of policy interventions from both supply and demand sides,
the food market is distorted. Obviously, this distortion creates high costs for the society. On the
other hand, the existing set of policy interventions are unable to create the compete trust for
active partners.. Trust among business partners should be created by institutional arrangement,
in order to transform short-term business relationship into long-term investment partnership.
Therefore, we propose the solutions of institutional arrangement to develop trust among
partners as follows:
1. For importing countries under the negative influence of climate change, who
faces risks of domestic food supply shortage, it is advised to invest in food
production in the food exporting countries: Instead of purchasing food through
annual and long-term contracts (future contract, government-to-government
contract); hiring agriculture land (often taken in the form of “land grabs” with
negative effects on politicsp.31); increasing food provisions; subsidizing local
farmers at any prices…the importing countries can cooperate with exporting
countries to set up an investment plan at a specified areas in exporting countries
(with specified and relevant production volume, quality standards and SPS
application…following the demand of importing countries). The exporting
countries will mobilize their local farmers and private enterprises to set up
business linkages, under the supervision of investors, to meet long-term
objectives of cooperation plans.
2. Three-parties affiliate program: In case the importing country is a developing
country with poor capability of capital and technology, it is suggested to call for a
third party to participate in the cooperation plan. Thus, the current humanitarian
food assistance for poor countries can be replaced by affiliate agricultural
production programs with the collaboration of three parties.
The above investment partnership not only creates a significant reduction in food price
volatility, but also eliminates the negative effect of farm land hiring model. This is a form of
South-South cooperation with intensive application of PPP approach, in which the role of
smallholding farmers is promoted in the most efficient manner.
With this cooperation form, trade relations will be transformed into joint-venture relationship,
short-term relationship will become long-term relationship. It will eliminate the negative effects
of food speculation and price volatility originated from the financial crisis. For developing
countries with food deficit, instead of costly subsidizing domestic farmers to ensure national
food security under adverse effects of climate change, they may consider to use such subsidy
budget to invest in food exporting countries. For exporting countries, instead of restricting
volume of food export to ensure national food security in case of price volatility, this model may
help to stabilize supply-demand balance and food price in a more efficient manner. Moreover,
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
85
the rice farmers will have access to sufficient amount of capital to produce quality products,
even in unfavorable conditions of climate change. Especially, the smallholding farmers will be
able to overcome difficulties of small scale of production, technology adoption and market
linkages.
In Vietnam, there were two models illustrating the success of this investment partnership in the
last few years:
-
-
Japanese rice production model in An Giang province – with the collaboration of
Angimex Kitoku (a Vietnam-Japanese joint venture company) and farmers. The
model was implemented in a small scale with the production of 10,000 tons/year19.
On broader scale, Vietnam has implemented the “Smallholding Farmer, Large Paddy
Field” model in the Mekong Delta, with total areas of 15,500 ha20. Smallholding
farmers have cooperated with private companies to produce rice of standardized
seeds and quality, providing a stable volume for export. This is a prerequisite to
illustrate the feasibility and applicability of investment partnership models, at least
in the condition of Vietnam.
Since this initiative has proved some values in coping with food price volatility and food
insecurity under climate change, it is suggested that a more comprehensive proposal should be
developed for discussion and consideration.
Dang Kim Son
Director General
Institute of Policy and Strategy for Agricultural and Rural Development - IPSARD
Hanoi, Viet Nam
42. Philippe Quirion, CIRED, France
French original
Chers membres du HLPE,
Tout d'abord, je tiens à vous féliciter pour la grande qualité de ce rapport.
Je souhaite porter à votre connaissance deux articles récents consacrés à l'impact du
changement climatique sur l'agriculture en Afrique. Ces travaux, qui synthétisent la littérature
scientifique sur le sujet, me semblent utiles pour compléter votre rapport.
Il s'agit des articles suivants :
- Roudier, P., P. Quirion, B. Sultan and A. Berg, 2011. The impact of future climate change on West
African agriculture: a review, Global Environmental Change, 21(3): 1073-1083
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.007
- Müller, C.; Cramer, W.; Hare, W. L.; Lotze-Campen, H., 2011. Climate change risks for African
agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
(PNAS), 108: 4313-4315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1015078108.
19 Japanese Rice attracts local farmer, Agriculture Today Newspaper, April 2012
20 The Situation of Large Paddy Field Model in the Mekong Delta, Agriculture Today Newspaper,
March 2012
__________________________________
86
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
Bien cordialement,
Philippe Quirion
économiste
chargé de recherches au CNRS
CIRED
English translation
Dear Members of HLPE
First of all, congratulations for the good quality of this report.
I wanted to let you know of two recent articles dedicated to the impact of climatic change on
agriculture in Africa. These works, which encapsulate the scientific literature on the subject,
seem to me useful to complete your report.
Here is the list of articles:
- Roudier, P., P. Quirion, B. Sultan and A. Berg, 2011. The impact of future climate change on West
African agriculture: a review, Global Environmental Change, 21(3): 1073-1083
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.007
- Müller, C.; Cramer, W.; Hare, W. L.; Lotze-Campen, H., 2011. Climate change risks for African
agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
(PNAS), 108: 4313-4315
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1015078108.
Best regards
Philippe Quirion
Economist
Researcher for CNRS (Centre National pour la Recherche Scientifique) [National Centre for
Scientific Research, France]
CIRED (Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le Développement)
[International Centre for Research on Environment and Development]
43. Peter Holmgren, Director Climate, Energy and Tenure Division (NRC), Chair of the
Inter Departmental Working Group on Climate Change, FAO, Italy
FAO welcomes the consultation on the zero draft of the HLPE study on climate change effects on
food security which gives an opportunity to stakeholders to partake their concerns and
knowledge.
As already mentioned in FAO’s contribution to the first electronic consultation, this study is of
great relevance. First, because Food and nutrition insecurity and climate change are the two
major global challenges humanity is facing. Second, because even if there are already a lot of
studies on Agriculture and Climate change, there are not that many studies on the impacts of
climate change on food security in all its dimensions, nor on the effects of climate change on
nutrition. Third, precisely because there are a lot of studies on Agriculture and climate change,
there is a need for a synthesis aimed at informing decision making. Fourth, because as the HLPE
is directly linked to the foremost international platform for food security and nutrition, the CFS,
it is in a position to provide decision aimed knowledge and recommendations which can inform
the decision process. Finally, given the HLPE’s unique position, this study could also play a
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
87
major role in raising awareness on the effects of climate change on food security in the
international negotiations on climate change.
FAO particularly welcomes the openness of the questions which are framing this consultation.
Hereunder some elements for your consideration.
An important audience for this report is national policy makers concerned with agriculture and
food security and their staff. Does the report include sufficient information to support the policy
messages and is it written in a way that captures the complexity of the challenges to food security
from climate change while not being too technical?
To address such a vast and difficult topic in the reduced format of a report for policy makers is
extremely challenging. This zero draft makes a good attempt at it, even though the adaptation
chapter which is an essential part of it is still incomplete.
To include enough essential information the HLPE may consider having a slightly longer report.
It could also avoid integrating in the report itself the part 1.3 on “what do we know about
climate change” which is quite technical and not of direct use for policy making in the context of
the report. It could be an Appendix, which would make the reading of the report easier and free
additional space for the essential parts.
On the same line, chapter 2 is centred on scenarios, which makes it quite difficult to use for
supporting concrete policy recommendations. As it is, this part gives the impression that there
are so many uncertainties that no action is possible. What would be needed here is an analysis of
vulnerabilities as they are known, which is as they are now and very likely to be in the decades
to come. Last IPCC report stated that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now
evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures,
widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level. Observational evidence
from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by
regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases. It goes on in stating that for the
next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of emissions
scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all GHGs and aerosols had been kept constant at year
2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. Afterwards,
temperature projections increasingly depend on specific emissions scenarios. The distinction
shall thus be made clearer between “short term” (which is already long for decision making) and
longer term where scenarios are of use to illustrate tendencies and uncertainties.
As very rightly said it is difficult to decide the right amount of information needed, especially in a
limited format. The request by CFS does provide a guide for it as it clearly asks to “focus on the
most affected and vulnerable regions and populations and the interface between climate change
and agricultural productivity”. As important as the amount of information, or may be more, is
probably the way it is organized, which will determine its readability for decision makers. For
instance, the 3.3 on options for adapting to climate change is organized along the dimensions of
food security. It would be probably easier to read if it was organized in general and specific, the
latter being organized by production systems. On the same line, part 4.4 on mitigation options is
organized by gases and the 4.5 examines the trade off options for reducing emissions in a
production system are thus dispersed by gases and it does not discuss the trade off between
them for a determined system. It would be easier to read for decision making if it was organized
by production systems : livestock, rice,...
One last remark concerns the Glossary which is extremely long and whose usefulness is
extremely doubtful as most of it already figure in the IPCC glossary and as any new definition
should figure in the report itself as it contributes to its conceptual framing.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
88
It is not possible to provide detailed policy recommendations for specific countries, regions, or
groups. Instead we propose a series of policy messages that are intended to provide guidance for
developing nationally-relevant policies and programs and that can also assist international efforts.
Have we chosen the best set of topics? How could our policy messages be improved? Have
important messages been omitted?
The chapter on mitigation does not fully address the issue of the relations between mitigation in
agriculture and food security.
As agricultural production will increase to satisfy a growing demand, due to population increase,
income growth and changing diet patterns, particularly in developing countries, agricultural
emissions will increase, according to IPCC (2007). And so, the real challenge is how to increase
production without a parallel increase in emissions.
A fist way, mentioned in the adaptation chapter (3.3.3), could be to act on consumption. A
second one, briefly mentioned in 1.4.3.3 would be to reduce food losses and waste. More
generally, because reducing food losses and waste is part of it, the main way to increase
available food without a parallel increase in emissions is to increase the resource efficiency of
food systems. In other words in reducing emissions per kg of output, all along the food chains.
This option is only mentioned in 4.4, about CH4 emissions from ruminants. It is applicable to all
emissions, most of which, whether due to livestock, nutrient management or deforestation,
would be reduced by better efficiency in the use of resources.
Such an approach, sustainable intensification, as defined and recommended by FAO for crop
production in Save and Grow (http://www.fao.org/ag/save-and-grow/), enables, building upon
ecosystems’ functions, to increase productivity and production, particularly for small holders,
thus improving food security without a parallel increase in emissions.
It is valid for every type of farming where most of the emissions could be reduced by better use
of resources, integrated nutrient management or better livestock productivity. But the biggest
potential is where the biggest gains in efficiency have to be made, in developing countries and
especially in LDCs, first of all to improve their food security.
Another issue which could deserve attention is the potential effects of national mitigation
measures in agriculture in Annex I countries on both global food availability and global
agricultural emissions. For instance what afforestation measures in Annex I countries would
have on food availability and global emissions if these countries do not at the same time reduce
their consumption?
The chapter on adaptation is incomplete. We would especially value input on whether the concepts
presented in annotated outline form cover appropriate material or whether additional topics need
to be covered, and some current items eliminated. These inputs will be used to guide the drafting of
the final version of this chapter.
The proposed outline seems to cover many of the main issues. There is however a major
omission : genetic resources, which are an essential mean of adaptation. They are mentioned in
part 5 but should be properly considered here, along with recommendations on their
conservation, characterization and management.
As it is the chapter also contains many concrete recommendations which could feed into the fifth
part.
The report proposes three high level policy messages with detailed recommendations under each.
We introduce the three high level messages here and ask the reader to refer to the fifth chapter for
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
89
the current complete text. Are these the most important messages for national and international
policy makers? How can the text be improved to convey these (or other) messages?
As they are now formulated in part 5, the recommendations are very broad and general. The
report would be much more useful to policy makers if the various concrete recommendations
which figure all along the report were gathered here.
Emphasis just be put on the fact that even if food security, adaptation and mitigation can be
separated for analytical purposes, on the ground, they have to be pursued jointly. This is why
FAO has forged the concept of “Climate Smart Agriculture”. Climate Smart Agriculture aims to
face three intertwined challenges: first, to produce enough food, especially in developing
countries, second, to adapt to climate change, third, to contribute to mitigate Climate Change,
without compromising food production. Meeting these three challenges all together requires
radical changes, towards more resilience and more efficiency in resource use: use less land,
water, inputs to produce more food sustainably and to become more resilient to changes and
shocks, while fostering carbon sequestration. At farm level it is very much based on sustainable
intensification, including the livestock sector. It also encompasses integrated landscape
management and food chain approaches. More details and examples in
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/newsroom/docs/the-hague-conference-faopaper.pdf
Given HLPE’s status and its being part of CFS, this study could also be of help to improve the way
Agriculture and Food Security are treated in climate change talks. It will show that from the
perspective of the food security of vulnerable populations, Climate Change is already a reality. It
could bring, for the sake of the world food security, a different perspective as how the
agriculture sector has to be considered in the climate discussions: a sector which needs to get
the means to adapt in order to ensure food security.
It could consider making recommendations aiming towards establishing better links between
the topics of food security and climate change and between the international foras where they
are discussed.
Examples of topics currently addressed in UNFCCC negotiations figure in some of FAO’s recent
submissions
A submission to UNFCCC Secretariat on approaches to address losses and damages in
agriculture, forestry and fisheries in answer to the invitation of article 28 of Decision
FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/L.7 (submitted 21 February 2011)
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/smsn/igo/105.pdf
A submission to UNFCCC Secretariat on NAMAs in answer to the invitation of article 82
of Decision FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/L.7 (submitted 21 February 2011)
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/smsn/igo/096.pdf
A submission to UNFCCC Secretariat on non market based mechanisms to enhance
mitigation actions (submitted 21 February 2011)
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/smsn/igo/097.pdf
Climate Change and Food Security in the Context of the Cancun Agreements (submitted
23 March 2011) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/smsn/igo/121.pdf
This point is of particular actuality this year as a dialogue on agriculture and climate change is to
be conducted in the SBSTA in May, in view of a possible decision at next COP in Doha. FAO’s
submission, hereunder, stress the importance to properly consider agriculture and food security
in relation to climate change. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/smsn/igo/73.pdf
44. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), USA
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
90
Preface
We welcome the draft report and thank the HLPE for this opportunity to comment on the first
draft. It is important that the HLPE has been asked by the CFS to support work on climate
change. The CFS has an important role to play in development of policy options and actions to be
taken with regard to climate change impacts and food security. The CFS has a unique mandate
that places it in a strategic position vis-à-vis the climate negotiations as they interact with food
security and agriculture. The UNFCCC is not equipped to play this role, and can and should rely
on the other parts of the UN system, including the CFS, which have capacity on food security.
We support the document’s conclusions that programs and policies to address climate change
must be developed in concert with and as part of efforts to reduce poverty and enhance food
security. We are also happy to see that the document clearly recognizes the contributions of
small-scale farms to global food security and their vulnerability to climate change. We also
welcome the emphasis on the role of women in food production and household and community
food security.
Overall, we have two major concerns, in addition to the more specific comments that follow.
First, the report is still very far from ready, and we are hope there is time still to deliver the
substantive report that is urgently needed from the HLPE to inform the CFS work in this area. It
is crucial that the HLPE make a substantive and credible contribution to the debate.
Unfortunately, the report is surprisingly weak. It lacks both substantial peer-reviewed
references and definitions of key terms. Perhaps more seriously, the V0 report does not provide
a sufficiently comprehensive perspective on the causes of climate change, including the
agricultural practices that must change to control greenhouse gas emissions. While the primary
focus of CFS work is rightly on vulnerable peoples confronting food insecurity, this should not
limit the scope of CFS work to exclude the policies and actions elsewhere in the world’s food
systems that damage the interests of those vulnerable people.
Our second concern is that the report lacks an overall organizing framework – a means to
understand how the problems are conceptualized and that directs governments and policymakers towards appropriate solutions. We recommend three elements of a framework:
•
•
•
Policymakers must recognize the urgency of the situation. Temperature increases of 2.5-5 °C this
century pose serious threats to lives and livelihoods across the planet and seriously threaten to
reduce agricultural yields, even in the short term, over the next several decades. While it may be
extremely difficult to contain warming to 2 °C, the report should not communicate complacency
on this point – policymakers and governments should be apprised of the significant threat to
crop production and concomitant impacts on global food security that will result from their lack
of action.
Low-cost, no-regrets adaptation options such as agroecological production methods and
agroforestry offer multiple benefits to lives, livelihoods, natural resource management, etc. Noregrets options that increase system resilience and productivity, which provide these multiple
benefits to producers regardless of the climatic changes experienced, should be given more
attention by policymakers and scientists. Their transmission should be enabled through both
traditional extension as well as farmer-to-farmer mechanisms.
Agriculture is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from industrial
agriculture and the modern food system. Much more must be done to reduce N2O emissions from
synthetic fertilizer production and use and CH4 from unsustainable modes of animal production
and industrial manure management systems.
1. The report must reflect the urgency of the current situation. It must focus on the
threats climate change poses to food security.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
91
In the past several years, climate change-related events have affected crop production around
the world. Heat waves in Russia21 and the U.S. Midwest22; drought in Texas23 and the Horn of
Africa; floods in Thailand24 and Pakistan25 – overall, climate-related natural disasters have
increased dramatically in recent years, in particular cyclones and floods
(http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/trends-in-natural-disasters_a899#). These climaterelated natural disasters are the most visible impacts, yet they are but the tip of the iceberg. In a
recent study published in Science, Lobell et al. (2011) find there has already been a 3.8%
reduction in wheat yields and a 5.5% reduction in maize yields globally since 1980. These are
changes that have occurred with a mere 0.74 °C of warming over the past century.
Estimates for the amount of warming that will happen in the next century are from 2.5-5 °C (see
UNEP’s emissions gap report, UNEP 2010). By 2050, warming could already be 2 °C globally –
double the warming we have now. As continents warm more quickly than oceans, large land
masses such as the African continent are expected to see increases 1.5 times the global average,
or 3 °C by 2050. This would almost certainly dramatically increase the already significant effects
of climate change on food production in the next three decades. Lobell et al. (2008) say it
succinctly: “Food production [is] clearly threatened by climate change in the relatively near term.”
The report already accepts that a temperature rise by 2100 “of the order of 4 degrees” is more
likely than 2 °C (pg 34) without driving home the impact this will have on world food security as
a whole due to massive upheaval in farming systems. Nor does it call for a radical overhaul of
production, distribution and consumption patterns and the policies that help make agriculture a
large emitter. Indeed, the authors seem to indicate that because climates are always changing,
agricultural adaptation will continue as it has always been, yet failing to indicate that the rate
and magnitude of change we will experience this century has no historical precedent. Yet, a rise
of even two °C can be averted if governments begin to take appropriate action now.
Thus, the HLPE report must convey the urgency of the situation, and the importance of
governments reaching an understanding of what climate change means for agricultural
production in the very near term, and what they intend to do about it. The authors seem to
downplay the direct threat that climate change plays to food security, calling it merely “a threat
multiplier.” This characterization is not only incorrect but also dangerous. It distracts attention
from serious consideration of the direct threats posed by climate change.
2. If the four pillars of food security are to serve as an organizing frame for analysis, they
must be defined and used consistently and accurately.
Each of the four terms used to define the pillars of food security is complex in its own right, and
liable to give rise to some debate. This makes it all the more important for the HLPE project team
21 Most sources report a 40% or more reduction in wheat yields due to the heat wave.
22 U.S. corn yields were eroded by an estimated one billion bushels by a wet spring, a mid-pollination heat
wave in July, and extensive dryness in some areas during the period of grain filling.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/2011-us-corn-yield-impacted-by/56266
23 Texas agricultural crop losses topped $7 billion in 2011 due to the drought and excessive heat.
http://www.agriculture.com/news/livestock/texas-drought-losses-topped-7-billion_3-ar23112
24 Up to 25% of the Thai rice crop was lost due to flooding.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/28/us-thailand-rice-idUSTRE79R0QF20111028
25 Damage by flooding to over a million acres of sugar, wheat and rice production was estimated at over
$2.9 billion. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-12/wheat-stocks-sugar-cane-rice-crops-ruinedby-pakistan-s-worst-flooding.html
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
92
to define each term in this paper. A logical place to start with defining the terms would be to use
FAO documents. We have found a useful, concise source in FAO (2006), while Erickson (2007)
also provides a helpful definition for the first three pillars:
Food availability: The availability of sufficient quantities of food of appropriate
quality, supplied through domestic production or imports (including food aid).
(Erickson: production, distribution, exchange)
Food access: Access by individuals to adequate resources (entitlements) for
acquiring appropriate foods for a nutritious diet. Entitlements are defined as the set
of all commodity bundles over which a person can establish command given the
legal, political, economic and social arrangements of the community in which they
live (including traditional rights such as access to common resources). (Erickson:
affordability, allocation, preference)
Utilization: Utilization of food through adequate diet, clean water, sanitation and
health care to reach a state of nutritional well being where all physiological needs
are met. This brings out the importance of non-food inputs in food security.
(Erickson: nutritional value, social value, food safety)
Stability: To be food secure, a population, household or individual must have access
to adequate food at all times. They should not risk losing access to food as a
consequence of sudden shocks (e.g., an economic or climatic crisis) or cyclical events
(e.g., seasonal food insecurity). The concept of stability can therefore refer to both
the availability and access dimensions of food security.
Some of the places in the document where the pillars are used incorrectly include, but are not
limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
P. 2. Access is not merely about incomes, markets and prices. Entitlements, as originally
defined by Sen (1982), are essential to understanding access. None of the discussions of
access in the draft explain the basic concept of entitlements, nor do they write about access
with this understanding in view. One of the reformed CFS’s founding precepts is the right to
food. Any discussion of access should underline the importance of access to food in the
realization of the right to food.
The discussion of nutritional quality under the section on availability in chapter 1 is more
accurately a question of utilization. However, it is unclear why traits such as chalk, amylase
content and gelatinization temperature are addressed in a discussion of impacts on food
security.
The hot spots discussed in chapter 2 are not directly relevant to the access pillar. The hot
spots research attempts to determine where major crops will experience a reduction in
growing period length, i.e., where production will diminish or cease in the coming decades,
overlaying that with some components of vulnerability, in regions of interest to the CG
centers. This discussion is more appropriately considered under the pillars of availability and
stability.
The discussion of use in chapter 2 is not at all relevant to food utilization.
The discussion of stability in chapter 2 does not do justice to the topic.
An accurate definition and use of the four pillars of food security could help avoid inaccurate and
controversial statements, such as the assertion on p. 7 that: “The threats to sustainable food
security include population growth mostly in today’s developing countries with growing
incomes in a world where resource constraints are already limiting productivity growth in some
places.” Population growth and rising incomes are not the causes of food insecurity, nor of
climate change. Population growth is symptomatic of other problems, and is most successfully
addressed through women’s education and empowerment, access to adequate healthcare for
both sexes, and livelihood options.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
93
With a clear definition of the pillars within an analytical framework, there would not be a need
to separate out each of the pillars for analysis in the rest of the chapters. There would still be a
need to use each of the terms correctly each time they are referenced.
3. The document needs a more complex and sophisticated treatment of vulnerability.
Adger (2006), one of the foremost scholars on vulnerability with respect to climate change,
notes that vulnerability is a complex state that is not reducible to a single metric, such as income.
“It is the multi-level interactions between system components (livelihoods, social structures and
agricultural policy) that determine system vulnerability.” (Adger 2006) The IPCC definition,
quoted in the glossary, says vulnerability is a function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive
capacity, all of which need to be examined in the context of climate change effects on
communities and farmers in particular regions. See also the analysis done by the Met Office
Hadley Centre and the World Food Programme (2012) on food insecurity and climate change.
“Being poor” is a rather uni-dimensional and ultimately not useful way of defining vulnerability
(p. 3); in their analysis the authors seem to ignore the complexities they outline in their own
definition. Note that food insecurity and poverty are linked but by no means define the same
populations; relatively better-off populations can face food insecurity, as the 2007/2008 food
price crisis showed, while some people in relative poverty have reasonably good food security,
because they do not rely on income to purchase food.
While understanding the difficulties of capturing the world’s complexity in one report, it is not
satisfying to have only two huge regions singled out (“sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia”) in the
identification of vulnerable regions and people. Given the importance of agriculture in many
other parts of the world, and the serious threats to agricultural production posed by climate
change there (for example, in small island states or the Andean regions whose production is
dependent on glaciers for water supply), the report should at least note the extent of vulnerable
populations around the globe. A more disaggregated approach would also be useful,
distinguishing (even if just for illustrative purposes) among landless wage laborers and urban
dwellers, between small-scale and large producers.
A vulnerability analysis should also address countries and populations who depend on food
from outside their regions. Which import dependent countries are likely to suffer most and how
can they start diversifying their food sources now in order to avoid large-scale food insecurity
and fiscal crises? There are lessons here from the food crisis. A critical look at international
trade, distribution channels, the market structure for agriculture production and inputs and
their rising costs will go a long way in identifying who the vulnerable are likely to be as a result
of climate change.
