SLU's global blog

This blog post is written by Hanna Wolf, Division of Environmental Integration SLU and advisor at Sida’s Helpdesk for Environment and Climate Change.

LOSS and DAMAGE. Two words with so much meaning. For some it means the difference between hope and despair and for others it means facing costs and responsibilities. This year’s UN Climate Change Conference Of the Parties in Sharm El-Sheikh Egypt, COP 27, was the first COP where Loss and Damage were put on the agenda. For some that was a win in itself, for some it meant trouble.

COP 27 cannot be considered a success, far from it. It was only in the last minute the line on 1.5 degree Celsius target was kept. And a lot in the outcome text presented after two days overtime of negotiations, are missing. For example, much needed climate actions to drastically reduce emissions were not addressed. It is clear that the decision makers in Sharm El-Sheikh have not listened to what science tells us: e.g. that emissions peak before 2025 is necessary, the phase down of coal, and phase out of all fossil fuels is a must to limit global warming well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. That is the goal of the Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at COP 21 in Paris, on 12 December 2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016.

However, this year’s conference closed with a reported breakthrough agreement to provide “loss and damage” funding for vulnerable countries hit hard by climate disasters.

This outcome moves us forward,” said Simon Stiell, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary. “We have determined a way forward on a decades-long conversation on funding for loss and damage – deliberating over how we address the impacts on communities whose lives and livelihoods have been ruined by the very worst impacts of climate change.”

UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) reports that the decision means that Governments agreed to establish new funding arrangements, as well as a dedicated fund, to assist developing countries in responding to loss and damage. Governments also agreed to establish a ‘transitional committee’ to make recommendations on how to operationalise both the new funding arrangements and the fund at COP28 next year.

But, the outcome is hardly a victory to celebrate for the most vulnerable countries. Just imagine Pakistan, still struggling with the devastating floods earlier this year, as an example of the need for a loss and damage fund, with over 