Finally, a global analysis should encompass analysis of the vulnerability inherent in the entire
range of agricultural production systems, including high-input agriculture in developed
countries, which due to its lack of diversity and dependence on fossil fuels is particularly
vulnerable to shocks within and external to the production system. (See for example Lin,
Perfecto and Vandermeer 2008) “Modern agroecosystems have weak resilience … transitions
towards sustainability need to focus on structures and functions that improve resilience.”
(Pretty 2006) As an example of the vulnerability of the industrial food system to changing
climatic patterns, pests and diseases, wheat production systems globally are currently
threatened with a stem rust called Ug99. Climate change will exacerbate these types of
widespread threats to the food supply. In contrast, “Eakin (2005) shows for Mexican farmers
that diversity is key to avoiding vulnerability and that investment in commercial high-yielding
irrigated agriculture can exacerbate vulnerability compared to a [subsistence] farming system
based on maize.” (as cited in Adger 2006)
4. Given the urgency of the climate threat, immediate action on adaptation is needed. The
adaptation chapter (chapter 3) needs to be strengthened considerably, and include
discussion of low-cost, no-regrets strategies.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
94
The adaptation chapter needs careful attention. First and foremost, it should review the
extensive literature on adaptation and agriculture, in particular the literature on communitybased adaptation and disaster risk reduction and the links to food security. The importance of
farmer-to-farmer mechanisms as means for transmission of community-based adaptation
information should also be highlighted. It would be useful to have references for what has been
written so as to know what additional reading to propose.
Much of the literature on community-based adaptation is published by NGOs who are leading
the development of this work. (See for example CARE International no date; Ensor and Berger
2009; IIED no date; The Development Fund 2009; USC Canada no date.) The project team should
take careful note of the HLPE mandate to “combine scientific knowledge with experiences from
the ground … The HLPE will translate the richness and variety of forms of expert knowledge
from many actors … that draw on both local and global sources, into policy-related forms of
knowledge.” The bulk of literature on adaptation and agriculture to date is found in sources from
NGOs who are working on the ground. The report should take care to thoroughly review and cite
this body of literature.
One example of what is missing is the concept of resilience. Resilience is a key concept in
academic and policy analysis related to disaster risk reduction and adaptation. The authors
might find it useful to look at the work being undertaken by the World Agroforestry Centre on
agroforestry and adaptation to increase resilience and reduce vulnerability. (For example see
Neufeldt et al. 2009, Thorlakson 2011, World Agroforestry Centre 2009)
There are some key questions that need to be addressed with respect to adaptation and food
security: how to make production systems and livelihood strategies more resilient? What are noregrets, low-cost, low-input strategies to improve resilience and adaptive capacities? What are
the contributions of agroecological approaches for adaptation for food security? The IAASTD
report (McIntyre et al. 2009), the recent report of the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture
and Climate Change (Commission 2012), and the recent IPCC Special Report on Extreme
Events26 (IPCC 2011) all emphasize agroecological methods responsible for increasing waterholding capacity, soil health, and productivity, all contributing to resilience. This evidence
should be covered in the HLPE report.
The authors could also look at the FAO training module on adaptation27 for some ideas about
what to include in the report. Lesson Three “Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in
Agriculture” looks at possible strategies including:
•
•
•
•
“people centered” strategies such as setting up community-based grain banks, helping
rural households diversify their sources of income, and social protection schemes;
improved water management practices such as building infrastructure for more efficient
irrigation systems and small-scale water capture, storage and use;
adopting farming practices aimed at conserving soil moisture, organic matter and
nutrients – such as crop rotation and using mulch stubble and straw;
using short-cycle seed varieties that allow for harvesting before the peak of the cyclone
season.
The report should also examine the very important work underway by the CG centers on
adaptation, including work to identify climate analogue locations between present and future
26 For example, the authors of the IPCC SREX report conclude that: “Ecosystem management and
restoration activities that focus on addressing deteriorating environmental conditions are essential to
protecting and sustaining people’s livelihoods in the face of climate extremes (high agreement, robust
evidence). Such activities include, among others, watershed rehabilitation, agro-ecology, and forest
landscape restoration. Moreover, provision of better access to and control of resources will improve
people’s livelihoods, and build long-term adaptive capacity. Such approaches have been recommended in
the past, but have not been incorporated into capacity building to date. [5.3.3]”
27 http://www.foodsec.org/web/newsevents/news/newsdetail/en/?no_cache=1&dyna_fef[uid]=130063
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
95
climates.28 The role of meteorological services, the need to increase funding and other capacity
support for regional and national services, and the importance of early warning systems should
be highlighted.
Discussions of adaptation and food security should include treatment of urban and peri-urban
agriculture. One response to addressing the food availability and access pillars for urbanizing
populations is to consider how to increase food production in the urban and peri-urban areas
where people live. These considerations should be included in the report.
The urbanization of populations is mentioned numerous times throughout the document, but
with no indication of why people are moving to urban centers. The report might also assess why
urbanization is occurring in so many developing countries, from the poorest LDCs to the relative
economic giants, such as China and India. In India, agriculture is ever less viable as a sector due
to rising input costs and indebtedness, lack of public investment in infrastructure, excessive
exposure to risk due to poorly regulated markets, etc. The people who migrate to urban areas do
not necessarily find better livelihoods—and they sometimes face greater food insecurity than
they did in their villages, buying food at high prices on low wages. Adaptation has to address the
viability of agriculture in the face of climate change to prevent distress-related migration to
urban areas.
If the report addresses insurance as an adaptation strategy, it should include analysis and
discussion of situations where insurance will not be useful, such as for marginal small scale and
subsistence farmers who do not have the means to purchase insurance, or where crop or
livelihood losses are not due to extreme events but due to slow onset events, such as slow onset
temperature rise, slow onset salinization of water supplies, or slow onset loss of productive land
due to sea level rise.
5. The direct links between agroecology and adaptation and mitigation need to be
recognized and the existing literature on these links thoroughly reviewed.
Given the emphasis that many intergovernmental and other bodies (including but not limited to
various CG centers, in particular ICRAF (see for example Akinnifesi et al. 2010, Assah 2011,
World Agroforestry Centre 2009); FAO (Niggli et al. 2010, Scialabba and Hattam 2002); WFP;
UNEP (Hines and Pretty 2008); UNCTAD (Hoffman 2011, UNCTAD 2010); IPCC (2011); and
IAASTD (McIntyre et al. 2009)) have placed on agroecological approaches29 as essential
elements for adaptation in agriculture in both small-and large-scale agricultural systems, and
the substantial evidence base that already exists for success of these approaches around the
world, the report should provide a serious review of agroecological approaches. Agroecology has
been shown to be invaluable for both adaptation to changing climatic patterns, temperature and
rainfall variability, and also for increasing the resilience and adaptive capacity of agricultural
systems through increasing soil’s capacity to hold water (thereby increasing the soil’s ability to
withstand droughts and floods), improving soil health, building agroecosystem diversity, etc.
(For example see Altieri and Koohafkan 2008, Edwards 2007, Eyhord et al. 2007, Hines and
Pretty 2008, Holt-Giménez 2002, IFOAM 2009a, Parrot and Marsden 2002, Zhu 2000) Diversity
in systems contributes not merely to adaptation, but more fundamentally to increasing system
resilience, which is needed in the long run to reduce vulnerability in production systems. (See
for example Ensor 2009 and Mijatovic et al. 2010) The report should also provide a more
28http://www.cp-africa.com/2012/01/31/climate-analogue-location-in-eastern-and-southern-africacalesa-project-help-small-scale-farmers-in-kenya-and-zimbabwe-adapt-to-climatic-changes/
29 Agroecological approaches that build resilience include, for example: complex systems, use of local
genetic diversity, soil organic matter enhancement, multiple cropping or polyculture systems,
agroforestry systems and mulching, home gardening. (Ensor 2009)
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
96
complete explanation of the scientific context for why these particular characteristics are
effective (as noted further in point 8 below) in building system resilience.
Agroecological approaches have also been identified as effective in mitigating greenhouse gas
emissions, both by preventing emissions or through sequestering carbon. (see for example
IFOAM 2009b) By decreasing reliance on synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, agroecological
approaches can significantly reduce the greenhouse gas contribution made in the production of
fertilizers, which on its own contributes 1.2% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. (Wood
and Cowie 2004) Decreasing reliance on synthetic nitrogen fertilizers is also necessary to
address the problem of exceeding planetary boundaries of creating reactive nitrogen, which
could have longer term impacts on environmental integrity and food security. (Rockstrom et al.
2009) Ladha et al. (2011) conclude that adding compost is twice as effective at increasing soil
carbon concentrations as synthetic fertilizers. Given the well-documented and important
contribution agroecology can make to both mitigation and adaptation, it merits serious and
detailed attention in the HLPE report.
6. The report should take a wider approach to mitigation (chapter 4).
The report unfortunately replicates the problematic position of the OECD countries in climate
negotiations, where developed countries wish to focus on the mitigation potential of the billions
of acres of land in developing countries rather than address their own substantial emissions,
including from their agriculture. Small-scale producers are critically important for food security,
but it is not for them to “address” climate change (p. 9). Rather, small-scale farmers have to
adapt to climate change, and merit the support of the international community and their
governments in so doing. It is the farms whose practices are exacerbating climate change that
have to address the problem, by adopting more sustainable practices.
Moreover, chapter 4 provides no clear articulation of the link between mitigation and food
security. If indeed, as is indicated in the introduction to the report, “to help those most
vulnerable to climate change, polices and programs that are designed to respond to climate
change should be complementary to, not independent of, those needed for sustainable food
security,” food security should be the focus of the analysis, not carbon sequestration. The
framing of the chapter should look at the threat of emissions from agriculture.
Given the enormous contributions of input-intensive agriculture to global greenhouse gas
emissions, particularly from methane emissions from confined animal operations and nitrous
oxide emissions both from the production and use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, the lack of
serious attention to the major sources and approaches to directly reduce these emissions is
profoundly troubling. Mitigation efforts in agriculture should focus on the main emissions from
the sector. Methane and nitrous oxide, rather than carbon dioxide, are the most important GHGs
emitted in the agriculture sector. Moreover, agriculture emissions of these non-CO2 gases are
responsible for the bulk of the global emissions of these gases. Methane emissions from
agriculture account for 50 percent of total global methane emissions; nitrous oxide emissions
from agriculture account for 75 percent of the global total. (Golub et al. 2009) Attention to
mitigation of these gases in the agriculture sector is urgent. (See further discussion of these
gases in point 7 below.)
The technologies that are addressed in the chapter should be introduced and discussed in detail
first in the adaptation chapter. Resilience-building and soil-conserving technologies are first and
foremost about adaptation efforts, and an emphasis on the most vulnerable necessitates that
adaptation in the context of food security take priority over any mitigation effort. Any mitigation
that results should be seen as a co-benefit, not the other way around.
Indeed, the report should review the most recent literature showing that soil carbon
sequestration is not a reliable strategy for mitigation in agriculture, although much hope has
been placed on its potential, including by the IPCC. (Smith et al. 2007) Scientific studies
conducted since the publication of AR4 strongly indicate that many of the recommended
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
97
practices, such as reduced tillage, do not in fact increase soil carbon content, but merely prevent
more carbon from escaping soils. (See for example DeGryze et al. 2009) Estimates provided so
far for mitigation potential are far in excess of what is feasible, particularly when taking into
consideration uncertainties associated with biological processes. Moreover, as precipitation
patterns change, along with soil moisture profiles, the sequestration potential for any given soil
type or agricultural ecosystem will likely diminish. For example, an increase in soil moisture will
likely increase soil emissions of nitrous oxide and methane, leading to an actual increase in
greenhouse gas emissions from soils, rather than sequestration.
The report contrasts emissions in China with those in France, while completely ignoring the
embodied emissions in products consumed in Europe which are produced outside of Europe.
For example, while European agriculture production emissions may be going down on European
soil, European meat consumption/demand is contributing to agriculture emissions elsewhere.
According to the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, emissions produced on
around 12 million hectares of land outside of Europe can be attributed to European livestock
production, for example, through the import of animal feed from Latin America. (Westhoek et al.
2011) Overconsumption in developed countries and what OECD countries can do about it
unfortunately remains unaddressed. The current report should tackle the consumption question
head on.
Overall, the balance between mitigation and adaptation in the document does not do justice to
climate change effects on global food security. Given the figures cited in our first point,
adaptation has to be the priority for billions of small farmers, and the global community must
invest significant resources to this end. The mitigation efforts in agriculture must prioritize the
substantial emissions of input-intensive, greenhouse gas-intensive systems.
7. The greenhouse contributions of intensive animal and crop agriculture are significant
and must be specifically addressed in the report.
OECD, CEE and countries of the former Soviet Union, totaling 17 percent of the world population, are
responsible for 26 percent of global N2O emissions from soils, 30 percent of CH4 emissions from
enteric fermentation, and 52 percent of CH4 and N2O emissions from manure management. (Smith et
al. 2007) The last category of emissions is disproportionately high due to the use of lagoons for
manure management in large-scale confinement operations.30 Globally, New Zealand, Ireland and
Australia ranked as the top three emitters per capita for emissions from their agriculture sectors in
2005, while the OECD outpaced the entire world.31
According to the IPCC, these emissions increased by nearly 17 percent between 1990 and
2005.32 Agriculture emissions from North America increased by 18 percent and from OECD
Pacific by 21 percent. Increases were attributed to a massive increase in nitrogen fertilizer use in
New Zealand and Australia and manure effluent of cattle, poultry and swine farms and manure
application to soils in North America.
Canada, New Zealand and the United States have all increased their methane emissions between
1990-2009. Although the EU has decreased its emissions, presumably due to reductions in
fertilizer use resulting from their nitrates directive,33 Australia, Canada and New Zealand have
30 “Liquid manure management systems, such as lagoons, ponds, tanks, or pits, handle a much smaller
portion of total manure but comprise 80 percent of total methane emissions from manure.”
http://uspowerpartners.org/Topics/SECTION6Topic-AnimalWasteMethane.htm
31 http://www.garnautreview.org.au/pdf/Garnaut_Chapter7.pdf
32 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch8s8-es.html
33 http://www.airclim.org/acidnews/2011/4/eu-trends-greenhouse-gas-emissions
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
98
all significantly increased their nitrous oxide emissions above 1990 levels in the period between
1990-2009. The US levels have remained high from 1990 and increased since. The largest
consumption of fertilizer per capita (the main source of agricultural N2O emissions) continues in
OECD countries (see table 1). New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States all exceed
the world average of per capita fertilizer consumption.
These trends are significantly worrying, yet many recent prescriptions of where emission reductions
in agriculture must come from, including in the draft report, point away from permanent emission
reductions of CH4 and N2O in the direction of carbon sequestration. In contrast, the UNEP emissions
gap report (UNEP 2011) cites Golub et al. (2009), who demonstrate that the bulk of the mitigation
potential in agriculture resides in significant reductions in fertilizer use in the US, as well as in
changes to ruminant production globally.
An evaluation is needed at the global level of national policies and practices that contribute to
high agriculture sector emissions, such as policies that encourage the production and overuse of
synthetic fertilizers, or those that encourage overproduction, overconsumption and
industrialization of animal products, as well as appropriate measures to incentivize changes in
production methods. At the same time, an assessment should be made of national policies and
international funding for research on and implementation of ecological agricultural practices
that reduce or prevent agricultural GHG emissions, such as practices that reduce or eliminate the
use of synthetic N fertilizers.
Though the IPCC estimated that agriculture emissions will continue to increase from the
developing world, the percentage of people in agriculture in the developing world, particularly
Asia and Africa, far exceeds the percentage in OECD countries (see table 1). According to FAO
statistics, 40% of the world’s population is in agriculture. The large majority of this population
resides in and is responsible for the food security of these countries, particularly as dependence
on global trade for food becomes particularly unpredictable with rising food prices and erratic
supply. Comparing developing countries’ emissions versus developed countries (for instance in
the case of Chinese emissions versus those of France) is unhelpful in agriculture given the
drastically different role this sector plays in these countries.
Much more is at stake for developing countries in constraining emissions growth from
agriculture given their dependence on their agriculture sector for livelihoods, food security and
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
99
overall development, particularly where a large percentage of the country’s GDP comes from
agriculture exports and where low yields necessitate an increase in fertilizer use. Control of
agricultural emissions from developing countries should be enabled through the transfer of
ethically, environmentally sound and cost-effective technologies and practices. However the
bulk of the responsibility for decreasing emissions must lie with developed countries,
particularly methane emissions from intensive feedlot livestock manure lagoons, as well as
emissions from the production and use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers.
8. More generally, the document needs more contextual information from the available
science.
The report relies too heavily on already widely disseminated IPCC reports. The section “What do
we know about climate change?” would be more useful if it provided a referenced examination
of exactly how climate change is expected to affect agricultural production, particularly from a
crop and animal physiological perspective, as well as its expected effects on soil moisture
content. (For an example of a literature review that contains such information see Stabinsky
2011 and Stabinsky and Lim 2012.) The review of these issues should include not only the
predicted effects of extreme events, but also the impacts of slow onset temperature rise, slow
onset salinization of aquifers, slow onset loss of productive land due to sea level rise, increase in
variability and amount of rainfall in single events and across the growing season, and reduction
in the length of the growing period due to increased temperatures and the concomitant loss of
soil moisture.
Nowhere does the report note that while climate science is imprecise and in some areas
speculative, many of the practices we know can mitigate greenhouse gas emissions or improve
carbon capture are also practices that make sense because they encourage more sustainable
water use, better management of soil health, etc. There are some important gains for ecology
that are likely to be better for climate, and worth adopting on their own merits.
9. Substantial sections and conclusions of the report lack even basic citations.
The HLPE has an explicit mandate to use and include both scientific and other kinds of
knowledge. Yet given the nature of the information provided, the lack of reference to peerreviewed literature does not make sense. In some places, assertions are given without any
context or explanation. For example, the report declares the importance of supporting the
creation of market-based mechanisms in agriculture, with no prior examination of arguments
for and against, nor review of significant ongoing problems with the European Emissions
Trading Scheme and why temporary emission reductions of volatile carbon might not be a safe
planetary emission reduction strategy.34 Similarly, the insistence on public-private
partnerships needs context and explanation. The document should serve as an objective review
of the range of evidence available, acknowledging the challenges where they arise.
One specific use of the evidence is particularly troubling: the treatment of the conclusions of
Ladha et al. (2011). From the abstract of the article, we learn that in soils not treated with
synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, soil organic matter (soil organic carbon and soil organic nitrogen)
decreases. In soils treated with synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, the rate of soil organic matter loss
decreases, relative to untreated soils. In soils treated with organic matter (i.e., manure), soil
organic matter increased, on average, by 37%.
The report notes only one conclusion of Ladha et al. (2011), creating a highly misleading
impression. The report cites Ladha et al. saying “long-term experiments showed that synthetic
fertilizer N significantly reduces the declining rate of soil organic carbon in agricultural soils.”
The authors decided not to mention the fact that treating soils with organic, rather than
34 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/28/overhaul-europe-carbon-tradingscheme
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
100
synthetic fertilizers, increased soil organic matter (compared to merely reducing the rate of soil
organic matter loss) on average by 37%. That they would leave out the most significant
conclusions of the paper, in a chapter that dealt specifically with soil carbon sequestration, is
inexplicable.
10. The report should include discussion of international cooperation on crosscutting
issues related to food security and climate change.
The HLPE report on climate change offers an important opportunity to continue the rethinking
on regulating agricultural trade from a food security perspective that began with the 2011 HLPE
report on food price volatility. While appreciating the report has to stay focused on climate
change, from a food security perspective, climate change does not occur in isolation, but in a
context in which there are multiple causes of insecurity. This context must be acknowledged
more explicitly than it is in the current draft, building on the existing HLPE work.
International agriculture trade rules must be revisited in light of food security and climate
change. The Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has outlined various starting points for
this process. The changed context, from the relative glut of commodities in the mid-1990s to the
relatively greater scarcity today has also been discussed by FAO, among others. The food price
crisis showed the inadequacies of existing trade rules, and highlighted the need to rebuild
confidence in trade as an instrument for food security.
Multilateral intellectual property rights (IPR) disciplines are moving in the wrong direction to
foster learning and adaptation across boundaries on plant varieties, agriculture biodiversity and
agriculture inputs. The IPR provisions in most bilateral and regional trade treaties exacerbate
these concerns. Increased cooperation amongst nations, public and private sector entities and
food producers needs to take place to ensure the dissemination, distribution and creation of
practical knowledge to adapt to climate change.
International investment policies that help facilitate large scale conversions of land to nonagricultural use or for agricultural production while displacing people should be stopped until
strong, enforceable and democratically agreed regulations are put in place. The Voluntary
Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the
Context of National Food Security (VG) have just been finalized under the auspices of the CFS.
The authors should invoke the VG recommendations and push for their adoption into law as a
preliminary step towards responsible investment.
REDD (plus plus): Very little assessment has been done of whether REDD programs are contributing
to or further jeopardizing the food security of forest-based and dependent communities. Yet with
very little assessment from a food security perspective, donor and World Bank-led initiatives for
REDD are moving forward. REDD and REDD plus initiatives should be evaluated for their impacts on
food security, both with regards to tradeoffs for direct investment in food security programs that
create agriculture resilience and for the likely effects of REDD programs on food security and
resource tenure.
References cited
Adger, W.N. 2006. "Vulnerability." Global Environmental Change 16: 268-281.
Akinnifesi, F. K. et al. 2010. “Fertiliser trees for sustainable food security in maize-based
production systems of East and Southern Africa: a review.” Agronomy for Sustainable
Development 30(3): 615-629.
Altieri, M.A. and P. Koohafkan. 2008. Enduring farms: climate change, smallholders and
traditional farming communities. Third World Network: Penang, Malaysia.
Assah et al. 2011. “Trees, agroforestry and multifunctional agriculture in Cameroon.”
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9(1): 110-119.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
101
CARE International. No date. “CARE tackles vulnerability to climate change.”
http://careclimatechange.org/adaptationn (Accessed 13 April 2012)
Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change. 2012. Achieving food security in the
face of climate change. http://ccafs.cgiar.org/commission (Accessed 13 April 2012)
DeGryze el al. 2009. “Modeling shows that alternative soil management can decrease greenhouse
gas emissions.” California Agriculture 63(2): 84-90.
Eakin, H. 2005. “Institutional change, climate risk, and rural vulnerability: cases from central
Mexico.” World Development 33(11): 1923-1938.
Edwards, S. 2007. “The impact of compost use on crop yields in Tigray, Ethiopia.” FAO
International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security, Rome. Accessed from:
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/end/pdf/end10.pdf
Ensor, J. 2009. "Biodiverse agriculture for a changing climate." Practical Action: UK.
http://practicalaction.org/advocacy/docs/advocacy/biodiverse-agriculture-for-a-changingclimate-full.pdf (Accessed 5 April 2012).
Ensor, J. and R. Berger. 2009. Understanding climate change adaptation: lessons from communitybased approaches. Practical Action Publishing: UK.
Ericksen, P.J. 2007. “Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research.”
Global Environmental Change doi: 10.1016/j/gloenvcha.2007.09.002.
Eyhord, F. et al. 2007. “The viability of cotton-based organic agriculture systems in India.”
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 5: 25-38.
Food and Agriculture Organization. 2006. Food security policy brief. FAO: Rome, Italy.
Golub et al. 2009. “The opportunity cost of land use and the global potential for greenhouse gas
mitigation in agriculture and forestry.” Resource and Energy Economics 31(4): 299-319.
Hines, R. and J. Pretty. 2008. Organic agriculture and food security in Africa. United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP): Geneva and New York.
Hoffman, U. 2011. Assuring food security in developing countries under the challenges of climate
change: key trade and development issues of a fundamental transformation of agriculture.
UNCTAD Discussion Paper 201. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/osgdp20111_en.pdf
(Accessed 10 April 2012)
Holt-Giménez, E. 2002. “Measuring farmers’ agroecological resistance after hurricane Mitch in
Nicaragua: a case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring.”
Ecosystems and the Environment 93(1-2): 87-105.
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). 2009a. The contribution of
organic agriculture to climate change adaptation in Africa. IFOAM: Bonn, Germany.
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). 2009b. Organic
agriculture: a guide to climate change and food security. IFOAM EU Group: Brussels, Belgium.
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). No date. “Community based
adaptation.” http://www.iied.org/theme/1/Community%20Based%20Adaptation/projects
(Accessed 10 April 2012)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2011. Managing the risks of extreme events
and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland.
Ladha, J.K., C. K. Reddy, A.T. Padre and C van Kessel. 2011. “Role of nitrogen fertilization in
sustaining organic matter in cultivated soils.” Journal of Environmental Quality 40: 17561766.
__________________________________
102
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
Lin, B.B., I. Perfecto and J. Vandermeer. 2008. “Synergies between agricultural intensification and
climate change could create surprising vulnerabilities for crops.” Bioscience 58(9): 847-854.
Lobell, D. et al. 2008. “Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030.”
Science 319(5863): 607-610.
Lobell, D. et al. 2011. “Climate trends and global crop production since 1980.” Science doi:
10.1126/science.1204531
McIntyre, B. et al. 2009. International assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and
technology for development. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
Met Office Hadley Centre and World Food Programme. 2012. Food insecurity and climate change.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/8/7/MO_PUP_insert_FOOD.web.pdf (Accessed 10
April 2012)
Mijatovic, D. et al. 2010. The use of agrobiodiversity by indigenous and traditional agricultural
communities in adapting to climate change. Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research (PAR):
Rome, Italy. http://www.agrobiodiversityplatform.org/blog/wpcontent/uploads/2010/05/PAR-Synthesis_low_FINAL.pdf. (Accessed April 7, 2012)
Neufeldt, H. 2009. Trees on farms: tackling the triple challenges of mitigation, adaptation and food
security. World Agroforestry Centre Policy Brief 07. World Agroforestry Centre: Nairobi,
Kenya.
Niggli, U. et al. 2009. Low greenhouse gas agriculture: mitigation and adaptation potential of
sustainable farming systems. FAO: Rome, Italy.
Parrott, N. and T. Marsden. 2002. The real green revolution: organic and agroecological farming
in the South. Greenpeace Environment Trust: London, UK.
Pretty, J. 2006. Agroecological approaches to agricultural development. Background Paper for the
World Development Report 2008. Accessed from:
http://www.rimisp.org/getdoc.php?docid=6440
Rockstrom, J. et al. 2009. “A safe operating space for humanity.” Nature 461: 472-475.
Scialabba, N.E-H. and Hattam, C. (eds.). 2002. Organic agriculture, environment and food security.
FAO: Rome, Italy.
Sen, A. 1982. Poverty and famines. Oxford University Press: UK.
Smith, P. et al. 2007. “Policy and technological constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas
mitigation options in agriculture.” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 118: 6-28.
Stabinsky, D. 2011. Climate change impacts in Africa and the UNFCCC negotiations: policy
implications of recent scientific findings. African Climate Policy Centre, Economic Commission
for Africa: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Stabinsky, D. and L.C. Lim. 2012. Ecological agriculture, climate resilience and a roadmap to get
there. Third World Network: Penang, Malaysia. (in press)
The Development Fund/Utviklingsfondet. 2009. More than rain: identifying sustainable
pathways for climate adaptation and poverty reduction.
http://www.bistandstorget.no/newsread/readimage.aspx?WCI=GetByID&IMAGEID=3&DOC
ID=10913 (Accessed 10 April 2012)
Thorlakson, T. 2011. Reducing subsistence farmers’ vulnerability to climate change: the potential
contributions of agroforestry in western Kenya. Occasional Paper 16. World Agroforestry
Centre: Nairobi, Kenya.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 2010. Agriculture at the crossroads:
guaranteeing food security in a changing global climate. UNCTAD: Geneva, Switzerland.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
103
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2010. The emissions gap report.
http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgapreport/index.asp (Accessed 10
April 2012.
USC Canada. No date. “Climate change adaptation and mitigation.” http://usc-canada.org/whatwe-do/climate-change-adaptation-mitigation/
Westhoek et al. 2011. The protein puzzle: the consumption and production of meat, dairy and fish
in the European Union. PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency.
Wood, S. and A. Cowie. 2004. A review of greenhouse gas emission factors for fertilizer production.
IEA Bioenergy Task 38.
World Agroforestry Centre. 2009. Creating an evergreen agriculture in Africa. World
Agroforestry Centre: Nairobi, Kenya.
Zhu, Y.Y. et al. 2000. “Genetic diversity and disease control in rice.” Nature 406: 718-722.
45. Switzerland, through the Permanent Representation of Switzerland to FAO, IFAD and
WFP
•
An important audience for this report is national policy makers concerned with
agriculture and food security and their staff. Does the report include sufficient
information to support the policy messages and is it written in a way that captures
the complexity of the challenges to food security from climate change while not
being too technical?
No particular comment. However, the structure chosen by the authors for chapter 1 makes it
difficult for the reader to link directly to the policy messages mentioned in para 1.5. Detailed
comments can be found in the annex.
•
It is not possible to provide detailed policy recommendations for specific
countries, regions, or groups. Instead we propose a series of policy messages that
are intended to provide guidance for developing nationally-relevant policies and
programs and that can also assist international efforts. Have we chosen the best
set of topics? How could our policy messages be improved? Have important
messages been omitted?
No particular comment.
•
The chapter on adaptation is incomplete. We would especially value input on
whether the concepts presented in annotated outline form cover appropriate
material or whether additional topics need to be covered, and some current items
eliminated. These inputs will be used to guide the drafting of the final version of
this chapter.
It is unfortunate that the authors have not succeeded in drafting some policy messages for this
key part of the report.
•
The report proposes three high level policy messages with detailed
recommendations under each. We introduce the three high level messages here
and ask the reader to refer to the fifth chapter for the current complete text. Are
these the most important messages for national and international policy makers?
How can the text be improved to convey these (or other) messages?
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
104
1. Climate change responses should be complementary to, not independent of,
activities that are needed for sustainable food security.
2. Climate change adaptation and mitigation require national activities and global
coordination
3. Public-public and public-private partnerships are essential
The need for political will and leadership at country level as well as for adopting an inclusive
strategy to shape food security-relevant programmes and activities should be explicitly
mentioned in the report.
Annex
To make chapter 1 more compelling, it could be worthwhile rethinking the questions that should
be addressed and strengthening the concept. On this basis the scope of each sub-chapter could
be outlined. The following are examples where concept, chapter title and focus could be revised:
Sub-chapter 1.2, 1.4.1 and 1.4.2
In our view, these sub-chapters deal with information that apply not only for today but
also for the future. It could be better to insert them in an introduction that precedes
Chapter 1, which focuses exclusively on today.
Sub-chapter 1.2
Concluding from the title, one would expect comments on direct vs. indirect impacts, and
on the approaches/methodologies required to assess them. The same applies to
differences between food and nutrition.
Sub-chapter 1.3
Since the report has to be short, it could be better to focus on the various impacts of
climate change on agriculture (and rephrase the title accordingly), rather than dwelling
on the question “what do we know about GHG emissions?” This focus would be more
coherent with the main focus of the report, which is adaptation.
Sub-Chapter 1.4.2
Since the report is focusing on food security, it would make sense to describe the role
played by women for food security, rather than limit the description of their role for
agricultural production.
Furthermore we would like to add the following comments:
Sub-chapter 1.4.1
Agricultural systems might be described by contrasting small scale and larger scale farming as is
stated in this sub-chapter. For this chapter therefore we propose to broaden the reflections on
the consequences of climate change to large scale farming and not to limit the reflections on
small scale farming only.
Sub-Chapter 1.4.2
In our opinion the issue of “food security and climate change” is not restricted to developing
countries only .This report should also take into consideration developed countries, which are
also affected by climate change and where there is also a need for sustainable food systems.
Page 30, third bullet: It may be worth mentioning that reducing post harvest losses could
contribute to increasing productivity.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
105
46. Rudolph C. Ryser, Center for World Indigenous Studies, USA
Ancient Knowledge and Food Security in the Modern Era
The Center’s Executive Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors Dr. Rudolph Ryser has
been conducting research in western Mexico to determine the utility of indigenous traditional
knowledge from the period 600 CE – 1540 CE whether it can be deciphered and interpreted in
contemporary terms to apply such a knowledge system as a science to the development of a food
security strategy that can be used to respond to the adverse effects of climate change…in
particular droughts. The first phase of the study has determined that it will be appropriate for a
government to shift its private, non-profit sector policies to shield small farmers and subsistence
farmers from the commercial market…guaranteeing a livelihood to such producers by
supporting local markets for food distribution. The premise of the first phase in the western
Mexico context notes that historically peoples in this region experienced droughts and very wet
periods and successfully adapted to both climatic conditions even though these conditions
extended over decades under governing influences not very different from extant systems. The
second phase of the study has extracted a clear understanding of the prevailing knowledge
system during and after 600CE and that knowledge system is being fully deciphered and
“translated” into contemporary concepts in an effort to present a traditional knowledge-based
food security strategy for the modern period.
The first assessment examines the contemporary food producing environment in western
Mexico and evaluates the idea of “de-comercializing” food production among small farmers and
subsistence farmers. We note the vulnerability of small farmers and subsistence farmers to
industrial farming and intergovernmental agreements such as the North American Free Trade
Agreement that directly damage the capacity for food production. The essential point is to shield
these food producers who incorporate traditional practices in their methods from North
American Free Trade Agreement economic competition and expands on their ability to produce
foods for local settings consistent with successful patterns of food production in the region
extending back hundreds of years. A key element of this strategy to maximize local food security
is to ensure access to the land—good quality land—for the production of food.
Sectors identified
Three organizational sectors dominate the local, regional and global social, economic, political
and cultural environment in México. Governments such as the District Federal and the municipio
and the local community governments are called upon to establish policies that promote the
welfare of citizens. Their mission is to provide for the common welfare, ensure justice and
provide for security. Businesses are called on to create wealth through the application of labor
and resources promoting prosperity benefiting citizens to ensure the common good. Civil
Society organizations (also known as Non-profit organizations and cooperatives) fill the gaps left
by government and business to advance social change, promote social justice and improve the
quality of life. Given these rather brief descriptions, admittedly all too brief, one can see that the
role of non-profit organizations seems an apt response to the limitations of government and
business.
Non-profit or community self-help activities through civil-society institutions have existed since
well into the pre-Hispanic ages when the Méxica, Mixe, Zapotec, Nayari, Waxárika and other
indigenous nations ruled this land. Clearly, the practice is deeply embedded in the peoples of
México and continues in local communities to this day. While it is true that civil society
organizations worked in the 18th and 19th century to support education, promote health, reduce
poverty, and contribute to the México’s economy they remained a small part of the economy and
were rendered even less important during the seventy-one-years of Institutional Revolutionary
Party rule. PRI’s governmental programs extended deeply into communities throughout México
during this period limiting the demand for civic organization.
The Méxican government enacted its law governing the formation and operation of civil society
organizations in 1987 though rules had long existed in general. This law provided the basic
__________________________________
106
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
guidelines for non-profit organizations in México. It is a rather limited guide that demands, by
virtue of its limitations, a stronger and better-considered body of laws to support and encourage
the non-profit sector.
With the election of President Vicente Fox in 2000 the non-profit sector was more strongly
encouraged and indeed promoted. In 2004 the Mexican government enacted the Law to
Encourage the Activities of Civil Society Organizations. This law established two important
mandates: It directed that various governmental secretariats work to promote citizen
participation in community service organizations; and it established a Registry of Organizations
now administered by the Secretary of Social Development (SEDESOL). In the last ten years, the
number of non-profit or civil society organizations working across México has increased to more
than 35,000 community-based, regional, countrywide and international organizations.
Compared to the number of civil-society organizations in the United States and the European
Union, México’s civil society sector is clearly in its infancy.
With these important efforts, there still remains much to be done. For the non-profit sector to
grow and flourish as it has in other countries, both government and business will need to step
forward lending improved laws, strong financial support, and strong support of educational
institutions such as UNIVA. The Analytical Report on the Civil Society Index of México produced
by Centro Mexicano para la Filantropia, the World Alliance for Citizen Participation and the
Citizens’ Initiative for the Promotion of a Culture of Dialogue documented 35,357 civil society
organizations throughout México. Most of these organizations concentrate on social support or
aid services, community development and 8% focus on health. More than 10 thousand
organizations concentrate on education, research, the environment and human rights. Of all civil
society organizations in México just 283 function as philanthropic organizations.
Civil Society organizations in México rely primarily on two sources for revenue: Individual
donors, and government. Many have voluntary employees and a little more than a third have an
average of five employees. Overall the civil society sector employees about 1 million people in
Mexico and manages an estimated $120.6 billion MxPeso ($8.9 billion dollars). In the United
States of America, 1.6 million general non-profit, private foundation, and public charity
organizations administer more than $1.8 trillion in revenues. Most of these revenues (70%) are
spent by public charities with general non-profits handling about 21% and private foundations
managing about 2% of those revenues.
Puerto Vallarta is home to scores of non-profit organizations, non-governmental and other so
called “civil society” organizations. Most of these organizations, such as Feed the Children
Vallarta and School of Champions that feeds an estimated 2300 children per day and Grupo
Ecológia de Puerto Vallarta that promotes adoption of dogs and cats and Asociación Down
dedicated to the rehabilitation of Down’s syndrome children, are the kinds of organizations that
make up the vast majority of non-profit organizations in Puerto Vallarta, México country-wide
and across the hemisphere.
Non-Profit globalization
An example of the significance of non-profit organizations in a globalized world is the United
States-México Chamber of Commerce (USMCOC) established in 1973 as a non-profit business
association. It was chartered in Washington, D.C. as a coalition of businessmen established to
promote trade, investment, and joint ventures between companies in the United States and in
México. The Chamber now has twenty offices (10 in México and 10 in the United States. This
non-profit organization works to bridge legal and regulatory differences between the countries
as well as differences between the economic systems, language and cultures.
Another globalized non-profit organization is the Institute of the Americas founded in 1983
and established to promote cooperation between the public and private sectors to “improve, the
economic, political and social well-being of people in the Americas.
AMEXTRA, the Mexican Association for Rural and Urban Transformation, is an example of a
México-founded non-profit organization established in 1984 that organized a collaborative
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
107
association with Medical Teams International in Portland, Oregon, United States. AMEXTRA’s
mission is to “promote the holistic transformation of marginalized communities in Mexico”
providing education workshops on hygiene, healthy diets, appropriate technology, microfinance,
emergency services, and infant care in ten (10) states and 350 communities and Mexico City
serving more than 100,000 people each year. AMEXTRA’s association with Medical Teams
International provides funding and resources to local communities.
These examples of international cooperation between civil society organizations demonstrate a
growing trend toward globalization for non-profit organizations.
Non-profit organizations in Mexico Globalization then and now
Modern state globalization policies are dramatically changing the demands on civil society
organizations throughout the world. Organizations are now deeply engaged in local and global
negotiations to identify mitigation and adaptation strategies for responding to the adverse
affects of climate change. Of all the countries in the world, México has become the center of
global concern over the security and future availability of critical foods needed to feed many
world populations. The combined concerns over the adverse affects of climate change and
México’s centrality to the global food supply place a special burden on the small but growing
Mexican civil society sector. It is this sector that may most productively and seamlessly ensure
the continuity of México’s food production capacity that is the small farmers and subsistence
farmers.
In the decade beginning in 1999 over 80% of the economic losses resulting from weatherrelated disasters, according to México’s 2009 report to the Food and Agriculture Organization,
occurred in the agricultural sector. Drought was a major factor in the loss of food production.
Most of these losses occurred in industrialized, modern agricultural businesses. To be sure,
small farmers and subsistence farmers suffered losses, but at a much smaller proportional rate
per hectare planted in a season. Relying on diversification as a short-term reaction to weather
changes, replanting and switching to drought resistant “subsistence maize” small farmers and
subsistence farmers remained productive. These farmers responded to adverse weather
changes, as did their ancestors more than 2000 years ago. México’s small farmers and
subsistence farmers constitute a legacy borne of the successes of an earlier age that remain in
place to generate new and adaptive strains of nutrition dense food that can continue to feed
México and the world.
México’s indigenous knowledge systems supported an agriculture system that successfully
weathered environmental and climatic changes (volcanoes, droughts, frosts for example) that
provided sufficient nutrition for a growing population for more than 2000 years. That system
built on and elaborated a food production system that saw population growth of more than 7%
per year. México’s ancient food system engaged in its own globalization project extending its
reach from Yucatan to the great lakes and central regions of what is now Canada and the United
States as well as the upper regions of the Amazon in Brazil and throughout what is now the
Caribbean. In addition, the peoples who lived in what are now the states of Nayarit, Jalisco,
Michoacán, Colima and Guerroro, extended their reach to what is now Columbia, Ecuador, Peru,
Bolivia and Chile. For more than three thousand years the globalization project emanating from
México promoted wide distribution of maize, manioc, chia, cacoa, pinapple, huazontli, cacuahuti,
avocado, jitomati and chilis. The hemisphere benefited enormously from México’s food
domesticating and food transforming abilities rooted in its ancient cultures. México too was a
major beneficiary of this global reach with the introduction of metallurgy from South America’s
northeastern shores, textiles, and architectural influences.
México’s food domestication and transformation heritage, indeed its very capacity to continue as
a nursery of human foods is in jeopardy of being destroyed. The loss of human generated food
security produced by small farmers and subsistence farmers will endanger not only nutrition
dense foods for the Mexican people, but for peoples on virtually every continent who depend on
México’s continuing food diversification.
México’s ancient food generating food system is not being jeopardized by changing climate, but
by human created policies and practices intent on eliminating what some consider a backward
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
108
and inefficient food production system. Just as the original food support system of México is so
needed when the world experiences dramatic climatic changes that threatens food security
worldwide, spending and subsidies in support of small farms and subsistence farmers have been
cut or completely curtailed. These and other policies privatizing ejidos combine to create a risk
of collapsing México’s fundamental food system.
This need not happen, and indeed, it should not be allowed to happen. Government and business
sectors depend on healthy people to maintain a stable social and economic system. Redefining
policy to recognize small farmers and subsistence, as an essential part of a modern and
economically secure México will be necessary to ensure its continuity. Civil Society
organizations dedicated to enhancing the ancient food producing systems of México providing
economic, political and social support to small farmers and subsistence farms will significantly
change the present trajectory of decline. México’s government and business sectors should
recognize the more than 50 thousand small and subsistence farmers and a part of the non-profit
sector where they will be allowed to receive public support, business support and government
support without taxation. They should be considered part of civil society due to their centrality
to the food security system.
The liberalization policies advantage the commercial system, but undermine the very system
that promotes effective food security strategies responsive to climate change. In other words,
the current liberalization policies are removing the ability of Mexico’s peoples to produce
sustainable food sources adapted to the adverse affects of climate change. This is both risky for
the health of the population and a major risk for long-term economic stability in Mexico.
Hallie Eakin notes in her recently published book, Weathering Risk in Rural Mexico,
It is important to recognize that the policy decision to orient public support for production only
toward farmers who fall within a narrow definition of commercially viable has significant
welfare and economic consequences for those who are by definition excluded. If smallholder
agriculture has truly been written off, then opportunities to develop viable alternative (rural
livelihood strategies must be supported. (Eakin 2006, 202-203)
The modern era of globalization has placed México in the center of decisions about the ability of
humanity to survive in the face of changing climate. And, the first consideration is where will
food come from? México is and has been the nursery of foods that now feed the world.
Continuing its culturally rooted capacity to diversify food sources is only possible if the people
who continue to practice the successful methods of farming that adapted foods to changing
climates over the last 2000 years become recognized as a major asset to Mexican society.
Removing the stigmas associated with small farming and subsistence farming is essential, and
recognizing this small farming sector that produces 40% of the foods consumed in Mexico as a
part of civil society may be the most reasonable approach to ensuring the economic and social
stability of México itself.
Endnotes:
Antle, J., S. M. Capalbo, E.T. Elliot, and K.H. Paustian. (2004) “Adaptation, spatial heterogeneity, and
the vulnerability of agricultural systems to climate change and Cos fertilization; An
integrated assessment approach. Climatic Change 64:289-315.
CASA. Mexico Opening National CASA Forum (Citizens’ Assessment on Structural Adjustment
Policies) 24-25 August 1998 Civil Society Perspectives on Structural Adjustment Policies.
Mexico City, D.F. http://www.saprin.org/mexico/mexico_forum1.htm
Cortés Vásquez, L., Martínez Domínquez, C, Sánchez Gutiérrez, G., Adame Ramírez, A., Ninteman, P.,
Bryant, C.R., B. Smit, M. Braklachich, T.R. Johnston, J. Smithers, Q. Chiotti and B. Singh. (2000)
“Adaptation in Canadian agriculture to climate variability and change. Climate Change
45:181-201.
Eakin, H. (2006) Weathering Risk in Rural Mexico. Climatic, Institutional, and Economic Change.
Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Ellis, F. (2000) Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
FAO (2009) Climate Change Aspects in Agriculture. Mexico Country Note
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
109
Polsky, C. (2004) Putting space and time in Ricardian climate change impact studies: Agricultura in
the U.S. Great Plains. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94:549-64.
Reily, J.M. (1999) “Climate Change and agriculture: The state of the scientific knowledge. Climate
Change 43:645-50.
Risbey, J., M. Kandlikar, and H. Dowlatabadi. (1999) “Scale, context, and decision making in
agricultural adaptation to climate variability and change. Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change 4:137-65.
Scoones, I. (1996) Hazards and opportunities: Farming livelihoods in drylands Africa: Lessons from
Zimbabwe. London: Zed Books.
(*) Dr. Ryser is a Fulbright Scholar and Chairman of the Center for World Indigenous Studies. He
teaches graduate learners the Non-Profit Leadership Program of the School of Public Service
Leadership at Capella University, and he is a professor of history and culture at the Union
Institutes and University. He is the author of INDIGENOUS NATIONS AND MODERN STATES,
published by Routledge (UK) and the essay, “On Our Own Adapting to Climate Change” in
Asserting Native Resilience, Pacific Rim Indigenous Nations Face the Climate Crisis, to be
released in June 2012.
47. Margaret Kneller, John Cabot University, Italy
Thank-you HLPE, for the opportunity to provide comments on the VO Draft of the report on
Climate Change and Food Security (CCFS). The following are suggestions related to the climate
science presented, relevant to agricultural systems.
The IPCC Special Report was published in March 2012, and now needs to be referenced: “IPCC,
2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (SREX).”35
The report is extensive. Of particular relevance to agriculture, may be the observations of these
types of Climate Extremes: “heavy precipitation events” described in SREX section 3.3.2 and
“more intense and longer droughts “described in section 3.5.1. In the section titled “Future
Climate Extremes, Impacts,” Assessed Likelihood projections have sometimes changed, relative
to IPCC 2007 language, thus the IPCC SREX authors now state, “[models project that] it is
virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature
extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur in the 21st century at the global scale ...”
The SREX report states “it is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of
total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe, and
that “there is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st century, in some
seasons and some areas, due to reduced precipitation and/or increased evapotraspiration.”36
There is some specification of the regional variation for these predictions.
For farming systems, the concluding statement from the Executive Summary of SREX Chapter 3
is especially relevant, “This chapter [which presents current knowledge on Changes in Climate
Extremes and their Impacts] does not provide assessments of projected changes in extremes at
spatial scales smaller than for large regions. These large-region projections provide a wider
35 IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K.
Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)], http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/ .
36 ibid, p. 13
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
110
context for national or local projections, where these exist, and where they do not exist, a first
indication of expected changes, their associate uncertainties, and the evidence available.”37
Despite difficulty in predicting local scale projections, the CCFS report could still emphasize that
climate change is a problem of the present (as opposed to the future).38 Work is needed in
preparing for “near term” climate change. While the IPCC reports have been good for
substantiating the magnitude of change possible by the end of the 21st century, the model
scenarios do not address the climate variability which farmers, at relevant regional-local scales,
will face in the immediate decades.
The CCFS guidance should urge caution when stakeholders use information, created at different
“scales.” This is clearly explained by W. Baethgen, “the challenge of effectively incorporating the
information resulting from the research in climate change into decision making is thus
complicated by the uncertainty levels as well as by the frequent “double conflict of scales.” On
the one hand the temporal scales of climate change scenarios are much farther in the future than
the ones often needed for decision making and planning. On the other hand the spatial scales of
the climate scenarios that can be established with the currently best available tools and methods
still have a larger spatial scale (global to regional level) than the ones often needed for actual
decision making (regional to local level).”39
Some recent scientific studies have addressed the partitioning of variance in rainfall, certainly a
critical factor for agriculture, into “linear,” “decadal,” and “interannual” variance: for example in
the Sahel40 and SE South America.41 These studies (or other similar studies) would certainly
be technically challenging to achieve for many national governments. However, such studies,
could still be summarized and referenced as the types of data-based studies, which do allow
some predictive capability of a key climate variable (precipitation in these examples). The
predictions could then be used by farmers and national support systems, to prepare for changed
climate, at a relevant time scale. Alternatively, lacking such data-based studies, caution should
be used in predicting the changed climate at the regional-local, next decades, time scale.
Margaret Kneller, Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor
Department of Mathematics, Natural Sciences & Computer Sciences
John Cabot University
via della Lungara 233
37 Seneviratne, S.I., N. Nicholls, D. Easterling, C.M. Goodess, S. Kanae, J. Kossin, Y. Luo, J. Marengo, K.
McInnes, M. Rahimi, M. Reichstein, A. Sorteberg, C. Vera, and X. Zhang, 2012: Changes in climate extremes
and their impacts on the natural physical environment. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken,
K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A
Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/, pp. 109-230.
38 Baethgen, W.E., Climate Risk Management for Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change, Crop
Science, Vol. 50, March-April 2010, S-70 – S-76, www.crops.org
39 ibid
40 ibid
41 Presentation on Climate Change and Agriculture for Global Food Systems, Spring 2011 by Walter E.
Baethgen, Director, Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Program, International Research Institute
for Climate and Society at Columbia University, Global Network of MDP Programs,
http://globalmdp.org/library/global-food-systems-presentation-agriculture-and-climate-change .
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
111
00165 Rome, Italy
48. Marta G. Rivera Ferre, Center for Agro-food Economy and Development-CREDA-UPCIRTA, Spain
First of all I want to congratulate the research team for the work they have performed and the
presentation of the results by component of food security (availability, access, utilization and
stability). I highlight here some general and specific issues of the zero draft
report:
• In general I found a bit surprising that no mention is made to the global trend of landgrabbing.
The report mentions issues as the price volatility affecting food security and affected by climate
change, but do not mention landgrabbing as a trend reducing access to resources by the poor,
and thus, increasing vulnerability to climate change and affecting future food security.
• The report makes very well explicit the gender issue in the climate change and food security
challenge, but it is not mentioned how to proceed with gender-focused approach to climate
change.
• Pg. 17. 1.4.5. Utilization. It is not mentioned here the effect of CC on food quality, that is present
in 1.4.3.1, and that clearly will have an effect on food utilization.
• I do not see the role of the whole chapter on Scenarios. The chapter recognises the weaknesses
of the existing and used models and the high level of uncertainty. Thus, in my opinion this does
not deserve a whole chapter. Yet, it is needed to recognize the importance of scenarios in climate
change. In my opinion, the best would be to highlight the potential role of scenarios in policymaking and reduction of vulnerability, but these scenarios need to be built through stakeholders
participation that can help to reduce uncertainty, at least through the agreement of outcomes of
policies.
Also, scenarios to be useful need to be built following specific theoretical policy-objectives, in
this case, the right to food would be a valid one, but agreement among actors need to be
achieved during the scenarios development to agree which variables need to be included or not,
and as said, the outcomes of policies. I send this article in case can be of help:
http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v12/n5/full/embor201155a.html
• Section 3.3.1 present a small range of strategies needed by farmers in the context of crop
production. We have recently prepared a report for the CGIAR (under the CCAFS program) with
a compilation of local traditional practices performed by farmers in the IGP region that can help
to adapt to future climate change. I can send the draft of this report which is also now under
revision.
• Page 29 mention the likely opening up of new fisheries. It is clear that this is a new situation,
but in my opinion the team needs to contextualize this into the current constraining fisheries
situation.
FAO calls for an ecosystem based management of fisheries and this should at least be mentioned
in the text. Otherwise seems as good news, when a lot of caution needs to be taken when dealing
with fisheries in order to not increase the pressure on resources.
• Page 29 suggests to classify initiatives towards improving resilience of agricultural livelihoods
by organization type, but I think this is not a useful classification since different organizations
within one same typology may have different strategies (e.g. different NGOs or multilateral
donors). In my opinion, the classification should be better done by discourses, although this is
difficult. We are writing an article right now suggesting exactly this, that a lot of confusion exists
due to the fact that there is not a clear way to classify proposals for sustainability in agri-food
systems, whether for food security, climate change or other challenges. We can even find
contradictory proposals for one same objective, and this is due to the fact that the theoretical
understanding of the agri-food system is very different. Since we tend to make classifications by
actors, not by discourses or narratives, it is difficult to understand the situation. If the HLPE puts
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
112
the classification again by actors, then we will continue in the same confusing situation in which
one actor-type may suggests different and even contradictory strategies.
• Page 30. Fourth bullet point. I would add the role of participatory breeding in improving local,
autochthonous seed/breed varieties.
• 3.3.3 Very interesting. Actually it suggests something that I totally agree: food consumption can
be modeled through supply-driven approaches which can be achieved through specific policies.
Actually, behavioural modification policy-making is probably the less studied in the climate
change and food security debate, although several authors have already suggested issues such as
reduction of meat consumption in developed countries.
• 3.4.1.1. The role of local traditional knowledge is missing.
• 3.4.2. Other tools apart from risk assessment are needed. See Stirling and the limitations of risk
assessment.
• 3.4.2. bullet 4. Adaptive management should be a point in itself.
Learning as essential for climate change issues.
• Page 34. Policy messages. Bullet point 3. I would add in the sentence, after current existing
knowledge, “including local traditional knowledge” to make it explicit.
• Pages 37- 38. Mitigation options, it is important to highlight the potential of livestock in carbon
sequestration in drylands, since 70% of these soils are degraded and a good management can
help to incorporate vast amounts of carbon.
• Page 39. 4.6. Policy messages. Second paragraph. Here a demand-driven behavior is assumed,
but a supply-driven strategy can be followed too (see
http://ijsaf.org/contents/16-2/rivera-ferre/index.html)
• Page 42. First paragraph. It is needed to introduce here again the need for behavioural change.
Also, care in the utilization of units of measurement that at some point favour some production
systems over others. This needs to be clarified. If GHG mitigation is based in reductions per unit
of output (under a productivist approach) then intensive and industrial production systems are
favoured. If a resource-conservation approach is preferred, that is, production per unit of
resource used, then extensive production systems are favoured (See Garnett, T., 2011. Where
are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including
the food chain)? Food Policy 36, 23&#8208;32). Probably a balance is needed and also different
policies will be required for different contexts.
Again, I want to congratulate the HLPE for the work done and I hope this contribution can be of
help for their work. I am sorry for sending some personal references, but are the ones which are
faster for me to send to explain the argument, but I am sure there are many others which are
equally or even better than the ones I have sent.
Best regards,
Marta G. Rivera Ferre
Center for Agro-food Economy and Development-CREDA-UPC-IRTA
Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia- ESAB Building C/ Esteve Terrades, 8 08860-Castelldefels
(Barcelona)
49. Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Denmark
The Danish Agriculture and Food Council welcome this initiative to assess impacts of climate
change on food and nutrition security, and very much appreciate this opportunity to contribute
to the draft report.
Overall, the draft report is balanced and highlights the complexity of the issue of the impact of
climate change on food and nutrition security today and the future challenges. Many other
relevant issues are addressed in the report, such as gender, access to finance, urbanization.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
113
Although the draft report mentions the need for extension serviced, this could be further
highlighted. As agriculture faces increasing pressure environmentally, climatically, and
productively, extension plays a key role to encourage adoption of improved practices, better
techniques, and innovations. It all comes down to knowledge-sharing. Many strides have been
made – such as conservation agriculture that sequesters carbon – but production must be
continually adapted to address food requirements and climate change, thus increasing output
while minimizing the footprint of agriculture. That is true for all forms of agriculture in both the
North and South. Good agricultural extension services provide capacity to continually improve
farming in a manner reflecting local conditions and approaches as varied as pastoralism,
horticulture, cropping and beyond.
Regarding agricultural mitigation of greenhouse gas emission, the link between various farming
practices and increased deforestation should be addressed. The draft report mentions several
practices that, according to the report, will all have an effect on climate change and increase
productivity. This needs to be qualified, as for example reduced or no tillage will have an effect
on organic soils, while the effect is low on sandy soils. Not all the practices mentioned
necessarily increase productivity.
When mentioning the importance of different stakeholder groups in relation to the impact of
climate change on food and nutrition security, farmers should be included. It is essential to
include the viewpoints and expertise of farmers and farmer led organizations throughout the
world, as they have the ability to provide highly transferrable knowledge and expertise that can
be effectively transferred to regions throughout the world. This type of knowledge sharing is
essential if we are to effectively address food security and we offer our services to the HLPE in
this important study.
Sincerely,
Anette Engelund Friis
Climate Policy Advisor
50. Frederic Lapeyrie, Ministère de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, France
“Wise Intellectual Property Right (IPR) management is a leverage to reach this objective.”
(see : G20 Conference on Agricultural Research for Development, Promoting Scientific
Partnership for Food Security, Montpellier 12-13 September 2011, Presidency Summary).
I fully agree with HLPE statement: “public-public and public-private partnerships are essential”
(chapter 5.4 page 42, in Food Security and climate change V0 draft).
Since the research community should be able to develop new varieties and breeds with
enhanced resistance, and to react quickly to novel and unexpected biotic challenges (chapter
3.4.3 page 33) and since the private sector is a strong component of the global research
community, such public-private partnerships are essential for research as well and should be
promoted.
But, such challenge should not be considered by HLPE without saying a word about Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR). IPR will contribute to mobilize the private sector side by side with public
research organizations. But a crisis scenario, where economy and even survival of populations
relies on their capacity to have access to such improved varieties should not be excluded. In case
IPR exercise (trough prices or biological mechanisms engineered to control dissemination)
prevent access by such populations, the world could be facing major crisis. Because such crisis
scenario is not foreseeable in a near future, this is the right time for HLPE to assert some ethic
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
114
principles and to alert policy makers so that regulatory mechanisms are designed adequately
and reach the global agenda.
The related ethic principle could be stated as follow: IPR shall not be interpreted or applied in a
way that infringes on fundamental human rights as stated in the Universal Declaration on
Human Rights and other relevant international treaties.
Frederic Lapeyrie PhD
Agronomist / Microbiologist
France
51. Rachel Smolker, Biofuelwatch, USA
Dear Experts,
We are dismayed to see that a major report on food security and climate change entirely fails to
consider, or even mention the role of biofuels. Biofuels are already a major contributing factor in
undermining food security, both directly (displacing food production, encouraging speculative
investment in crops and land, using water, etc), and indirectly ( resulting in more, rather than
less greenhouse gas emissions, displacing food production into carbon and biodiversity rich
ecosystems etc). There is a vast literature on these matters already in existence that is not even
mentioned. There are also massive rapid escalating plans to expand bionergy, for an entire
"bioeconomy" wherein plant substitutes for fossil fuels are being sought for electricity, heat,
transport, including aviation, military applications and shipping, as well as biomaterials,
chemicals, pharmaceuticals and plastics, etc. etc. The demands on agriculture and land are
already felt and will only increasingly impact on food security.
In sum, a supposed "solution" to the problem of climate change, biofuels are instead
contributing to both food insecurity and climate change, which should be of great concern to a
panel of experts charged with addressing hunger and climate. A recent report from the
International Land Coalition indicates that nearly half of the land grabs in past few years have
been for the purpose of growing bioenergy crops. How can such a major factor integral to
climate change and food security be virtually without mention in this report? The word
"biofuels" occurs only once, on page 45 out of 69, as follows:[Discussion of the pros and cons of
biofuels to be added about here.]
We understand that a separate report on biofuels is in preparation. There are many reports
already existing, but perhaps another is viewed as necessary? A much more holistic approach to
these issues is necessary and appropriate. The CFS should provide an honest assessment of the
role of biofuels, lest we continue to put policies in place - targets, subsidies etc. that will
counteract measures intended to address climate change and hunger.
52. Leslie Lipper, FAO, Italy
I commend the authors for doing a great job of pulling together quite a bit of complex
information into a coherent and manageable document. Overall, I think the content is quite rich,
but still some work needs to be done to develop actionable messages and the report text to
support them. Some comments specific to sections of the report – and that address the issues
raised for dialogue in the introduction to the forum follow below:
1)
Section 1.3 lays out in a clear and concise way the science of climate change which is
very useful. In this section, perhaps a bit more discussion could be given to the issue of
expectations about emissions reductions from non-annex I countries to meet global mitigation
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
115
goals since this is a fairly important issue in the UNFCCC negotiations and has some significant
cost implications.
2)
Section 1.4.3.1 The analysis here indicates how little we know about many aspects of
the analysis of the biological effects of climate change on crops, livestock etc. It needs to have
some direction for prioritization of these many gaps in our knowledge that are most pressing for
the food security?
3)
Section 1.4.3.3 Food security and climate change effects after harvest. Wastage in post
harvest handling and consumption patterns (dietary transition) are both covered in this section
but actually they are both quite significant and have different policy implications so I suggest
they be considered separately. Investments to reduce post-harvest waste and increase
efficiency in agriculture value chains is one key area. Educating consumers about human health
and environmental impacts of dietary choices and providing incentives to promote more
sustainable dietary patterns is another.
4)
Section 1.4.4 Access. Some mention should be made here of the fact that most food
insecure people are net purchasers of food –even those who are agricultural producers . Climate
change could reduce access by reducing their incomes through negative impacts on production,
or through increases in food prices.
5)
Section 2.2. Climate scenarios and their consequences for food and nutrition security.
This is a key section and has very interesting results reported but they need to be better
interpreted in terms of what they mean for food security policy-making. For example in section
2.5 on Use the point is made that economic development is the key for reducing vulnerability –
e.g. it is a key form of adaptation and this message could be better highlighted . Second key
point is that these models are indicating the essential role of trade for adaptation –and again that
needs to be highlighted. Perhaps bringing some of the messages made very clear in the Nelson
et. al. 2010 paper on climate change and food security would be helpful in this section.
6)
Section 4.4 on mitigation – it would be useful to have more discussion about the
potential synergies and tradeoffs between mitigation and agricultural development for food
security and poverty reduction that includes necessary adaptation. A fuller discussion of the
importance of efficiency, sustainable intensification and sustainable land management in
reaching food security, mitigation and adaptation objectives and the barriers (policy,
institutional, technical and financial) that exist in realizing synergies is key to developing policy
recommendations for achieving food security under climate change. Much work in this area has
been done under the Economics and Policy Innovations for Climate Smart Agriculture (EPIC)
program that can be accessed at the following URL:
http://www.fao.org/climatechange/73769/en/
7)
Section 5: Recommendations for Policies and Actions. In this section some discussion on
financing needs and arrangements is needed – which actually should come up up in the previous
chapters on adaptation and mitigation in terms of financial implications of the need to
incorporate these objectives into agricultural development and food security planning and
policies. Some discussions of the estimated costs for adaptation and mitigation in agriculture
and the potential to tap climate change sources of financing are critical. This is a key aspect of
Climate Smart Agriculture that FAO is actively supporting. Relevant information can be found in
the Climate Smart Agriculture Document FAO produced in 2010:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1881e/i1881e00.htm. As well as several other documents
available at the FAO Climate Smart Agriculture website.
http://www.fao.org/climatechange/climatesmart/en/
Leslie Lipper
Senior Environmental Economist
Agricultural Development Economics Division
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
116
53. France, through the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs
[French original]
Remarques générales :
Bon rapport ciblant bien la problématique et les enjeux :
-adaptation et atténuation
-effet du changement climatique sur 4 piliers de la sécurité alimentaire. Toutefois, le pilier
« accès » gagnerait à être davantage développé.
-ciblage des plus vulnérables dans les pays en développement. Toutefois l'attention est souvent
donnée aux femmes alors qu'il faudrait cibler toutes les populations vulnérables au changement
climatique.
Les chapitres 1 et 2 pourraient être regroupés afin d’éviter les répétitions et de rendre le texte
plus fluide.
Les chapitres 3 et 4 pourraient aussi être regroupés : les synergies entre atténuation et
adaptation sont une priorité et devraient être davantage mises en valeur.
Peu de données sur les pays développés et sur les marchés internationaux. Or, l'impact du
changement climatique sur les pays développés peut également avoir, via les marchés
internationaux, des conséquences importantes sur les pays en développement.
La distinction entre pays émergents et PMA n'est pas évidente en termes de production de GES
notamment. De façon générale le rapport ne considère que les PED alors que la problématique
du changement climatique est aussi importante pour les pays développés.
L'ensemble des recommandations faites dans chacune des parties devraient être regroupées
dans la partie V qui finalement est peu fournie par rapport à l'ensemble des recommandations
faites dans le document. Les recommandations pourraient être numérotées pour en faciliter la
lecture.
Par ailleurs, beaucoup de constats et d'analyses ne font pas l'objet de recommandations.
Le rapport pourrait valoriser par le biais d’encadrés insérés dans le texte, les expériences des
pays les plus touchés et vulnérables, notamment ceux en proie à des crises prolongées.
Chapitre 1 :
Le paragraphe 1.4.1 présente les différents systèmes agricoles et non les conséquences du
changement climatique sur ceux-ci, contrairement au titre proposé.
Dans les recommandations (p.18) : il serait pertinent de détailler les principales
recommandations du rapport HLPE sur « food security and price volatility » de 2011 et de les
connecter avec le présent rapport. Le lien évolution du climat / volatilité des marchés et
conséquences en matière de sécurité alimentaire semble intuitivement évident (cf l'impact sur
les prix des céréales de la sécheresse en Australie ou des incendies en Russie). Ce lien a
probablement déjà fait l'objet de publications et leur analyse serait utile dans le cadre de cette
étude.
Chapitre 2 :
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
117
Page 24 : l'analyse au travers du GDP (Gross Domestic Product) est intéressante et rejoint l'idée
assez intuitive que les pays en croissance forte souffrent moins des impacts du changement
climatique. Cette analyse a cependant des limites lorsque le secteur agricole traditionnel
constitue la majeure partie du GDP (peu de sources de croissance alternatives), ce qui est le cas
pour certains PMA. Pour les pays émergents, cela suppose également des politiques de
redistribution au bénéfice des plus pauvres, qui ne bénéficient pas nécessairement directement
des fruits de la croissance.
Page 26 : le terme « climate smart agriculture », contrairement à ce qui est écrit, comporte bien
un volet atténuation.
Chapitre 3 : adaptation
Cette partie est importante et pourrait être plus détaillée. Elle devrait notamment aborder les
points suivants :
- renforcement les systèmes nationaux de prévision météo
- amélioration des mécanismes de prévision et d’évaluation des impacts du changement
climatique sur la production agricole
- importance de la diversification des productions agricoles
- importance des organisations de producteurs dans les programmes de recherche
- importance de promouvoir aussi les variétés locales
Page 30 : le message en faveur de la libéralisation des marchés devrait être balancé par un
message en faveur de politiques agricoles ambitieuses, à même d'accompagner et de protéger
l'émergence de filières de production agricoles domestiques. En effet, la dépendance trop forte
des populations vulnérables vis à vis de denrées agricoles importées accroît leur vulnérabilité
vis-à-vis de la volatilité des prix agricoles internationaux
Page 31 (3.3.4): les mécanismes de réduction des risques devraient être développés. Par
exemple, l'agriculture écologiquement intensive pourrait être citée.
Page 32 (3.4.1.3): l’accent pourrait être également mis sur la nécessité de lier le financement
pour l'adaptation (et l'atténuation) aux activités réduisant la vulnérabilité de la sécurité
alimentaire au changement climatique
Cette partie devrait également prendre en considération les avancées de la COP de Durban - a)
la définition d'un programme de travail pour 2012 sur les pertes et dommages liés aux effets
adverses du changement climatique, sujet particulièrement important pour les pays les plus
vulnérables tel que les PMA et les petits états insulaires. - b) le lancement d'un processus pour
les Pays les moins avancés (PMA), qui seront soutenus dans l'élaboration et la mise en œuvre
des plans nationaux d'adaptation. Pour ces derniers, le groupe d'experts sur les PMA continuera
également son soutien, très apprécié jusqu'ici. Enfin, le soutien financier a été confirmé et
renforcé en transmettant de nouvelles recommandations au fonds d'adaptation et au FEM, en
particulier au Fonds pour les PMAs.
Chapitre 4 : atténuation
La question de l'utilisation des engrais azotés et leur impact sur le climat devrait être
développée.
L'augmentation du bétail au niveau mondial ne doit pas relever du seul constat mais doit faire
l'objet de débat. Renvoie au problème de la consommation durable qui devrait également être
abordé.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
118
Analyser le lien entre biocarburants et sécurité alimentaire.
Page 35 : « developing countries emissions are low today ». C'est faux (cf émissions de la Chine
ou du Brésil). Il s'agit des Least developped countries (PMA).
Page 36 : le rôle des fertilisants à base d'ammonium dans l'émission de CH4 par les sols est une
nouveauté pour nous. Quelles sont les références bibliographiques sur ce sujet ? (en général, la
libération progressive de l'azote par ces formes d'engrais est plutôt considérée vertueuse, au
moins en ce qui concerne le N2O).
Chapitre 5 : recommandations pour les politiques
La partie 5 nous semble incomplète et devrait rassembler les recommandations faites dans les
autres parties
(5.4) Cette partie doit être développée en insistant sur la nécessité de développer des cadres
institutionnels favorables aux investissements mais également sécurisant ces investissements et
prévoyant l'évaluation de l’impact des politiques et des projets.
Il est par ailleurs nécessaire de mentionner les droits de propriété intellectuelle (IPR) lorsque
l'on indique que "public-private partnerships are essentials" (paragraphe 5.4, page 42) et que la
communauté de la recherche devra fournir de nouvelles variétés résistantes/adaptées
(paragraphe 3.4.3, page 33).
Nous proposons de reprendre l'expression du "Presidency Summary" de la réunion G20 ARD de
Montpellier (septembre 2011) et de l'inclure ainsi page 42 (cf proposition en gras) :
« Both public-public and public-private partnerships are essential to address all elements of the
coming challenges to food security from climate change in equitable and efficient ways. This will
require greater transparency and new roles for all elements of society, including the private
sector and civil society ; wise Intellectual Property Right (IPR) management is a leverage to
reach this objective."
[English translation]
General comments:
A good report targeting the problems and issues well:
- adaptation and mitigation
- impact of climate change on the 4 pillars of food security. However, the pillar "access" would
benefit from being further developed
- targets the most vulnerable groups in developing countries. Emphasis, however, is often placed
on women whereas the target should be all the people vulnerable to climate change.
Chapters 1 and 2 could be regrouped in order to avoid repetitions and make the text flow better.
Chapters 3 and 4 could also be regrouped: the synergies between adaptation and mitigation are
a priority and should be fully brought out.
Little information about developed countries and international markets. In fact, the impact of
climate change on developed countries could also have, through international markets,
important consequences for developing countries.
The distinction between emerging countries and the Least Developed Countries (LDC) is not
evident especially in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (GGE). In general, the report only
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
119
considers developing countries, while the problem of climate change is also important for
developed countries.
The set of recommendations made in each of the parts should be regrouped in part V which in
the final analysis has very few in comparison with the overall recommendations made in the
document. The recommendations could also be given numbers to facilitate reading.
Furthermore, many of the findings and analyses are not featured in the recommendations.
The report could emphasize the experiences of the more affected and vulnerable countries, in
particular those which have endured a prolonged crisis, inserting tabulated data in the text,.
Chapter 1:
Paragraph 1.4.1 presents the different agricultural systems but not the effects of climate change
on them, which contradicts the title proposed.
In the recommendations (p.18): it would be relevant to detail the principal recommendations of
the 2011 HLPE report on «food security and price volatility» and to link them with the present
report. The connection between changes in climate/ market volatility and their impact on food
security seem intuitively apparent (see the impact on the price of cereals of drought in Australia
or of fires in Russia). This link has probably already been the subject of publications, an analysis
of which would be useful in the framework of this study.
Chapter 2:
Page 24: the analysis using GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is interesting and similar to the
essentially intuitive idea that countries with high growth suffer less from the effects of climate
change. This analysis has its limits when the major part of the GDP is made up by traditional
agricultural sector (few alternative sources of growth), which is the case for certain less
developed countries. For emerging countries, this also implies the implementation of
redistributive policies in favor of the poorest, which do not necessarily benefit directly from
growth.
Page 26: the term « climate smart agriculture », contrarily to what is written, also includes a
mitigating factor.
Chapter 3: adaptation
This part is important and could be more detailed. In particular, it should address the following
points:
- strengthening the national systems of weather forecasting
- improving the mechanisms for forecasting and evaluation of climate change impact on
agricultural production
- importance of diversification of agricultural production
- importance of producers’ organizations in the research programs
- importance of also promoting local varieties
Page 30: the message in favour of market liberation should be balanced by a message in favour
of ambitious agricultural policies that could foster and protect the emergence of domestic
agricultural production chains. Indeed, the excessive dependance of vulnerable populations on
imported agricultural foodstuffs increases their vulnerability to the volatility of international
agricultural prices.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
120
Page 31 (3.3.4): the mechanisms of risk reduction should be further elaborated. For example,
ecologically intensive agriculture might be mentioned.
Page 32 (3.4.1.3): Emphasis should equally be made on the need to link financing for adaptation
(and mitigation) to activities that reduce vulnerability of food security to climate change.
This section should also take into consideration the advances of the COP in Durban - a) the
definition of a working program for 2012 on the losses and damages linked to adverse effects of
climate change, particularly important topic for the most vulnerable countries, such as less
advanced countries and small insular states. - b) the launching of a procedure for the less
advanced countries, which will receive support in the design and implementation of national
adaptation plans. For these, the group of experts on the less advanced countries will continue to
provide its support, well appreciated up to now. In addition, financial support has been
confirmed and strengthened by the sending of new recommendations to the adaptation fund and
to the GEF, in particular to the Fund for the less advanced countries.
Chapter 4: mitigation
The question of nitrogen based fertilizers usage and their impact on climate should be more
thoroughly analyzed.
The global increase of livestock should not just be treated as a fact but should be debated. It
comes back to the problem of sustainable consumption which should also be dealt with.
The link between biofuels and food security should be analyzed.
Page 35: « developing countries emissions are low today ». It is not so (cf. emissions in China and
Brazil). It is the Least Developed Countries (LDC).
Page 36: the role of ammonium based fertilizers in the emission of CH4 by the soil is something
new for us. Which are the bibliografic references on this subject? (In general, the gradual release
of nitrogen by these kinds of fertilizer is considered beneficial, at least where it concerns N20).
Chapter 5: policy recommendations
Part 5 seems to us incomplete and should gather the recommendations made in the other parts.
(5.4) This section should be elaborated by insisting on the need to develop institutional
frameworks favorable to investments but equally safe guarding these investments and
foreseeing the evaluation of the impact of politics and projects.
It is, furthermore, necessary to mention intellectual property rights (IPR) when indicating that
"public-private partnerships are essentials" (parragraph 5.4, page 42) and that the research
community should provide new resistant/adapted varieties (paragraph 3.4.3, page 33).
We suggest to re invoke the "Presidency Summary" of the G20 Agricultural Research and
Development (ARD) meeting in Montpellier (September 2011) and to include page 42 of it (cf.
proposed text in full ):
« Both public-public and public-private partnerships are essential to address all elements of the
coming challenges to food security from climate change in equitable and efficient ways. This will
require greater transparency and new roles for all elements of society, including the private
sector and civil society; wise Intellectual Property Right (IPR) management is a leverage to reach
this objective
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
121
54. CARE International, United Kingdom
CARE International welcomes the opportunity to respond to this draft of the HLPE (Food
Security and Nutrition) study on climate change and food security and the recognition of the
imperative to address the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change in order to respond to
food insecurity, both in the short term as well as the long term.
CARE’s contribution and expertise in responding to this draft: CARE has a strong capacity in
the interface between climate change and food security, it has developed a series of tools and
methods for communities to understand and cope with exposure to the negative impacts of
climate change and has been working on the integration of climate risk and vulnerability
analysis into food security programmes. This toolbox helps partners to understand and plan for
the challenge of climate change and they support smallholder farmers to effectively respond to
climate change through community-based adaptation. The reduction of social inequalities
contributing to climate vulnerability is central to this approach, particularly through the
empowerment of poor and marginalised women. CARE also has experience in exploring
approaches to make carbon finance work for poor people, particularly in promoting social and
environmental safeguards for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
(REDD+), and in exploring how carbon finance can be used to enhance smallholders’ agricultural
productivity, and build their resilience to climate change while at the same time delivering
climate change mitigation co-benefits.Our learning is integrated into CARE’s programming and
policy, particularly through its Poverty, Environment and Climate Change Network (PECCN).
This experience serves as the basis for our comments on the report.
CARE commends the breadth of discussion in the draft report, covering the multiple dimensions
of all four aspects of food security. Our comments aim to respond to the areas indicated for
feedback, as requested in the authors’ queries.
In general,
• While the report captures the complexity of the issues, some of the nuance is lost in
becoming overly generic across regions and peoples (as per the report’s remit).
•
The report omits to reference specific examples and learning from practice, which would
give weight to both the analysis and help in forming the recommendations.
•
The CGIAR’s Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change’s recent report,
“Achieving Food security in the face of climate change”42, might provide a useful point of
reference for this report. Many of our comments have also been recognised in the CGIAR
report.
•
Target group: CARE would like to see emphasis on the poorest and most vulnerable as
particular target groups for addressing climate change and food security in the report.
Specifically , our main comments on the report relate to an absence of analysis and
recommendations around the following issues:
42 http://ccafs.cgiar.org/commission/reports#final December 2011.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
122
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nutrition security is absent in the analysis of food security. In addition, attention to the
most vulnerable should also refer to the elderly and children as key target groups for
food security and nutrition interventions.
A lack of clarity on the scale and severity of impacts of climate change in general, with
particular focus on the impact on the poorest and most vulnerable.
A need to distinguish between smallholder and large scale agricultural producers,
including management of land and natural resources and carbon emissions.
Recommendations for smallholder farmers should also focus more on community based
adaptation solutions.
Greater focus on empowerment of women as key smallholder producers and the
importance of designing agricultural tools suited to women which can improve their
influence in household decision-making to ensure food and nutrition security.
Analysis of the inter-relationship between market volatility and climate impacts, such as
Food prices in times of severe drought and harvest failure
The link between climate change risk and the need for increased attention to disaster
risk reduction in order to mitigate disaster impacts
We would therefore encourage the following considerations for the revised draft. Where we
have the learning available, we have provided evidence to support these comments.
1
The paper lacks a clear assessment of both the scale and likelihood of both direct
impacts (floods, droughts, etc.) and indirect impacts (eg increased carbon prices, biofuels
demands on land). There is no clear mention of the scale of the problem that we have to adapt to.
Even with the best and most urgent efforts to mitigate climate change, we are set to see global
warming of potentially 4 degrees by 2100. Such degrees of warming could seriously adversely
affect the global food production system. See the IPCC’s 4th Report from Working Group II.
2
The paper has a strong supply side (production) approach; despite the remit to
focus on the interface between climate change and agricultural productivity, there is an overall
emphasis on increasing productivity as the most important way to increase food security in the
face of climate change. This however needs to be balanced with other means for achieving food
security – (such as improving access and stability of food production) as well as an
understanding of the importance of food quality in food security, and also food storage (both at
the smallholder level, as well as discussion of national grain reserves). There is a lack of balance
between analysis of food security for subsistence agriculture and meeting the food needs of
growing urban populations – a need which is partly climate-induced.
3
Access to food is analysed exclusively as an income-related issue. This
underemphasises the role that extreme weather variability can play in affecting seasonal food
distribution and access to markets. The recommendations could therefore mention the role that
cash for work activities and community interventions can play – in the wake of seasonal weather
variability – in maintaining all weather access, by building feeder roads and maintaining and
repairing roads and markets
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
123
4
There is a lack of reflection on the nutrition aspects of food security. While the
report addresses the four core pillars of food security, it focuses on the quantitative rather than
the nutritional quality of food security, beyond calorific content. This leaves a serious gap in
addressing the climate change related aspects of foods security. The impact of climate change on
food quality is raised briefly in 1.4.3.1, but the impacts of this on undernutrition fail to appear in
the analysis on utilization and subsequent chapters on prospective scenarios and the
recommendations.
5
Discussion and recommendations for community based adaptation approaches
are absent . The interactions between the climate and the food system are complex and vary
greatly based on local circumstances. Therefore, both the climate change impacts and their
consequences need to be analysed at the local level in order to plan appropriate interventions.
CARE would encourage this study to better recognise the role of community based adaptation
which draws on traditional knowledge combined with innovative strategies, in order to build
local capacity for adaptation to accelerating climate change. Considerable evidence and work on
this is documented by CARE here: http://www.careclimatechange.org/adaptationn/challenge
6
Inclusion of regional and transboundary approaches in the recommendations. It
would be useful to have an increased discussion on regional approaches to climate change and
food security, including policy and institutional frameworks at both the national and
international level, for example integrated policies between ministries and institutions in order
to coordinate for example, water and agricultural policy and with markets and DRR.
7
Land use and resource management. There is weak treatment of deforestation – The
impacts of land use, desertification and flooding - and the consequences of this both for both
food production and land availability for other agricultural livelihoods could be strengthened in
the analysis and referred to in the recommendations.
8
Recognition of the impact of climate change on emergencies, early warning and
information systems and food security. We know that increasing weather variability is
causing a higher frequency of emergencies. This would suggest that we have to work on our
emergency and early warning response and it would be useful if the report has
recommendations for how we can better integrate climate change response and scale up our
DRR planning, as a way to prevent and prepare for emergencies.
9
The paper would benefit from increased attention to the smallholder sector in the
following areas
•
•
Analysis on food security and adaptation and mitigation and the context of agro-ecology
and natural resource management, requires strengthening . Section 3.3 is in urgent need
of evidence/opinion and accompanying references detailing the potential of agroecological practices for increasing resilience and reducing vulnerability of smallholders.
For example, CARE has shown positive results in East Africa by supporting governance
structures with rules for land access and management , learning around water
harvesting, irrigation and storage: It has reduced the water needs of livestock by 145
days, improved the quality and survival of livestock, and as well as decreased
dependence on relief. (See Regional Resilience Enhancement against Drought Project,
see http://www.care.or.ke/index.php/emergency/2-uncategorised/28 and we would be
happy to provide further evidence if required).
Recommendations that focus on women as the majority of smallholders. This needs to
focus on institutional change to ensure access, participation and relevance to women
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
124
•
•
smallholders, gender-sensitive public services, including agricultural extension services
and more nuanced data collection that can monitor gender disparities in agriculture.
Resilience to climate change requires ensuring both food security and ecosystem health
and CARE has developed gender-sensitive agricultural technologies particularly relevant
to women - such as integrated ecological farming systems. As our SHOUHARDO work has
found, focusing on women in agriculture can lead to fundamental shifts in food security
and nutrition impacts See http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/Wp376.pdf Other evidence
is also from Peru: http://www.careinternational.org.uk/research-centre/hunger-andchronic-vulnerability/114-analysing-success-in-the-fight-against-malnutrition-in-peru
The treatment of livestock and agriculture does not adequately distinguish between the
emissions of the industrial livestock sector vs. small-scale and subsistence production,
the latter being more benign and supporting considerably more livelihoods; not between
the emissions of extensive versus intensive agriculture. This distinction between small
and large producers which require a very different set of responses could also be drawn
out in the recommendations.
Omission of the most vulnerable people: non-settled and aquaculture, particularly
pastoralists, fishing livelihoods and other non-traditional agriculture and the landless. By
not recognising the large number of farmers engaged in non-settled agriculture or are
landless, the report does not give sufficient attention to those groups which are most at
risk. Analysis of this would help to identify ways to make smallholder agriculture more
equitable to include in the recommendations. CARE reasserts its belief, raised in
comments submitted for the report scope, that investment in smallholder farming and
other food insecure marginal groups such as pastoralists and fisherfolk, is a vital tool to
reduce food insecurity and malnutrition in the longer term. Resilience to climate change
will require adaptable and flexible livelihoods options, such as migration, both seasonal
and even long term. Such flexibility will increasingly become a prerequisite for others.
This requires a focus on agricultural systems that produce nutritious food and enhance
ecosystems, increase resilience to climate change and diversify rural livelihoods while
ensuring that livelihoods, rights and interests of smallholder and poor farmers are
protected and promoted.
10
The treatment of gender is inadequate and could be improved in the following
ways. While the report acknowledges the fundamental role of women both in agricultural
labour (43%) and productivity (60-90%) in developing countries (section 1.4.2), women and
gender issues are subsequently addressed as ancillary, rather than central to ensuring
understanding of, learning from and supporting adapt to climate change in agriculture and food
security (including nutrition).
•
Recommendations should address issues raised in the analysis. In the analysis, the
importance of women-specific activities, such as better targeted extension services, land
and asset ownership are discussed but are not subsequently reflected in the
recommendations. In chapters 2, 3 and 5, we would hope to see the specific climaterelated impacts on women addressed as they are affected in the four areas of food
security and similarly addressed in the recommendations.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
125
•
•
Gender inequality and poor governance are omitted from both analysis and adaptation
and consequently not recognised as drivers in food insecurity and undernutrition. The
relevance of this is that woman’s empowerment affects decision-making in household
production decisions which are important for better food production that can better
withstand climate change (see nutrition in point 4 below). CARE’s work has shown that
tackling the underlying constraints on women’s power in Bangladesh has helped to
improve women’s participation in community organisations and local government
institutions. In northern Ghana, strengthening women’s individual and women’s
organisations’ capacity to advocate for their rights is reducing systemic inequalities that
prevent them from fully contributing to the resilience of their households and
communities to shocks and stresses. This demonstrates that transformative activities
that promote equity, women’s empowerment, rights and appropriate governance
increase the chances of households of achieving food security and climate resilience.
The broader context necessary for successful adaptation, particularly women in
agriculture, is absent. Analysis on women in agriculture would benefit from being
situated within a broader context. This would include provision of other supportive
services (social safety nets, access to WASH and nutrition services, as well as
empowerment of women) – all of which will be essential for effective adaptation in food
security. CARE’s SHOUHARDO program in Bangladesh, which integrates women’s
empowerment interventions into an approach that considers disaster risk reduction, the
use of social safety-nets, improved water, sanitation and hygiene, and maternal and child
health, shows a reduction in under 5 stunting by 30 percent (compared to a global
average of 12 percent for USAID programs).
55. Igodt Brecht, PinguinLutosa Food Group, Belgium
Active regulatory input of policy makers necessary
I think this report is a very good step to a sustainable food production future, only if we really
act and can move forward with policy makers behind us. How will we involve them for real
steering action to get all stakeholders on the same line?
56. Christian Aid, UK
General comments:
This is a very welcome and urgent document, with the potential to set guidelines for the reform
of food and agriculture policies to respond to the findings of climate science.
If the goal is to ‘synthesise existing research findings to highlight key issues… to provide the
basis for helping national and international policy makers devise effective and equitable policies
to combat the additional challenges to global food security from climate change’, then it will
need to broaden its references to include the vast amount of ‘grey’ literature produced by civil
society organisations that document the experiences of communities in adapting to climate
change. Many of these experiences have not been captured in peer reviewed journals, but offer
well-researched evidence of local impacts of climate change, and approaches that work to build
the resilience of local food systems (including producers, traders, consumers) to climate change.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
126
Initiatives of this kind are mentioned on p29, but should receive far more attention in a
document aiming to synthesise all the available research.
But to be useful to national governments in low income countries, the document should look at
how they can combat the additional challenges from climate change to national and regional
food security, not just global food security. To do this, a far more in-depth analysis is needed of
the global food system, the distribution of power and inequalities within this system, the role
of specific actors in this system, and how national and regional food systems of low income
countries relate to the global system. Such a review will help the document to formulate policy
messages that are less general (to the point of not being useful at all) and more specific to some
of the common needs and circumstances of poor producers and low income net food importing
countries specifically in relation to the most useful and sustainable agricultural approaches,
various options for trade policies to help achieve food security and reduce dependency, and the
agency of poor producers and communities.
A major omission in the analysis and policy messages is the importance of including food
producers and vulnerable communities in all efforts to build resilient livelihoods for food
security. This approach is at the core of sustainable and successful strategies to build livelihoods
that are resilient to climate change. There are a number of successful approaches, well
documented in NGO and other grey literature, which outlines how communities can be
empowered to analyse the climate and other risks and hazards they face and employ their
existing strengths and resources to prevent these from turning into disasters through a number
of strategies, including seeking outside assistance and influencing government policies. The
literature on food systems, disaster risk reduction and development all provide evidence of
participatory community based policy-making as the best way to build climate resilient and
secure livelihoods.
Specific comments:
1. Assessing the impacts of climate change on food and nutrition security today
This section recognises the importance of small-scale farming systems in addressing the
challenges of climate change (p9), but fails to outline the specific role that this system plays in
building resilience to climate change.
The message that programmes and policies to deal with climate change must be part of efforts to
reduce poverty and enhance food security is very welcome. Climate change, however, does not
only require modifications to existing food security programmes and policies, but also to
agricultural programmes and policies, as well as water, land, natural resource management and
other policies related to food production.
The reference on p17 to fruit and vegetables should include the importance of indigenous fruits
and vegetables, which are even more neglected in research, but are better adapted to local
climate conditions, especially in areas faced with lower precipitation and higher temperatures
(southern Africa and the Sahel).
2. Assessing the impacts of climate change on food and nutrition security tomorrow
On p26, the document refers to climate smart agriculture as a useful term to describe activities
that contribute to both resilience and growth in the agricultural sector. This term has been used
mainly to describe agricultural approaches that can conserve soil carbon (see FAO documents),
such as low tillage approaches. While farmers in Africa and elsewhere are successfully using
conservation agriculture approaches to increase yields and improve soil structure to make more
efficient use of available moisture, the term is equally used for the practices employed by large
scale industrial mono-crop farming practices, which are major contributors to the nitrous oxide
emissions, which in turn is threatening food security. Given its use in the context of UNFCCC
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
127
discussions over carbon credits for soil carbon sequestration, it is highly contested and therefore
not very useful.
3. Adaptation: response options
This section needs to much clearer in outlining and giving preference to the approaches that
work for building climate resilient agriculture, outlined in the IAASTD report. These are broadly
referred to as agro-ecological approaches. The document needs to review the literature which
shows how the switch to agro-ecological practices will increase food security and improve
resilience to climate change in the most vulnerable countries.
Governments need to invest in disaster risk reduction policies, in addition to disaster
management policies, to protect producers against weather events. Prevention needs to be
given far greater emphasis than insurance, as it is more cost effective and transfers less of the
risk to producers.
Engineering solutions (p32) need to be based on community consultation, participation and
consent.
The research community (p33) needs to work with producers and farming communities in a
participatory way, led by farmer needs, to breed climate resilient seeds. This will require new
ways of working in the scientific community.
The policy messages on agricultural practices (p34) fail to analyse the evidence of the success of
different approaches so far. The IAASTD report has concluded that agro-ecological practices
have a better track record in improving food security in a sustainable way. Peer reviewed and
non-peer reviewed literature shows that this is also true for building climate resilience among
resource poor farming communities. This document should analyse the costs and benefits of
each approach far more thoroughly.
4. Agricultural mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions
This section fails to analyse the fact that the industrial agricultural system is mostly responsible
for the GHG emissions from agriculture, and that due to their historic responsibility and
economic capability, they carry the primary responsibility for agricultural mitigation. This will
entail a shift from business as usual, to more sustainable approaches, as outlined in the IAASTD
report. This means that mitigation should not be undertaken by countries with relatively low
historical emissions (page 41).
It is important, however, to send a message to developing country governments that they should
not aim to use the same amount of chemical nitrogen fertiliser as did the industrial countries in
an effort to increase yields/food security, given that food security can be achieved with
alternative soil fertility management approaches that have additional multiple benefits (p39).
57. Tichaona Seremani, Christoph Lindinger and Stefano Benedikter, Alternative
Investments Africa Private Limited (ALTVEST), UK
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on “Climate Change and Food Security: setting the
track for the HLPE,” Zero draft.
Our comment addresses a theme which runs throughout the report: investment in agriculture.
We agree with the statements in section 3.3.2: in particular, the importance of “investment in
agriculture and the larger rural economy;” that “decades of lack of investment in low-income
country agriculture needs to be reversed; that “foreign investment can bring much needed
capital to food production in poor countries.” We also firmly agree that this foreign investment
must respect local land rights, and not exploit the lack of developed land rights, especially in the
least developed of countries of Africa.
We support the idea of partnerships which include farmers, traders, and components from the
non-profit and private sectors. The support of the private sector enables quicker access to
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
128
climate data and research, which may be used build resilience and increase productivity of
farming systems, in the face of difficult to predict 21st century climate change. We agree with
statements in section 5.3.1: least developed countries are most at risk for the negative climate
impacts on food security; however new knowledge and investments can certainly facilitate the
adaptation of farmers in these countries to changing climates. We emphasize that partnerships,
with multi-player positions, have the resources and capabilities to implement relevant mosteffective practices that are respectful of environmental and social context. Such partnerships
can include agricultural funds, which follow the recommendations in this report.
Tichaona Seremani
Christoph Lindinger
Stefano Benedikter
Alternative Investments Africa Private Limited (ALTVEST)
London, Zimbabwe, South Africa
http://www.altvestafrica.com/
58. Suman K A., CPPCIF, India
Dear Moderator
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important consultation.
If the consultation is still open, I have the following feedback to share.
1) The V0 draft seems technical. A lot of room for improvement exists in terms of content
presentation and policy messages. For e.g. if the structural framework of the report is set and the
content adjusted to fit the framework, then the messages can be that much more clean.
The framework can potentially take the form of a multi dimensional matrix of food security
attributes (access, availability, utilization, stability ) versus global, regional, national and local impacts , options and cost benefit analyses , population impact wise - all depicted pictorially.
This could be repeated for each scenario and within the scenario for - key climate change
variables such as temperature and precipitation changes covering extremes and their certainty
factors.
2)The report can bring out differentiation between adaptation messages and mitigation
messages to indicate the context and time-frame variations.
3)Policy messages appear pre-framed: The cause-effect series leading to the messages
perhaps can be delianated to indicate which attribute of climate change affected which
dimension of food security leading to which policy message. In effect, a key to read the policy
messages.
4)Institutional innovations to address the climate change and food security nexus seems to
have got a miss.
Clearly the policy messages for increased investments, partnerships and programmes to suit a
particular context all have stark implications for new institutional requirements. These can
potentially inter-networked agri research networks, climate innovation centers for agriculture
and food, global-local research programmes , or scale up centers that leverage CCFAS
programme outputs.
The report may therefore spell out appropriate messages in this direction.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
129
Hopefully the feedback helps.
Best
Suman K A.,
Founder, CPPCIF
59. The Gaia Foundation, UK
We thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments on the Zero Draft report on Food
Security and Climate Change.
In general, we find that:
-The report would do well to acknowledge that 70% of the world's population are fed by smallscale, diverse and agroecological farming systems43, and that these systems are the most
effective strategies for ensuring resilient food system in the face of climate change.
-The report should more proactively take up and call for implementation of uptake and IAASTD
recommendations. Currently this highly relevant report is mentioned only briefly.
-The report fails to adequately identify the real contributors to climate change in agriculture
such as the impact of industrial agriculture, widespread use of fertilizers, and the global market
and supermarket systems, which have been found to contribute an estimated 44-57% of global
greenhouse gas emissions44.
-The report fails to recognize that the global agribusiness food system increases vulnerability to
climate change by encouraging nations’ agricultures to specialize in export commodity crops.
This has the effect of narrowing the genetic diversity of crop varieties, and eroding farmers’
rights to save, develop and nurture a diversity of crops which are needed to address a variety of
climate, soil, pest, nutritional, cultural and medicinal needs.
-The report fails to adequately deal with the threats to land, forests, livelihoods and food
security from erroneous climate change solutions such as biofuels, biochar and potential carbon
land grabbing. Accelerating land grabs in Africa and Asia, are compromising populations’ ability
to ensure food security, let alone meet the challenges of climate change.
-Discussion of adaptation seems to focus more on private and agribusiness and not on
campesino, small-scale and agroecological farmers, even though it is these small-scale ecological
farmers who make up a significant portion of the planet’s population, who currently ensure
global food security, and whose systems are less resource-intensive and therefore increasingly
appropriate in world facing climate and resource challenges.
-Carbon markets are not a solution to climate change, and they should not be expanded into
Agriculture45. This would undermine genuine climate solutions, incentivise a “carbon land
grab” and prioritise non-food security crops. Furthermore, setting up carbon markets has
43 ETC Group report “Who Will Feed Us?” December 2009 http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/4921
44 GRAIN “Small Farmers Can Cool the Planet” October 2009 http://www.grain.org/o/?id=93
45 Gaia Foundation “Clear as Mud: why agriculture and soils should not be included in carbon offset
schemes.” April 2011
http://www.gaiafoundation.org/sites/default/files/Clear_as_Mud_Agriculture&Offsets.pdf
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
130
repeatedly been shown to be an expensive diversion of public funds that fails to generate
genuine new finance.
We very much appreciate the opportunity to engage in this important discussion, and we look
forward to the next draft and future CFS participation with interest.
60. Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance, Switzerland
Background and Introduction
Inspired by Christian ethics and human rights principles, members and partners of the
Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance (EAA) advocate for justice and dignity for all, and especially for
the poorest and most marginalized who are typically overlooked in policy-making and
implementation and who are at the greatest risk of suffering the potential impacts of climate
change. This is due to their high exposure to natural hazards, their direct dependence on natural
resources, and their limited capability to adapt to and cope with the impacts of climate change.
Our international alliance represent tens of millions of Christians around the world in support of
smallholder farmers, whose production capacity is the foundation of food security in much of the
developing world, but whose interests are routinely ignored in policy and practice.
We welcome the draft consultation report and are grateful to the HLPE for the opportunity to
react to its content at this early stage, especially since climate change will act as a multiplier of
existing threats to food security. Since the CFS is recognized as the leading forum for food and
agriculture policy orientation at the global level, it is imperative that the report provides clear
guidance for stakeholders to enable them to implement the necessary policies to increase
support to sustainable agricultural production methods that utilise low-cost, low-input,
resource-conserving materials and technologies, that draw on the knowledge of smallholder
food producers and that safeguard the environment. This includes clear advice to other UN
entites, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, on how
agriculture should be addressed within these frameworks.
Based on our experience of working with farmers and agricultural communities around the
world, and with our governments at national and international levels, we welcome the
opportunity to submit the following points for consideration:
Our recommendations
Acknowledge agro-ecological methods of food production and agro-forestry as viable means of
addressing climate change adaption and mitigation challenges. This requires the promotion of
investments in ecological practices and science and the encouragement of participatory
knowledge creation and the integration of indigenous knowledge. The focus must be on ensuring
that agriculture delivers social and environmental benefits as well as economic returns, as
highlighted in the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology
for Development (IAASTD) report.
Enhanced engagement of and support for smallholder farmers in research, policy formation and
implementation.
Prioritise adaptation and resilience for developing countries and vulnerable communities.
Recognize the responsibility of the industrialised food production system and its contribution to
global green house gas emissions
Address the difficulties in measuring carbon sequestration.
Principles and Rationale for the Recommendations
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
131
1. Increase recognition and support to agro-ecological food production
Smallholder farmers produce the majority of the world’s food, much of it for local consumption.
In order for them to adapt and to further build their adaptive capacity, they must be enabled to
practice farming systems that are resilient to long-term climate change. Agro-ecological
smallholder farming and other forms of sustainable ecological and climate resilient food
production should be promoted to allow communities and eco-systems to adapt to climate
change, to ensure food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to
occur in a sustainable manner. This focus needs to be strengthened in Section 4 of the report.
We propose prioritizing organic fertilizer types to enhance soil fertility, and to safeguard the
health and wellbeing of farmers, biodiversity and water resources. Where applicable, this should
include the recycling of organic refuse from households and the use of ‘green manures’ such as
leguminous cover crops to improve soil fertility, to reduce weeds, pests and diseases, to help
retain moisture in the soil, and to assist in retaining and contributing nitrogen for crop
production. Eco-intensification may be promoted through the systematic use of lime to improve
neutrality of soil for a more efficient use of the existing levels of phosphate in the soil and to
prevent pollution in rivers and seas.
2. Enhanced engagement of and support for smallholder farmers
The climate change crisis requires multi-disciplinary approaches, as well as a truly democratic
process to ensure that the most vulnerable are fully engaged in knowledge-sharing and decisionmaking. The potential impacts of new measures must be fully understood and evaluated by all
stakeholders. In the case of agriculture, it is the smallholder food producers who most acutely
experience the impact of climate variations. These farmers have a wealth of knowledge and
experience regarding appropriate methods and technologies which offer sustainable long-term
solutions that can contribute to adaptation and resilience, as well as to the mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Since Chapter 3 on Adaption is yet to be completed,
we invite the HLPE to review the compiled examples of successful low-tech, smallholder-based
climate adaptation solutions employed by our extensive network of members and partners
around the world.
In regards to Section 3.4.3, it is particularly important that farmers’ organizations play a central
role in the design and implementation of any decisions that are taken on agriculture within the
CFS, and within the regional and national programs to implement those policies.
The report should encourage resource mobilization for promoting biodiversity and resilient
agriculture, appropriate technology development, and diffusion and adoption of sustainable
technical innovations. Local people are the direct land managers that have been playing a central
role in adapting their food and agricultural systems under changing conditions. Their coping
mechanisms for adapting to variabilities and their traditional knowledge should be at the heart
of reports such as this.
3. Prioritise adaptation and resilience for developing countries
The UNFCCC’s Nairobi Work Program (NWP) under the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and
Technological Advice (SBSTA) has thus far not been sufficiently utilized to address agriculture.
The NWP can ramp up its efforts to evaluate adaptation and vulnerability, matters of great and
immediate concern to the rural poor. The CFS report should give clear guidance to the UNFCCC’s
agriculture and food security related work in order for it to strengthen all existing efforts and
policy processes - like the NWP and the work program on loss and damage - while making an
assessment of mitigation related efforts already under way46 such as that being carried out by
the Global Research Alliance on Agriculture Greenhouse Gases47.
46 Buchner, B., Falconer, A., Hervé-Mignucci, M., Trabacchi, C., and Brinkman, B. (27 Oct., 2011). The
landscape of climate finance. Climate Policy Initiative, Venice.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
132
4. Recognize the responsibility of the industrialised food system
EAA requests that the term ‘Climate Smart Agriculture’ be replaced in this report with an
alternative, such as ‘climate resilient agriculture’ or ‘sustainable agriculture’. ‘Climate Smart
Agriculture’ is framed in such a way as to make smallholder farmers in the Global South
responsible for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is the industrialized food
system which is far more responsible for agriculture's runaway emissions, not small-scale
farmers who would be saddled with the burden of a solution. Insofar as ‘Climate Smart
Agriculture’ aims at expanding carbon markets onto smallholder farmers’ soil, it shifts the blame
and responsibility for addressing climate change from rich countries onto the poor – the very
people least responsible for causing the problem and most vulnerable to future uncertainties.
There is a concern that a ‘Climate Smart Agriculture’ work programme would incentivize
industrial-scale food production at the expense of smallholder farmers, traditional crops and
biodiversity that have more potential to ensure food security and diverse crop production
systems which, in turn, can be sustainable and resilient to climatic extremes and changes. Across
Africa, governments are already leasing wide areas of land traditionally used by smallholder
farmers to foreign companies for industrial agriculture or for planting trees as carbon sinks in
order to gain carbon credits.
We are concerned that even if smaller farms are included in these projects, they will bear the
direct risk of these potentially failing practices. While financial traders and carbon project
developers will gain the bulk of the (potential) profits, the benefits to smallholder farmers will
be meagre. For instance, the World Bank estimates that the Kenya Agricultural Carbon project,
the Bank’s first soil carbon sequestration project in Africa, will generate $2.48 million in carbon
revenues over the 20-year implementation period. Of that amount, the 60,000 farmers
participating in the project would receive an average of $22.83, or about $1 per farmer per
year.48 Transaction costs for setting up this project are nearly half of the projected revenues.
These costs benefit international consultants and project developers, rather than targeted
communities. It is critical that scarce financial resources not be diverted to bolster unproven
investment schemes, but rather go directly towards supporting smallholder farmers in their
adaptation needs.
According to an October 2011 report of the Climate Policy Institute (CPI), less than four percent
of the 2009-2010 average of USD 97 billion in annual climate finance flows went to adaptation
projects. The private sector, despite its huge exposure to climate change risks, invested nothing
in adaptation projects, according to CPI.
5. Address the difficulties in measuring carbon sequestration
Carbon offset strategies like the Clean Development Mechanism are, if at all, feasible only for
industrial processes for which greenhouse gas emissions can easily be measured. Agricultural
fields, however, are subject to complex biological processes and exhibit extensive heterogeneity.
Impermanence and leakage are critical problems in agriculture soil carbon that makes it an
extremely unreliable carbon “asset” to measure and quantify, much less for generating
credits.49 Fires, natural disasters, human activity and local conditions make it extremely
difficult to quantify soil carbon in the long term. In addition, the trade-off between the build-up
of organic matter for carbon sequestration and the increased risk of nitrous oxide release as a
result of carbon-induced denitrification processes in soils is not thoroughly understood and
47 http://www.globalresearchalliance.org/
48 Sharma, S. and Suppan, S., (Sept. 2011). Elusive promises of the Kenya agricultural carbon project.
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Minneapolis.
49 See document: “Fiddling with Soil Carbon While Africa Burns”
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
133
therefore poses another major challenge to the quantification of carbon gain for any soil
management system.
Science is in its early stages to understand the feedback loop climate change causes in soils.
Additionally, because the majority of farmers work on fewer than two hectares of land, land
tenure and the aggregation of thousands of farmers remains a critical concern in soil carbon
offsets.
Conclusion
Sustainable agriculture is critical for ensuring food security and for the realization of the right to
food for all. Action is needed, within and outside of the Committee on World Food Security, to
understand and address the threat of climate change to agriculture and food security.
Appropriate adaptation measures for the agriculture sector especially in the Global South must
be supported. Mitigation of the greenhouse gas emissions from industrialized agriculture is an
urgent necessity.
EAA members and partners have been involved in the CFS process for more than a decade and
will continue to follow developments within this context to ensure that global food security and
the protection of basic human rights, including the right to food, are respected in these decisions.
EAA looks forward to attending the presentation of the final report at the 38th CFS session and
hopes that the concerns outlined above are reflected at this time.
The Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance is the most inclusive international advocacy organization of
churches and Christian organizations, with members representing Catholic, Evangelical,
Orthodox, and Protestant traditions. Our members are committed to speaking and acting
together on issues of common concern, currently HIV and AIDS and Food. As an alliance of 80
churches and church-related organizations located around the world with members and
constituents in the tens of millions, we are called by our faith to stand for justice, peace and a
sustainable world. www.e-alliance.ch
61. CropLife, USA
Thank you for the opportunity to review, the HLPE on FS and Nutrition on Food Security and
Climate Change.
Overall it is a balanced paper, and we appreciate the emphasis on complexity, which is the
reality in terms of the ability to forecast the true impacts of climate change. Clearly, as a
community we know there will be significant impacts, but as the paper notes our knowledge is
still extremely limited. This makes forecasting and development of scenarios challenging and
therefore research and policy development in this area is critical.
Two gaps of note are:
1) a discussion of the full variety of resources and options available to farmers across the range
of farming systems, including the role that modern agriculture and technology can play in terms
of crop protection products and plant biotech. For example the text discusses the number of
new pests and disease threats anticipated but does not look at the role that pesticides, fungicides
and other crop protection products should play. We would encourage a broader discussion of
options, allowing farmers and their governments to choose based upon their needs, available
options, and their agro-ecological environment.
2) There is an opportunity to look at some of the innovations available, such as stress tolerant
crops, more efficient CP products that reduce use and no till with herbicides.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
134
It’s great that the paper makes note of the potential contributions of the private sector and we
would encourage an expansion of this discussion to look at the many opportunities for
collaboration. To foster innovation and bring more technology to bear, countries will need
public-private partnership to access the expertise and finance needed. CropLife would welcome
collaboration on Chapter 3 where this is discussed in depth, and could also provide small case
studies to flesh out that section if helpful.
More specific comments on the chapters are as follows:
Chapter 3 Introduction
This could be a controversial point at CFS since many countries have strongly resisted any
suggestions that developing countries should bear an equivalent burden for reductions
There could be greater emphasis on promoting research and innovation more broadly, including
of the private sector. the value of science and technology seems to be a neglected component
Chapter 3 Availability, page 29
Missing is the notion of access to risk mitigating services, such as insurance.
and private sector?? there is a lot going on in the private sector (in R&D, in sourcing practices
etc) and this should be reflected
page 30
What about the options for land reclamation/restoration?
Page 31
Infrastructure investment is also key for access.
Not quite clear what is meant by 'agribusiness' - input industry? large farmers?
Chapter 5: Policy Recommendations
-“private sector” research is more likely to benefit large scale farmers
A lot of technologies and tools are scale neutral and private sector is already working with
smallholders or develops tools that are of use for them. the main issue is often one of market - is
a particular region or country able to represent a market in which R&D investments, and other
investments, can be commercially re-couped? Improving enabling regulatory and policy
environment, increasing market harmonization etc can help create incentives for private sector
investment in products and tools that will beuseful. Looking at these dimensions, rather than
simply dismissing private sector investment as essentially 'for large farms' would be more
constructive. It would also enable the inclusion of the many companies that form the private
sector which are themselves not necessarily large and which can serve national and local
populations
What is meant by private sector in the paper needs to be clarified - here farmers seem to be part
of it - but it's not always so clear
Thank you again for the opportunity to review.
Kind Regards,
Tracy Gerstle
Global Public Policy Director
CropLife International
USA
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
135
62. Douglas Brown, World Vision International, Canada
Dear FSN Members,
I’d like to take this opportunity to share some feedback on the zero draft of the document on
climate change and food security. I appreciate the efforts of the HLPE to report on this very
important issue. Since there has already been considerable feedback by others, I will not go over
that which has already been said. Rather, I will focus on some issues that I feel need more or a
different emphasis in the current draft – first with some general comments and then with some
more specific concerns and suggestions.
1. While there is certainly mention of a number of issues related to the challenge of
restoring degraded environments that contribute to extreme vulnerability and low levels
of resilience to shocks, the emphasis of the report tends toward technical solutions – and
the need for more research, new technologies and new and better inputs. Not that there
is not a place for these, but there are a number of good, low-cost, ready-made practices
(particularly in the areas of soil and water conservation, agroforestry and conservation
agriculture) that, if more widely adopted would result in agricultural systems which are
at once more productive (and profitable), sustainable and resilient.
2. These sorts of practices present triple (or quadruple) win opportunities. They are at
once (1) mitigating in that they sequester more carbon in the agro-ecosystem, (2)
adaptive in that the presence of higher levels of soil carbon has a positive impact on soil
structure, infiltration rates, water holding capacity and fertility rendering the agroecosystem more resilient to variations in precipitation and other climate extremes, (3)
food security improving in that they contribute to increased productivity (improved
availability and access and dietary quality) as well as resilience (more stable
production), and (4) biodiversity improving. Unfortunately the linkages between the
mitigation, adaptation, food security and biodiversity dimensions of these are not clearly
made.50
3. In the discussion on what we know about climate change (3.1) it would be helpful to
distinguish between the type of agriculture being practiced and the relative contribution
to emissions. More important than farm size or scale is the type of agriculture being
practiced – is it one which relies on major inputs of nitrogen-based fertilizers, reliance
on fossil fuels and other petro-chemical based inputs. High external input systems will
have a very different GHG profile than low external input systems on a per unit area
basis.
4. In the discussion on adaptation there is little mention of resilience and what can be done
to improve it. The WRI report “Roots of Resilience”51 would be worth referring to –
50 See Lal (2011) Sequestering carbon in soils of agro-ecosystems. Food Policy: “Conversion to a
restorative land use and adoption of recommended management practices, can enhance the SOC pool,
improve soil quality, increase agronomic productivity, advance global food security, enhance soil
resilience to adapt to extreme climatic events, and mitigate climate change by off-setting fossil fuel
emissions.” “The strategy is to create positive soil C and nutrient budgets through adoption of no-till
farming with mulch, use of cover crops, integrated nutrient management including biofertilizers, water
conservation, and harvesting, and improving soil structure and tilth.” and also UNEP (2012) The Benefits
of Soil Carbon - Managing soils for multiple economic societal and environmental benefits in UNEP Year
Book 2012. Both are included with my submission.
51 World Resources Institute (WRI) in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme,
United Nations Environment Programme, and World Bank. 2008. World Resources 2008: Roots of
Resilience: Growing the Wealth of the Poor. Washington, DC: WRI.
(http://www.wri.org/publication/world-resources-2008-roots-of-resilience).
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
136
especially the case studies in Chapter 3. For example, the section entitled “Turning back
the desert: How farmers have transformed Niger’s landscapes and livelihoods.52
5. Looking back to the work done by Nelson et al (2010)53, there are several important
policy options mentioned:
→ Raise poor people’s incomes to achieve sustainable food security and resilience to
climate change
→ Invest in agricultural productivity improvements to enhance sustainable food
security
→ Strengthen international trade arrangements to compensate for different climate
change effects in different locations
→ Cut greenhouse gas emissions and facilitate adaptation to minimize the harmful
effects of climate change
While these are important and valid, there is also a serious gap. There is no mention of
the current state of agricultural ecosystems, which are often highly degraded,
unproductive and of very low resilience in contrast to what they were in the past, and
there is an underlying assumption that this cannot be changed. In fact, there are viable
ways to reverse this degradation and restore the health of these agro-ecosystems – the
soil, water and so on. If the focus is on agricultural productivity first and foremost, we
lose the emphasis on stewardship and the important fact that for landscapes to be
productive and resilient they must be healthy and used sustainably. This is why FAO’s
new paradigm for agriculture is worth mentioning (http://www.fao.org/ag/save-andgrow/). We need to save, invest in the health of the agricultural system, in order to be
able to grow and produce what we need. So, to the above, I would suggest replacing the
second point with something like:
→ Encourage the adoption of agricultural practices which are at once more productive,
sustainable and resilient and contribute to improved food security in all of its four
dimensions.
In addition to this, I would also emphasize that a more sustainable, resilient and
productive agriculture is both mitigating and adaptive by definition.
6. While the discussion about the importance of smallholder farmers is helpful, it should be
more nuanced. They do manage a sizeable portion of agricultural land, and they do have
the potential to be more diverse and have a lower carbon footprint than larger-scale,
higher external input (read fossil fuels), but they are not necessarily more resilient and
adaptive. This will depend on whether or not the specific practices adopted by the
smallholder farmer lead to enhanced sustainability and resilience of the agro-ecosystem.
7. While it is true that smallholders manage a sizeable portion of agricultural land, it is also
true that the dominant form of agricultural production in developed countries
encompasses a very large area and has a very large carbon footprint. The discussion
needs to focus on this too.
8. The discussion of the nutrition side of food security is especially weak.
More specifically, I’d like to suggest the following:
1. Section 1.1, bottom of page 1: It would seem appropriate to mention the important
contribution of good stewardship of soil and water resources – and the fact that it is
possible and feasible to reverse the accumulated degradation of these systems (which
52 A PDF of this chapter is included with this submission.
53 Nelson, G. C., Rosegrant, M. W., Palazzo, A., Gray, I., Ingersoll, C., Robertson, R., Tokgoz, S., et al.
(2010). Food Security, Farming, and Climate Change to 2050, IFPRI Issue Brief 66, December 2010.
Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
137
lies at the root of low productivity and lack of resilience to climate and weather-related
shocks) through intentional efforts at rebuilding and restoration.
2. Section 1.2, second last paragraph: I appreciate this mention of the importance of linking
efforts to deal with climate change to poverty reduction and food security enhancement
– especially the overlap between the poor, the food insecure and those affected by
climate change. However, when it is mentioned that doing so might require
modifications to food security programs, the reader is left wondering what those might
be – perhaps an example might be in order?
3. Section 1.2, last paragraph: when one discusses how food security is affected by climate
change, it might also be helpful to mention other changes that might also impact food
security.
4. Section 1.4, first paragraph, “adding to the challenges from other threats”: it would be
helpful to mention some of these briefly. This would include loss of soil carbon and
fertility, water holding capacity, resilience to variations/extremes of precipitation
5. Section 1.4, third paragraph: It would seem to me that scale of farm operation is less
important than the type of production system. Whether or not a farm consists of 1, 10 or
100 hectares is not so important for GHG production or sequestration than the type of
production system. I would suggest that more important than scale is the sustainability
and resilience of the system and the type of inputs used (especially their GHG emissions)
and whether or not they result in more or less carbon sequestration in the agroecosystem. Both small and large farms can be sustainable or not.
6. In section 1.4 it would be helpful to discuss more than the issues of access to inputs.
There really needs to be some mention here (in 1.4.2) of more than just purchased
inputs. There are a whole host of NRM practices, S&WC practices and things like
Conservation Agriculture and Agroforestry that are important to addressing climate
change and food security challenges. While they are mentioned later, they should be
touched on here as well. For example, when people have no choice but to use crop
residues and animal dung for fuel instead of to enhance soil fertility and soil carbon,
there are problems. On the other hand, using practices like Farmer-Managed Natural
Regeneration (FMNR) and other agroforestry practices to increase the number of trees
in the agricultural landscape has multiple benefits – saving labour, improving soil
fertility, reducing soil erosion, improving microclimate and increasing resilience.
7. Section 1.4.3: it is good to see some mention of soil quality.
8. Section 1.4.3.1, first paragraph: There is mention of the importance of studying the
effects of changes in climate on agriculture. This is true. However, it would be helpful to
mention that the effects will differ as a function of the state of health of the agroecosystem.
9. Section 1.4.3.1, second paragraph: It would seem that evapotranspiration and
droughtiness are impacted by both temperature and soil health/quality
10. Section 1.4.3.1, fourth paragraph: It would seem that one should also mention soil C.
11. Section 1.4.3.1, fifth paragraph: With respect to vegetable production, sensitivity to
environmental extremes and things like limited soil moisture and high temperatures are
impacted considerably by soil management as well as by climate change.
12. Section 1.4.3.1, seventh paragraph: It is true that climate change will result in multiple
stresses, but one should also mention that there are concrete things one can do to reduce
those stresses – stresses which are in some circumstances higher than the need to be for
reasons other than climate change – i.e., one of the effects of poor soil management is
compacted, eroded, droughty soils which have little fertility and water holding capacity –
the result being that 50% or more of precipitation which falls is lost as run-off. In many
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
138
cases this may result in an “agricultural drought” when there is not a “meteorological
drought” – something which can be remedied by rebuilding/restoring the soil through
the adoption of appropriate NRM practices.
13. Section 1.4.4 Access, first paragraph: access is not only affected by price volatility. Higher
prices impact access as well – assuming that they are rising more rapidly than incomes.
14. Section 1.4.6 Stability, third paragraph: there is mention of increased variability in
production induced by climate change – but it should also be mentioned that the degree
of this effect will depend on a number of things under human control – especially NRM
and S&WC practices
15. Section 1.5 Policy Messages: second paragraph: there is mention that improvements in
productivity are essential to deal with food security challenges. This is only partially
true. For this to be true, those improvements must occur concurrently with improved
sustainability and resilience – only those which improve all three at the same time will
lead to the desired impact on food security in the long run
16. Section 1.5 Policy Messages: third paragraph: there is mention that small-scale farms are
more likely to engage in more diverse production systems and therefore be more
resilient to climate change, but this depends on the state of the natural resources on
those farms. If highly degraded, all this diversity will be neither productive nor resilient.
17. Section 1.5 Policy Messages: sixth paragraph (beginning with “inadequate information”):
there are cases where this is true, but there are also well-known S&WC practices that
deal with sustainability and resilience. Later, in the second bullet point, things differ not
only by scale and gender, but by geography and culture as well.
18. Section 2.2, last sentence of last paragraph: Strategies don’t always differ for where
drought is more likely in contrast to flooding. Conservation Agriculture, for example,
actually is beneficial in both settings.
19. Section 2.3, last sentence of first paragraph: another factor to consider when evaluating
the output of crop models is whether or not they account for changes in farming
practices
20. Section 2.3, second paragraph: when discussing regions that might be more vulnerable,
one should not treat these isolation from discussion of the health of the current
agricultural ecosystem in whatever region one is considering.
21. Section 2.7 Data and modelling issues: when modelling outcomes, it is important to
model them as a function of agricultural practices as well – especially those that affect
soil carbon and water holding capacity.
22. Section 3.1 Introduction, 4th bullet point: some new practices may be appropriate, but
what about more widespread adoption of current “best practice” for NRM?
23. Section 3.1 Introduction, 8th bullet point: the point on gender-sensitivity – on the other
hand, there are some practices which might decrease women’s workload – e.g., FMNR
and other agroforestry practices which increase the presence of woody vegetation close
at hand.
24. Section 3.1 Introduction: In general, as mentioned above, there exist some practices
which are more resilient than others – these generate multiple, simultaneous wins for
adaptation, mitigation, sustainability, resilience and productivity – in fact these are
things one should be doing anyway since they increase fertilizer use efficiency, improve
water use and soil moisture regimes, decrease soil erosion, reduce flooding.
25. Section 3.2 Lessons from recent adaptation: there are other changes/adaptation efforts
that have made people more resilient to shocks. See, for example, the IFPRI publication
“Millions Fed”, the WRI publication mentioned earlier in a footnote.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
139
26. Section 3.3.1 Availability: these points are welcome, but should have come out in the
discussion much earlier. I was left wondering through much of the preceding discussion
whether the only solutions presented would be in the area of “new and improved
technology”. When discussing the alteration of agronomic practices, it is important to
mention that doing so can actually contribute to restoring soils or reversing degradation
of agro-ecosystems. When discussing pastoral systems, increasing woody vegetation in
the landscape is useful – as is improved pasture management. The same applies to
adoption of best practice in S&WC, agroforestry and grassland management.
27. Section 3.3.2 Access: the policy section needs to mention increasing prices relative to
income as a factor and not only price volatility
28. Section 3.3.3 Use: shouldn’t this include some mention of nutrition?
29. Section 3.3.4 Stability: Healthy agro-ecosystems (healthy soils, diverse systems, etc.) are
more stable.
30. Section 3.4.2 Governments and IOs: third bullet point: civil engineering might play a role,
but so will S&WC.
31. Section 3.4.2 Governments and IOs: sixth bullet point: Investment in applied research is
important, but so is work towards improving the adoption of known best practices.
32. Section 3.4.3 The research community: sixth bullet point: while one can increase
resilience through the development of new agronomic strategies, it seems a waist to
ignore those which are effective but not well used. Perhaps it would also be worthwhile
to undertake research into ways to help farmers adopt current agronomic best practice.
33. Section 3.4.3 The research community: Policy messages: first bullet point: soil carbon is
missing again, even though it is so important to the resilience of agricultural systems.
34. Section 4.2 Agriculture’s contribution, second paragraph, first sentence: Yes, but this can
be reversed by changes in soil and water conservation practices (S&WC).
35. Section 4.2 Agriculture’s contribution, third paragraph, last sentence: in SSA at least,
tehse two are positively reinforcing.
36. Section 4.4 Mitigation options for agriculture, first paragraph and associated bullet
points: these techniques are very welcome here. I only wish they were mentioned sooner
– i.e., in the adaptation section, since they are positive for adaptation as well.
37. Section 4.5 Synergies and trade-offs: this section is very welcome. There are many winwin scenarios, as mentioned above. In the third paragraph, where increasing soil carbon
storage is mentioned, other synergies are increased water holding capacity, increased
rate of infiltration, decreased runoff and erosion, increased resilience to
variations/extremes. Increased soil cover from crop residues used as mulch and green
manure/cover crops improves the soil microclimate, reduces evapotranspiration and
erosion and contributes to increased carbon. Trees provide shelter as well as fodder, fuel
and increasing carbon in the landscape.
38. Section 5.2, third paragraph: productivity and resilience enhancing technologies should
not be considered separately. Only if something improves the two concurrently is it a
good thing.
39. Section 5.3.1 Adaptation, last paragraph: instead of “the search for these practices”
perhaps one should also mention “the use of these practices”.
Finally, to conclude, I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on this draft document.
Admittedly, it is a work in progress, but I trust that these comments will assist in its
improvement.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
140
All the best,
Douglas R. Brown, Director, Agriculture and Food Security, World Vision International
63. World Food Programme, Italy
WFP welcomes the zero draft report of the HLPE on Food Security and Climate Change and
recognizes its importance and relevance to the eradication of hunger. Understanding and taking
action on how climate change interacts with hunger and food security is a key consideration for
WFP because, if left unchecked, climate change can act as a hunger risk multiplier (WFP, 2011)
which threatens to undermine and potentially roll-back hard-won development gains and
affecting the lives and livelihoods of the most vulnerable people.
This study will need to answer some of the most pressing issues related to both policy and
practice and give a strong sense of direction for the food and nutrition security stakeholders.
Against this backdrop the draft would benefit from a number of key developments and further
refinement – both structurally and content-wise. More efforts are required to consolidate the
paper and ensure that is provides a solid contribution to the issues at hand. In this regard, WFP
would like to recommend that another round of comments is ensured to facilitate the treatment
of some of the remaining substantial issues and the finalisation of the document.
Answering the set of questions:
Question 1: An important audience for this report is national policy makers concerned with
agriculture and food security and their staff. Does the report include sufficient information to
support the policy messages and is it written in a way that captures the complexity of the
challenges to food security from climate change while not being too technical?
Overall, there are some substantial weaknesses in how specific policy recommendations and
messages are linked to evidence, and in some cases it appears that recommendations are
disconnected from the analysis. This gap unfortunately also prevails between the general
recommendations (section 5) and the four first sections of the paper.
In general, the paper would greatly benefit from further analysing the complexity of the
challenge of food and nutrition security in face of adverse climate change. In part, the document
does not go deep enough into understanding the social landscape and vulnerabilities in which
climate change takes place, understanding the context would seem a pre-condition to pertinent
policy recommendations.
In line with the above comment, despite the expressed intention of the paper to adopt a
comprehensive approach considering all the dimensions of food security, much remains to reach
sufficient levels of detail on the access and utilization dimensions.
In this context a specific point must be raised on the fact that, overall, the paper does not seem to
attribute enough attention or importance to the changing risk, vulnerability and disasters
landscape, and to the role of risk reduction and management for sustainable food security. For
example, the report should better frame and balance how it presents key risks/threats facing
food security (on page 7, section 1.4 where population growth is presented as a key threat) to
avoid misinterpretation, including also mentioning additional risks up front following IPCC4
structure which include i) declining agricultural productivity, iii) more frequent, intense and
erratic climate and weather-related events, iii) accelerated land degradation, iv) reduced water
availability and deteriorating sanitation, v) increased conflicts over scarce resources, and, vi)
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
141
increased urbanization, migration and displacement. The increased risk of extreme events and
their impact on food and nutrition security are also not captured sufficiently in the report,
especially considering that some of these types of risks (for example drought-risk and cyclones)
are likely to increase in some of the most food insecure regions in the near future (see IPCC
SREX).
In other cases, for example page 25, section 2.5, the report seems to underestimate the
consequences of food price increases that climate change may cause. While the document seems
to allude to the fact that international trade may have a mitigation effect on food price increases,
recent scenarios and modelling show considerable and very worrying increases in food prices
attributed to climate change, which the report should better integrate (see D. Willenbockel,
2011, Exploring Food Price Scenarios Towards 2030 as referenced in Oxfam 2011, Growing a
better future).
In yet other cases, there seems to be a need to enhance the fluidity and coherence of the
discourse. For example, while there is recognition of the importance of safety nets in the
assessment, the description of the use of safety nets is very limited and partly incorrect (see
page 16, paragraph 1.4.4, and further comments, below), and there is no related
recommendation in the later sections.
Question 2: It is not possible to provide detailed policy recommendations for specific countries,
regions, or groups. Instead we propose a series of policy messages that are intended to provide
guidance for developing nationally-relevant policies and programs and that can also assist
international efforts. Have we chosen the best set of topics? How could our policy messages be
improved? Have important messages been omitted?
Overall, the policy recommendations and messages would need to be much more affirmative to
provide sufficient comfort among national and international stakeholders to generate action.
The point of departure for the recommendations should be to recognize that climate change is
a hunger risk multiplier and a fundamental challenge to human development and security in
many developing countries.
WFP would very much welcome if the policy recommendation could also put a much stronger
emphasis and sharpening of action items that prioritizes vulnerable groups and sectors to a
higher degree (focusing on the most vulnerable is expressed as a priority on page 20 and
elsewhere but this is not reflected in many sections of the paper). This is particularly important
where evidence is weaker and uncertainties are high (see example on page 18, paragraph 7 for
language that should be avoided and replaced by language a la “we know sufficient to act”). In
this context it will be critical to align any policy messages with already existing or emerging
policy agendas, initiatives and similar that aim at reducing hunger, including the agendas of Rio
+20, etcetera.
Importantly, there is a misconception with regards to safety nets and social protection as mere
tools for famine situations (see for example page 31 and page 32). The unique contribution of
safety nets and social protection approaches lay in being effective tools for protecting livelihood
assets as well as creating an enabling environment for poor and food insecure households to act
as providers of opportunity (also for example through asset-transfer and asset-creation
programmes that aim at empowering communities, enhancing their livelihoods and food and
nutrition security, and building their resilience. This has been shown and recommended in a
number of recent studies (see additional key references). In some cases, when coupled with
effective risk management approaches such as contingence financing for scaling up responses,
insurance and micro-credit solutions, these become very effective tools and should therefore be
at the centre of the paper in terms of adaptation response and policy recommendations.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
142
WFP would also recommend that a more precise definition be applied to climate-smart
agriculture than how it is currently presented on page 26, section 2.8,. The CSA approach relates,
in principle, to a different set of issues than what is discussed in the specific section.
For the post-paper phase, it would be beneficial if a response framework for use at multiple
levels and different scales be developed by the paper that can help stimulate action and further
consolidation of approaches.
Question 3: The chapter on adaptation is incomplete. We would especially value input on
whether the concepts presented in annotated outline form cover appropriate material or
whether additional topics need to be covered, and some current items eliminated. These inputs
will be used to guide the drafting of the final version of this chapter.
The adaptation chapter will need to be further refined and the topics be better sorted and
balanced under the various sections to give a sense of priority and focus. WFP recognizes that
this chapter is “work in progress” which justifies that a second opportunity is provided to allow
for comments on the basis of more developed chapter.
In line with previous comments, social protection, resilience building, risk management and the
broader disaster risk reduction approach is closely related to and linked up with the adaptation
agenda and addressing risks must be recognized as a core concern of adaptation strategies. The
chapter should also make sufficient links with the emerging resilience agenda and sustainable
development. This chapter would also benefit from looking at ways to include concrete
examples that can help contextualize the challenges and enabling environments. Additional set
of examples can be provided from WFP, national governments and partners. Initial ones could
include:
- HARITA and R4 project:
http://unfccc.int/files/secretariat/momentum_for_change/application/pdf/5_microinsurance_for_famers.pdf
- LEAP:
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/webcontent/wfp240953.pdf
- MERET:
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/newsroom/wfp225961.pdf
Question 4: The report proposes three high level policy messages with detailed
recommendations under each. We introduce the three high level messages here and ask the
reader to refer to the fifth chapter for the current complete text. Are these the most important
messages for national and international policy makers? How can the text be improved to convey
these (or other) messages?
1. Climate change responses should be complementary to, not independent of, activities that are
needed for sustainable food security.
2. Climate change adaptation and mitigation require national activities and global coordination.
3. Public-public and public-private partnerships are essential.
The three proposed high-level policy messages represent a start but should be made much more
comprehensive, be affirmative, build on evidence and guide action. They would also need to be
aligned with other agendas, favour integrated responses, and overall put people at the centre.
WFP would therefor recommend that the HLPE address additional areas in need of guidance.
Examples where this has been done include the CCAFS Commission report
(http://ccafs.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/assets/docs/climate_food_commission-finalmar2012.pdf) as well as the Rome-based agencies submission to Rio+20 Outcome Document
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
143
(http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/618RIO%20COMMON%20STATEMEN
TRome-based%20Organisations%20Submission%20FINAL4Nov.pdf). Taken together, these
likely better represent the overall needs in terms of food security and climate change.
Additional key references:
Parry, M., Evans, A. Rosengrant, M.W. and Wheeler, T. (2009) Climate Change and Hunger:
Responding to the challenge. Rome, Italy: WFP
WFP et al., (2009). Climate change, food security and hunger: Key messages for UNFCCC
negotiators. Technical Paper of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Task Force on
Climate Change.
http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/pageloader.aspx?page=content-subsidi-commondefault&sb=76 on November 11th, 2010.
WFP (2011). Climate Change and Hunger: Towards a WFP Policy on Climate Change.
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/resources/wfp232740.pdf
WFP (2011). Policy on Disaster Risk Reduction and Management – Building Food Security and
Resilience.
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/eb/wfpdoc061382.pdf
Oxfam (2011). Growing a better future.
http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/growing-a-better-future-010611-en.pdf
CCAFS (2012), Achieving food security in the face of climate change,
http://ccafs.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/assets/docs/climate_food_commission-finalmar2012.pdf
UNDP. 2007. Human Development Report 2007/2008. Fighting Climate Change: Human
Solidarity in a Divided World. Available at
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Complete.pdf/
“IPCC (2012) IPCC Special Report – Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to
Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)”
Davies, Oswald and Mitchell (2009) Climate Change Adaptation, Disaster Risk Reduction and
Social Protection
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/55/43280946.pdf
Davies, M. et al., (2008): Climate Change Adaptation, Disaster Risk Reduction and Social
Protection: Complementary Roles in Agriculture and Rural Growth?, Institute of Development
Studies, Brighton: UK.
World Bank (2012), Social Protection and Climate Resilience
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/2443621232059926563/5747581-1239131985528/WBSocProtec_Final.pdf
64. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Belgium
Dear all,
I'm writing to you in the name of Dennis Garrity to submit ICRAF's suggested amendments to V0
of the Climate Change report. You will find them in the Word document. (Comments sent in track
changes mode , please follow this link, Ed.:
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
144
http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/fsn/docs/HLPEII/Climate_Change-V0ICRAF__2_.doc )
I hope these suggestions will be useful. Please pass our thanks to the Report's drafting and
editorial team for their hard work. It is much appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
Patrick Worms
Senior Science Policy Adviser
World Agroforestry Centre
Belgium
65. Argentina
[Original contribution in Spanish]
La Argentina agradece la oportunidad de remitir comentarios sobre el borrador cero del
documento titulado “Food Security and Climate Change” que fuera elaborado por el Grupo de
Expertos de Alto Nivel en Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (HLPE).
Al respecto, nuestro país tiene a bien realizar las siguientes observaciones generales sobre el
borrador cero, a fin de que las mismas puedan ser tenidas en cuenta por el HLPE:
En primer lugar, la Argentina estima que el HLPE ha realizado en el borrador cero una buena
contribución en la cuestión de los impactos del cambio climático sobre la seguridad alimentaria,
como asimismo la importancia de la adaptación al fenómeno en el sector agropecuario. En
adición, se apoya la visión de que existen diferencias en los sistemas agropecuarios y en el
impacto que sufrirán a partir del cambio climático. También se coincide en que existe una
necesidad de aumentar la investigación a fin de entender las consecuencias del cambio climático
sobre la productividad agropecuaria.
En ese respecto, la Argentina considera que el tema de la seguridad alimentaria y el cambio
climático es de fundamental relevancia, en vistas a los desafíos que el sector agropecuario
enfrentará frente a dicho fenómeno, teniendo en cuenta que la agricultura es altamente
vulnerable a los impactos adversos del mismo.
En ese marco, uno de los retos más importantes será alimentar en las próximas décadas a una
población creciente, lo que llevará a tener que producir alimentos en condiciones climáticas
diferentes.
En ese sentido, el enfoque que se utilice para abordar la temática deberá favorecer el logro de la
seguridad alimentaria, así como del desarrollo económico y social, en especial de los países en
desarrollo, más aún tomando en consideración la importancia que tiene el sector agropecuario
para esos últimos.
En base a lo anterior, el informe del HLPE debería reflejar claramente que la relación entre
agricultura y cambio climático debería tratarse de una manera holística que ubique en el centro
a los temas de principal preocupación para los países en desarrollo, en un contexto que busque
el fortalecimiento del sector agropecuario en los mismos. Esto incluye la adaptación del sector a
los efectos del cambio climático; los impactos de este fenómeno sobre la seguridad alimentaria;
el fortalecimiento de las capacidades nacionales y la cooperación internacional para el
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
145
desarrollo y transferencia de tecnologías que redunden en una mejora en la capacidad
adaptativa y eficiencia de los sistemas productivos.
En ese sentido, el HLPE podrá realizar una contribución en aras de fortalecer el sector
agropecuario frente al cambio climático, en el marco del mandato para su labor específica
provista por el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial, de revisar las evaluaciones e
iniciativas existentes sobre los efectos del cambio climático sobre la seguridad alimentaria y
nutrición, con un foco en las regiones y poblaciones más afectadas y vulnerables y en la interfase
entre el cambio climático y la productividad agropecuaria, incluyendo los desafíos y
oportunidades para políticas de adaptación y mitigación y acciones para la seguridad
alimentaria y la nutrición.
En ese respecto, se estima que el HLPE debería limitarse a incluir en el borrador las cuestiones
estrictamente relacionadas con su mandato, en términos de revisar las evaluaciones e iniciativas
existentes. Por ello, el documento no debería sugerir políticas específicas nacionales e
internacionales en materia de cambio climático, dado que ello excedería sus términos de
referencia.
Por otra parte, se coincide con la conclusión del estudio de que el cambio climático posee
amenazas únicas e inciertas para la seguridad alimentaria que requieren la acción del sector
público y del privado. Sin embargo, se estima que debería ponerse mayor énfasis en el
documento al rol del sector público en materia de cooperación internacional, en particular en
materia de transferencia de tecnologías que redunden en una mayor capacidad adaptativa del
sector agropecuario, lo que debería realizarse desde los países desarrollados hacia los países en
desarrollo.
Respecto de la mitigación del cambio climático en el sector agropecuario, se considera que el
enfoque debería ser consistente con las disposiciones y principios de la Convención Marco de las
Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (CMNUCC), en particular el principio de
responsabilidades comunes pero diferenciadas.
Por ello, la Argentina desea expresar su preocupación por la visión expuesta en el documento en
relación con este tema, dado que la misma no es consistente con las disposiciones y principios de
la CMNUCC. Al respecto, cabe recordar las responsabilidades históricas de los países
desarrollados en su contribución al cambio climático y que, como consecuencia, las Partes Anexo
I son las únicas con compromisos vinculantes de reducción cuantitativa de emisiones en el
marco del régimen de cambio climático de las Naciones Unidas. En tanto, los países en desarrollo
sólo podrían tomar acciones nacionales voluntarias, sujeto a recibir el adecuado apoyo en
términos de transferencia de tecnología y de recursos financieros por parte de los países
desarrollados.
Asimismo, el trabajo del HLPE no debería duplicar esfuerzos o prejuzgar las negociaciones que
se encuentran en proceso en el foro de competencia primaria de la cuestión del cambio climático
(la CMNUCC), y no debería avanzar sobre cuestiones que se encuentran actualmente en
negociación en ese ámbito, como ser los enfoques sectoriales cooperativos y acciones sectoriales
específicas, tema que incluye, entre otras cuestiones, discusiones en torno al sector
agropecuario.
En ese marco, se observa con inquietud que el documento realiza una valoración negativa de la
contribución del sector agropecuario al cambio climático, cuando en realidad sería más
constructivo analizar la cuestión de la agricultura y el cambio climático a partir de la relación del
sector con la seguridad alimentaria. Al respecto, cabe señalar que el artículo 2 de la CMNUCC
establece que el objetivo de la Convención de estabilizar las concentraciones de gases de efecto
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
146
invernadero en la atmósfera debería alcanzarse de tal manera que la producción alimentaria no
se vea amenazada.
Asimismo, el HLPE podría considerar cómo la reducción sustancial de los subsidios a la
producción agropecuaria distorsivos del comercio o producción, aplicados por los países
desarrollados resultaría de importancia para diseñar esquemas de producción sustentables y
reducir las emisiones del sector. Al respecto, la Argentina considera que dichos subsidios no sólo
distorsionan el comercio agropecuario internacional, sino que son ineficientes desde el punto de
vista ambiental, al proveer fondos que llevan a una sobreexplotación de los recursos naturales
utilizados en la producción agrícola. En ese sentido, el HLPE debería evitar mencionar de
manera explícita la “multifuncionalidad” (p. 8 del borrador), dado que la misma ha sido utilizada
históricamente por los países desarrollados para justificar subsidios agrícolas proteccionistas.
En esa línea, a través del cumplimiento del mandato negociador en agricultura acordado en el
marco de la Ronda de Doha de la Organización Mundial del Comercio, se dará un paso
significativo en vistas de establecer un sistema de comercio internacional equitativo y orientado
al mercado, por ejemplo, a través de la reducción sustancial de la ayuda interna causante de
distorsión del comercio o producción, teniendo en cuenta las necesidades de los países en
desarrollo. El cumplimiento del Mandato Doha es fundamental para diseñar esquemas de
producción que contribuyan a hacer frente a los desafíos que tiene ante sí el sector.
Por último, se señalar que estos comentarios generales complementan las sugerencias de
modificaciones específicas al borrador cero que la Argentina envía por separado.
Please follow the link for a version of the Zero Draft which suggests specific modifications
incorporated into the text, Ed.
http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/fsn/docs/HLPEII/CFS_HLPE_Food_sec_and_CC_wo
rd_ARGENTINA_1_REV_FINAL-1_1_a_enviar_a_FAO.doc
[English translation]
Argentina appreciates the opportunity of submitting its comments on the zero draft of the
document entitled "Food Security and Climate Change" prepared by the High-Level Panel of
Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE).
Argentina would like to share the following general comments on the zero draft so that they can
be taken into account by the HLPE:
Firstly, Argentina considers that the HLPE zero draft constitutes a good contribution to the topic
of climate change impacts on food security, as well as to the importance of the agricultural sector
adaptation to the phenomenon. In addition, the document supports the existence of differences
between farming systems and the impacts derived from climate change. The draft also agrees on
the need of enhancing research to understand the consequences of climate change on
agricultural productivity.
In this regard, Argentina considers that food security and climate change are significantly
relevant, as agriculture is highly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change and shall
face important challenges related to this phenomenon.
In this context, one of the major challenges will be feeding a growing population in the upcoming
decades, and therefore producing food in different climatic conditions.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
147
In that sense, the approach used to address these topics should help to achieve food security and
economic and social development, especially for developing countries, given the importance the
agricultural sector has for them.
Based on the foregoing, the HLPE report should clearly reflect that the relationship between
agriculture and climate change should be addressed in a holistic manner that prioritises the
main issues of concern for developing countries, whilst targeting the strengthening of the
agricultural sector. This includes the adaptation of the sector to climate change effects; the
impacts of this phenomenon on food security; the reinforcement of national capacities and
international cooperation for development; and the technology transfer that improves the
adaptive capacity and efficiency of production systems.
In that sense, HLPE will be able to contribute to the strengthening of the agricultural sector
against climate change, under the framework of the mandate for its specific duty determined by
the Committee on World Food Security, of reviewing the assessments and initiatives on the
effects of climate change on food security and nutrition, focusing in the most affected and
vulnerable regions and populations and in the interface between climate change and agricultural
productivity, including the challenges and opportunities for adaptation and mitigation policies
and actions for food security and nutrition.
In this regard, HLPE should only include in the draft topics strictly related to its mandate,
reviewing existing assessments and initiatives. Therefore, the document should not suggest
specific national and international policies on climate change, as this would exceed its terms of
reference.
On the other hand, Argentina agrees with the conclusion of the study, by which climate change
has unique and uncertain threats to food security that require action from both the public and
private sectors. However, the document should put more emphasis to the role of the public
sector in international cooperation, particularly in the technology transfer from developed to
developing countries that could increase the adaptive capacity of the agricultural sector.
Regarding climate change mitigation in the agricultural sector, the approach should be
consistent with the provisions and principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), in particular the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities.
Therefore, Argentina would like to express its concern regarding the position adopted in the
document regarding this topic, as it is inconsistent with the provisions and principles of the
UNFCCC. It is worth remembering the historical responsibility of developed countries in its
contribution to climate change and, therefore, Annex I sections are the only ones with binding
commitments for quantitatively reducing emissions under the United Nations climate change
framework. Meanwhile, developing countries could only adopt national voluntary measures,
subject to receiving the adequate support from developed countries regarding technology
transfer and financial resources.
Also, the HLPE work should not duplicate efforts or prejudge the ongoing negotiations under the
frame of the climate change forum (UNFCCC), and should not progress on issues that are
currently under negotiation in this field, such as cooperative sectorial approaches and specific
sectorial actions, including -among others- discussions on the agricultural sector.
In this context, the negative evaluation of the contribution of the agricultural sector to climate
change is worrying, as it would be more constructive to analyse this topic on the basis of the
sector's relationship with food security. In this sense, it is worth noting that Article 2 of the
UNFCCC states that the Convention’s objective of stabilizing the concentrations of greenhouse
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
148
gases in the atmosphere should be achieved in such a way that food production is not
threatened.
In addition, the HLPE could consider how the substantial reduction of livestock agriculture
subsidies distorting trade or production applied by developed countries would be important for
designing sustainable production schemes and reducing the sector emissions. In this regard,
Argentina considers that these subsidies not only distort international agricultural trade, but are
inefficient from an environmental perspective, as they provide funds that lead to an
overexploitation of the natural resources used in agricultural production. In that sense, the HLPE
should avoid explicitly mentioning the "multifunctionality" (p. 8 of the draft), as it has been
historically used by developed countries to justify protectionist farm subsidies.
Accordingly, through the compliance of the agriculture negotiating mandate agreed during the
Doha Round of the World Trade Organization, a significant progress will be achieved with the
goal of implementing a fair and market-oriented international trade system, for example,
through the substantial reduction of the internal assistance distorting trade or production,
taking into account the needs of developing countries. The fulfilment of the Doha mandate is
essential for designing production schemes that help to address the challenges faced by the
sector.
Finally, it shall be noted that these general comments complement the specific modification
proposals for the zero draft that Argentina submits separately.
66. Technical Cooperation Department, FAO, Italy
1.Global comment: to reposition in a wider framework
Climate change threatens the livelihoods and food security of billions of the planet’s poor and
vulnerable, as it poses a serious threat to agricultural production. Agriculture, in the dominant
conventional and industrial models practiced today, is also a major contributor to greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. At the same time, as they pose a huge climate threat, industrial agricultural
systems are highly vulnerable to climate change. The industrial model and the crop varieties
designed to work well within it depend on energy- and water-intensive irrigation as well as
other fossil fuel-intensive inputs such as mechanized harvesting, fertilizers and pesticides.
Highly vulnerable to reductions in the availability of fuel and water, and in the long-term
economically unsound, the model will not survive (Vandermeer 54 et al., 2009). Nothing less
than a system change is needed in the face of the climate change threat.
Despite the clear logic and economic rationale for moving toward greener Climate resilient
agriculture, it is neither going to be easy nor automatic. It will require a supportive policy
environment and a set of enabling conditions that can help to level the playing field between
heavily subsidized agricultural today practices and more beneficial green agricultural practices.
Government policies both in developing and developed countries have been a major driver for
food production and food pattern consumption and, in most cases, have increased GHG emission.
In some cases, people own actions inquest of increasing food production, farming on marginal
land, deforestation, etc.., have contributed to further increase GHG emissions and various other
negative impacts on the environment.
Retargeting of subsidies towards energy-saving and green practices
54 Vandermeer, J., G. Smith, I. Perfecto and E. Quintero, E (2009). Effects of industrial agriculture on global warming and the
potential of small-scale agroecological techniques to reverse those effects. The New World Agriculture and Ecology Group, Ann
Arbor, 2009.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
149
At a general level, the key challenge is removing subsidies that serve to maintain the agricultural
status quo while reallocating such subsidy resources to programmes that create a system of
helpful incentives that enable the accelerated implementation of green agriculture practices.
In particular, subsidization of farmers’ initial ecological agriculture transition costs would help
finance needed investments in locally sourced organic fertilizer and other inputs; the use of “NoTill” cultivation equipment; and defray some of the risks involved in changing farming practices.
A principal enabling condition needed at local level is the strengthening of rural capacities for
improved self-reliance in green agriculture inputs.
Rethinking the policy framework
Recognizing the fact that there are no unique/uniform policy/action that can be adopted by all
countries, however policy/actions are urgently needed in order to develop pathways for
sustainable agricultural development without causing any environmental damage. These actions
should be compatible with GHG emission reduction strategies which contribute to increase
agricultural productivity and maintain existing biodiversity rather than losing it and paying to
recreate it in the future. Policy issues currently debated are crucial to move towards climate
resiliency (Ching55 et al, 2011) while meeting the demand for food focus regarding the
following questions:
(1)
How to increase investment in ecological/CSA agriculture?
(2)
How to better manage climate risks and increase smallholders resilience?
(3)
How to stop climate-destructive agriculture and dismantle perverse incentives and
subsidies?
(4)
How to strengthen research and knowledge-sharing agenda towards ecological
agriculture Platforms?
(5)
How to support the sustainable labelling and the reduction of GHG emission along with
food value chains?
How to support the sustainable labelling and the reduction of GHG emission along with
food value chains?
Supporting the development of fair trade and certified organic agriculture offers an alternative
trading standard to mainstream commodity markets. There are options to be appraised on the
way to manage such support: (i) How far public financial support should be used to promote the
reduction of GHG emission along with food value chain? (ii) Should food value chain be
incorporated in the cap and trade schemes? (iii) What best practices technologies should be
promoted to reduce GHG emission and who will pay for it (Public or private partnership)?; and
(iv) Should public expenditure be used for research and extension?
2. Specific comments and answers to questions
Question 1: An important audience for this report is national policy makers concerned with
agriculture and food security and their staff. Does the report include sufficient information to
support the policy messages and is it written in a way that captures the complexity of the
challenges to food security from climate change while not being too technical?
55 Ching L, Stabinsky D, Ecological agriculture is climate resilient, The third world TWN Network,
Briefing Paper, 2011.
http://media.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/twn_briefingpaper01_durban.pdf
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
150
As specified, we target policy makers concerned with agriculture and food security. Therefore, the
report is too descriptive and it takes too long to arrive to policy recommendations. Most of policy
makers are aware of all what is written from page 1 to 26.
I would recommend to focus on chapters 3 to 5 and to define entry points which are familiar for
policy makers (elements which are already part of agriculture policies). They are called strategic
options.
CSA: Main agriculture strategic options to be
scrutinized
Adapted crop
and farming
practices
Irrigation and
water
management
Conservation
agriculture
Mitigation
Adaptation
Watershed and
land
management
Crop and
income loss risk
management
Management of
irrigated rice
Disaster risk
management
(flood, drought...)
Livestock and
grassland
management
Specific country case studies are needed to illustrate the recommendations, it could be presented as
boxes (see example below).
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
151
China: Investment, fund reallocation and subsidy policies to promote agricultural
adaptation and mitigation
In China, recent advances in agricultural productivity and poverty reduction have been built on a
significant domestic agricultural research and development base. With roughly ten percent
annual increases since 2001, agricultural R&D spending equal USD 1.8 billion in 2007 and shifted
an estimated seven people out of poverty for every USD 1 500 of investment. National policies
and pilot programmes also catalyze on agricultural adaptation and mitigation1.
The Plan for the Construction of Protective Cultivation Projects will cover 2.7 million hectares in
2009-2015. In addition to enhancing soil resilience to drought, 1.7-2.5 billion cubic meters of
irrigation water have been saved. Strategies to improve rice yields while reducing greenhouse gas
emissions have been promoted. These include encouraging farmers to grow low emission and
high-yield rice breeds, use intermittent irrigation methods and convert straw to a biomass
feedstock for the production of fuel, products and power. Subsidies for water-saving irrigation
technologies, machinery and equipment, as well as for improving crop varieties and industrial
systems, have been established.
Under the Special Climate Change Fund, pilot projects to develop alternative water sources, adopt
water-saving technology and adaptively manage irrigation and drainage have been launched in
the Yellow, Huaihe and Haihe river basins, as well as in the Ningxia Hui Region. Successful
strategies will be integrated into future national plans. National climate change targets for 2010,
such as 15 percent non-fossil fuel sources for Chinese energy consumption and forest coverage of
40 million hectares, have been encouraged by subsidies, label and tax incentives.
Source: CSACC, Achieving food security in the face of climate change - Summary for policy makers
from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change, 2011.
Question 2: It is not possible to provide detailed policy recommendations for specific countries,
regions, or groups. Instead, we would like to propose a series of policy messages that are
intended to provide guidance for developing nationally-relevant policies and programmes and
that can also assist international efforts. Have we chosen the best set of topics? How could our
policy messages be improved? Have important messages been omitted?
We could also propose a range of possible policies explaining that every country policy team is in
charge of selecting options in line which fit both with Government implementing capacities,
funding limits and future visions. Here below is an example of visualization of policy options.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
152
POLICY MATRIX OF CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE MEASURES
Corporate social responsibility
on agriculture FDI
EASY
IMPL
LOW
COST
MED
IMPL
MED
COST
Support waste reducing value-chain investments
Fire control
HIGH
COST
Input Norms and standards
Insurance and Safety nets
CSA technology diffusion
from energy subsidy to tax
CSA Public research
Food reserves
Subsidize low tillage equipt
Promote PES for agriculture carbon-fixing
High deforestation fee
PENALISE
Subsidize low-energy options
Carbon footprint of products
Increased water fees
and user charges
Deforestation
prohibition
forestry and watershed
protection
Eco labelling towards better prices
Reduce fertilizer subsidy
HARD
IMPL.
Greening the supply chains
Strengthen smallholder land and water rights
Promote carbon value chain
Low Carbon funding facility
MOTIVATE
CONTROL
Government strategy
SUPPORT
PROTECT
Source: FAO TCS 2012 - UNIDO 2012
Question 3: The chapter on adaptation is incomplete. We would especially value input on
whether the concepts presented in annotated outline form cover appropriate material or
whether additional topics need to be covered, and some current items eliminated. These inputs
will be used to guide the drafting of the final version of this chapter.
I would focus once more the adaptation chapter on resilience building emphasizing the link with
vulnerability reduction. One main aspect of Agriculture sector regards to CC is the synergy between
adaption and mitigation. It drives to be careful when the two subjects are treated separately.
MACRO AND MICRO CSA STRATEGIC POLICY OPTIONS
macro
micro
1. Establish robust emergency food
reserves
2. Promote climate change risk
management policies (insurance,
community-based tools)
3. Reduce loss and waste in food systems,
4. Adjust national research and build
integrated scientific capacity, to reflect
the significance of CSA in economic
growth, poverty reduction
1. Identify and modify subsidies (such as
for water and electricity) that provide
incentives to continue bad practices
2. Introduce strategies for minimizing
ecosystem degradation
3. Couple economic incentives for
sustainable agriculture with
strengthening governance of land
tenure and land zoning
4. Promote economic incentives that align
the marketing practices with
environmental goals
1. Develop safety nets to assist
households that are most vulnerable
2. Empower marginalized food producers
to increase productivity by
strengthening land and water rights,
increasing access to markets
3. Develop, facilitate and reward multibenefit farming systems that enable
more productive and resilient
livelihoods and ecosystems
1. Increase knowledge of best practices by
supporting revitalized extension
services, technology transfer
2. Promote sustainability metrics and
standards to monitor and evaluate FS,
agricultural and environmental impacts
3. Develop, validate and implement
spatially explicit data and decisionsupport systems
Adaptation/resilience
Mitigation
Based on 2012 report from commission on sustainable agriculture and Climate change CSACC
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
153
Question 4: The report proposes three high level policy messages with detailed
recommendations under each of them. We will introduce the three high level messages and ask
the reader to refer to the fifth chapter for the current complete text. Are these the most
important messages for national and international policy makers? How can the text be improved
to convey these (or other) messages?
1. Climate change responses should be complementary to, not independent of, activities
that are needed for sustainable food security
It drives to multifunction approach on agriculture, food security, mitigation and adaptation to be
illustrated and explained in the document.
A “triple win” with climate-smart agriculture?
Improved
resilience
(adaptation)
Sustainable
increase of
productivity
Food
security
Reduce
GHG
(Mitigation)
Climate smart agriculture
2.
Climate change adaptation and mitigation require national activities and global
coordination
It could turn as: Integrate food security and Climate change into global and national
policies
•
Establish a work programme on mitigation and adaptation in agriculture in accordance
with the principles and provisions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), based on Article 2, as a first step of agriculture inclusion in the
mainstream of international climate change policy.
•
Make sustainable climate-friendly agriculture central to Green Growth and the Rio+20
Earth Summit.
•
Finance ‘early action’ to drive change in agricultural production systems towards increasing
resilience to weather variability and shocks, while contributing significantly to mitigating
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
154
climate change. This includes supporting national climate risk assessments, developing
mitigation and adaptation strategies, and programme implementation.
•
Develop common platforms at global, regional and national levels for a coherent dialogue
and policy action related to climate change, agriculture, crisis response and food security, at
global, regional and national levels. These include fostering country-level coalitions for food
security and building resilience, particularly in countries most vulnerable to climate shocks.
In this consideration, the current work on CSA sourcebook and on RIO+20 would be appropriate
inputs which could be used in the drafting of your paper on food security and climate change.
Policy process to integrate CSA into
global and national policies
Sensitize
policy makers
on CC issues
supporting
national climate
change
assessment
studies
Capacity
building in CC
and CSA policy
planning
Develop
common
platforms for
coherent
dialogue and
policy action
Make CSA
central to
Green
Growth
and the
Rio+20
3.
Public-public and public-private partnerships are essential
Ok.
67. Sara J. Scherr, EcoAgriculture Partners, USA
Comments from Sara J. Scherr, President, EcoAgriculture Partners (April 20, 2012)
This Report provides a critically important input to the work of the Committee on World Food
Security, both analytically broadening and deepening the diagnosis and strategy of food
insecurity, and making evidence the broad stakeholder coalition that will be required to address
food insecurity in the 21st century. The Zero Draft is an excellent start and can be strengthened
through additional analysis and recommendations.
A few key elements are missing; these are explained in greater detail below.
1) The potential contributions of multi-sectoral approaches (the current is overly sectoral)
2) An assessment of the impacts already being experienced by farmers from climate change
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
155
3) The need for actions at multiple scales: household, community, landscape (particularly
missing) and national; issues of scale would ideally be addressed in each of the chapters
4) Refinement of recommendations to be more operational---more on processes,
mechanisms to achieve the objectives; how to build multi-sector strategies;
5) The impacts of climate change on the ecological underpinnings of food/feed production,
access and resilience, and responses to climate change that would mitigate and reverse
these.
Chapter 1: Impacts today
1.4.2: Material on role of women can be better integrated into the rest of the analysis and
focused specifically on the recent literature/experience of climate change (rest of literature
doesn’t need to be covered in detail)
1.4.7: Should also consider CC impacts on the ecological underpinnings for sustainable
agriculture
1.4.1: Add more of the evidence on how climate change has already led to land and water
degradation, increased fires, etc.
Figure 1: Add a simple figure showing sources of GHG from agriculture
Figure 2: Difficult for most readers to interpret – simplify
Figure 6: Not needed; perhaps something on rural-urban migration?
Chapter 2: Impacts tomorrow
2.4: Add impact on infrastructure (coastal roads, bridges, etc)
Figure 11: Describe the key findings in words; add dates
Chapter 3: Adaptation
3.2: Add lessons from recent experience with climate adaptation and overall resilience. The
section can draw lessons from the experience of ‘marginal lands’ in recent decades, that can be
applied to ‘breadbasket’ areas that are now experiencing high risks due to climate. There is also
a lot of literature on how to build local institutional capacity to support farmer and community
innovation on an ongoing basis.
3.3: Anticipatory strategies
a. Note how rarely people do anticipatory planning—therefore need to focus
interventions on challenges they are already facing
b. Add Landscape resilience, agriculture-forest interface; climate-smart
landscapes—manage land uses throughout the landscape, especially for
adaptation
c. Incorporate more material from the World Bank and FAO published guidelines,
CSA Sourcebook notes prepared at the FAO meeting last year; TerrAfrica reports
on climate-smart SLM
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
156
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
d. The section can draw more on recent publications of OECD and UK on best
practices and climate-proofing, and can extrapolate principles drawn from other
sectors to agriculture
e. IDRC has funded work in various parts of the world on local farmer/community
climate adaptation
Availability
a. More attention should be given to the role of agrobiodiversity in managing risks
and protecting nutrition (check studies by Bioversity Int’l funded by Christensen
Fund)
b. The IADB’s climate program is undertaking a number of project and planning
exercises in Latin America for adaptation, e.g. for shifting coffee production areas
c. Risk management strategies include household and community in situ reserves
of food, feed, fodder
d. Organized planting and protecting of ‘hungry season’ food sources and diverse
resilient local crop varieties and breeds
Access
a. Management of community reserves of food, feed, water
b. Household and community gardens with year-round food supplies (see, e.g. ICRAF
work on multiple fruit species that provide nutrients at different times of the year)
c. Urban foodshed management; note examples from ICLEI and others of cities that are
linking food production and supply chains to green infrastructure for climate
adaptation
Use
a. Protection of water quality (to control diarrhea)
b. Water, fuel for cooking (incl boiling water)
Stability
a. Including diversification of production and food supplies at household, community
and regional levels
ADD A NEW SUB-SECTION: Ecosystem resilience - Manage and improve resource base to
contribute to availability, access, use and stability in an integrated fashion
a. Investments in ecosystem management/watershed management/flood control
b.Landscape management for resilience
c. Water harvesting at multiple scales (improve water-holding capacity, infiltration, etc)
d. Restoration of degraded cropland, rangeland, watershed
e. Conservation Int’l has developed a lot of materials on climate adaptation related to
forest and biodiversity , management
f. Refer to examples of efforts being made in the Netherlands and U.S (good examples are
presented in Mark Hertsgaard’ book Hot, where references can be found)
3.4 Sectoral strategies
a. Add Investment in farmer organization (IFAD is working on this)
b. Add involvement of environment sector actors to explicitly support food systems
c. The government section is now too generic; much more is needed on action by districtlevel governmets
d. Research: add more on landscape process and adaptation
e. ADD a news sub-section for civil society?
3.5 ADD NEW SECTION: Inter-Sectoral Approaches
a. Note advantages of multisectoral approach, interactive
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
157
b. Invest in “virtuous” cycles that provide feedback loops between social/livelihoods and
ecological dimensions of landscape/environment [give some examples]
c. Integrated landscape management – by involving multiple sectors, fofers more
opportunities to kick-start action; more points of contact.
d. For example,
i.
Investing in rainfwater harvesting to plant trees in degraded areas—beyond
productivity and soil erosion—produces a sense of hope, cultural dimensions—
ocial achievement; Can then use that social energy to do other things
ii.
Rehabilitate a gully, which reduces erosion, develops a reserve for animal fodder
iii.
Fruit trees on homesteadsy hifts to conservation agriculture
iv.
Protecting land assets – drylands are all about pasture for animals; rotational
graing, holistic management, community level; landscape-scale transhumance
v.
Water resource management
e. Extension people involve private, governments, efficiency of coordination – multiple
sources of innovation, especially requires good leadership
f. Role of landscapes in reserves – especially as in pastoralist/fodder/energy/food
sources/community gardens
g. Supplemental irrigation for crops – capturing rainwater- move to community level can
increase resilience dramatically, e.g., checkdams, tree-planting for soil moisture)
h. When beyond community – watershed coordinating, sorting out multiple rights within a
watershed; look at multiple users, so can’t be single objective [example of Naivasha – all
users to coordinate]. Need to go
i. Landscape is beyond just watersheds—needs to address full range of needed resources,
including biodiveresity
j. Climate change – presents unpredictability, constant shocks, farmers/communities need
to address unfamiliar conditions; need more diversity in the system at all scales
k. Link adaptation explicitly with mitigation
l. Incorporate women’s issues here, linking sectoral components
Chapter 4: Mitigation
4.2 Ag’l Contribution to GHG emissions
a. Footnote #24 – This is an important part of the analysis and would seem to belong in
the text and warrant response, particularly regarding implications for adaptation
b. Add much more on livestock?
c. Again, footnote #25 belongs in the text; many ways to switch manure management
from emissions source, to emission reduction and GHG sink
4.3: Under land use options, also include:
a. Re-considering the role of perennial fallows in farming systems (especially if managed
for economic outputs)
b. More on production under tree canopy and in agroforestry mixtures (evergreen ag, et
al)
4.4. Mitigation options in agriculture
a. Are there no numbers more recent than IPCC 2007?
b. Emphasize value of evaluating and acting to achieve mitigation at landscape scales,
and sequestration opportunities in and around agricultural lands
c. Add more on irrigation-related emissions and how to reduce these
d. More on links with perennial bio-energy and fuel production in landscapes
f. Cover much more of the literature on agriculture and REDD (CCAFS, FAO, Terrestrial
Carbon group)
Chapter 5: Recommendations
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
158
5.2: Complementarity of climate and food security [strengthen language—climate change
interventions should be incorporated into and coordinated with programs and policies for food
security]
a. Address links the broader role of agriculture in a green economy
b. Highlight the needs of most vulnerable communities, which need not only more support
for household-level actions of food security, but are much more dependent on
community and district level planning (see, e.g., handbook produced by CARE on
adaptation)
c. Note point from EcoAgriculture-RRI paper on Agriculture and REDD (Shames et al 2011)
d. Note recommendations on integrated financing from Shames & Scherr 2011
Ecoagriculture Policy Brief – lessons for use of Adaptation Fund, UNDP, WFP, et al
5.3 Climate change adaptation and mitigation require coordinated local, landscape and national
activities [change language]
a. Can leave out ‘global’ from recommendation, but in the recommendation note
importance of structuring global programs, finance, etc. to support this national activity
[many will be wary of ‘global coordination’]
b. National governments need to :
• Coordinate among donor communities, all investors with common integrated
principle to achieve resilient systems
• Understand social and ecological dimension of farming systems
• Coordinate among government ministries around same vision
• Invest in District Governments—those actors know the areas, potential partners,
etc. response in value; build capacity locally
5.4 Partnerships
a. This doesn’t come across strongly enough. Partnerships are just the
mechanism—clarify what you are trying to achieve with them.
5.5 ADD sub-section: Promote and support local action to address climate change adaptation
and mitigation for food security
a. Calls for local knowledge networks and government support for these
b. Incorporate into District Development Planning
c. Need to build vulnerabilities and resilience at local levels
d. Improve seed systems for farmers (just buying drought-tolerant seeds will be
unaffordable, given risk of purchased inputs for the poor – refer to Leslie Lipper’s
book on this topic
GLOSSARY, Add:
• ‘Landscape’
• Climate-smart agriculture
• Climate-smart agricultural landscape
Some literature noted:
Beddington, J, M. Asaduzzaman, A. Fernandez, M. Clark, M. Guillou, M. Jahn, L. Erda, T. Mamo, N.
Van Bo, C.A. Nobre, R. Scholes, R. Sharma and J. Wakhungu. 2011. Achieving food security in the
face of climate change: Summary for policy makers from the Commission on Sustainable
Agriculture and Climate Change. Copenhagen: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change,
Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).
Branca, G., N. McCarthy, L. Lipper, M.C. Jolejole. 2011. Climate-smart agriculture: a synthesis of
empirical evidence of food security and mitigation benefits from improved cropland
management. Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture Series no.3. Rome: Food and
__________________________________
159
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2010a. “Climate-Smart”
agriculture: policies, practices and financing for food security, adaptation and mitigation. Rome:
FAO.
Milder, J.C., T. Majanen and S.J. Scherr. 2011. Performance and potential of conservation
agriculture for climate change adaptation and mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ecoagriculture
Discussion Paper no.6. Washington, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners.
Nkonya, E., F. Place, J. Pender, M. Mwanjololo, A. Okhimamhe, E. Kato, S. Crespo, J. Ndjeunga and
S. Traore. 2011. Climate risk management through sustainable land management in Sub-Saharan
Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper no.01126. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI).
Scherr, S.J. and S. Sthapit. 2009. Mitigating climate change through food and land use.
Worldwatch Report no. 179. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.
Scherr, S.J. and J.A. McNeely. 2008. Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability:
towards a new paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of Biological Sciences 363: 477-494.
Shames, S. and S.J. Scherr. 2011. Integrating agriculture and climate finance. Policy Brief # 8.
EcoAgriculture Partners: Washington, DC.
http://www.ecoagriculture.org/documents/files/doc_395.pdf
Shames, S., S.J. Scherr, C. Wallace and J. Hatcher. 2011. Integrating agendas for forests,
agriculture and climate change mitigation: rationale and recommendations for landscape
strategies, national policy and international climate action. Ecoagriculture Discussion Paper no.7.
Washington, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners.
http://www.ecoagriculture.org/documents/files/doc_383.pdf
Smith, P., D. Martino, Z. Cal, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F. O’Mara, C. Rice, B.
Scholes, O. Sirotenko, M. Howden, T. McAllister, G. Pan, V. Romanenkov, U. Schneider, S.
Towprayoon, Turral, H., J. Burke and J.M. Faurès. 2011. Climate change, water and food security.
FAO Water Reports no.36. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
WFP [World Food Programme]. 2011. Enhancing resilience of communities to the adverse
effects of climate change on food security, in Pichincha Province and the Jubones River basin.
Climate Change Adaptation Proposal to Adaptation Fund. Washington, DC: Adaptation Fund.
World Bank. 2011a. Climate-smart agriculture: a call to action. Washington, DC. World Bank.
World Bank. 2011b. Climate-smart agriculture: increased productivity and food security,
enhanced resilience and reduced carbon emissions for sustainable development – opportunities
and challenges for a converging agenda: country examples. Washington, DC: World Bank.
van Oosterzee, P., N. Preece and A. Dale. 2012. An Australian landscape-based approach: AFOLU
mitigation for smallholders. In: Wollenberg, E., A. Nihart, M. Tapio-Biström and M. Grieg-Gran,
eds. Climate Change Mitigation and Agriculture. New York: Earthscan from Routelage.
Vermuelen, S.J., P.K. Aggarwal, A. Ainslie, C. Angelone, B.M. Campbell, A.J. Challinor, J. Hansen,
J.S.I. Ingram, A. Jarvis, P. Kristjanson, C. Lau, P.K. Thornton and E. Wollenberg. 2010. Agriculture,
Food Security and Climate Change: outlook for knowledge, tools and action. CCAFS Report no.3.
Copenhagen: CGIAR-ESSP Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
160
68. Roelf Voortman and Michiel Keyzer, Centre for World Food Studies (SOW-VU), VU
University Amsterdam, the Netherlands
1. Energy transition
As the report basically follows the lines of the IPCC Fourth Assessment of 2007, it currently
misses several developments since then, particularly with respect to energy transition. We
would suggest including an update on the latest developments in power generation and storage
of renewable energy (heat, biogas,…) that have the potential of significantly reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, many of these technologies will dramatically change the
relation between rural and urban areas under agricultural modernization since they can reduce
the countryside’s dependence on purchased fossil fuel, and more importantly, significantly
reduce the cost of rural electrification. Furthermore, most renewables require space, and some
of them feed on biomass.
At the same time the potential impact of shale gas, which might raise emissions should be
addressed, particularly on water resources. Similarly new insights about methane emissions
could be taken on board, as they significantly exonerate ruminants relative to other sources. A
discussion of geo-engineering is currently missing as well.
2. Fertilizer
Fertilizer applications may be more important than the climate change effect. If fertilizer use is
low, as in Sub-Sahara Africa, the yield effect of climate change is dwarfed by the potential of
using fertilizer, provided that knowledge is gathered on which fertilizer technology to use
(nutrient mix and dose) on which soil type. Vulnerability scenarios should account for this, since
agriculture needs to be prepared for climate change, also when it uses more inputs.
3. Spatial resolution
The global outlook on climate, as presented nowadays by the IPCC is rather consistent across the
global circulation models currently in use. For the local impact on climate, however, the severity
of changes in rainfall differs significantly across models, even to the extent of opposite sign in
large parts of the world. When applying crop models on such outcomes, the results in terms of
crop yield and local land productivity may be ambiguous as well. We would suggest that the final
draft of the report addresses this spatial diversity, especially when discussing vulnerability and
mitigation and adaption strategies, by referring to studies that match current climatic conditions
to postulated changes of climatic conditions , e.g. the FAO Agro-Ecological Zones methodology
(Fischer and Van Velthuizen, 1996; Voortman et al., 1999).
4. Comment on broader framework
In our comments on the zero draft of the social protection report, we concluded that this report
covers a broad range of issues, resulting in a broad range of not very specific recommendations.
Similar remarks apply for the topic of climate change and food security as well. We refer to our
comment on the social protection report for further discussion (goto
http://km.fao.org/fsn/discussions/social_protection_II and click on “contributions received”).
References
Fischer, G. and van Velthuizen, H.T. 1996. Climate change and global agricultural
potential project; A case study of Kenya. IIASA Working Paper 96-71, IIASA, Laxenburg.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
161
Voortman, R.L., Sonneveld, B.G.J.S., Langeveld, J.W.A., Fischer, G. and van Velthuizen, H.T.
1999. Climate change and global agricultural potential; A case study of Nigeria. SOW-VU
Staff Working Paper 99-06, SOW-VU, Amsterdam.
__________________________________
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition
http://km.fao.org/fsn
162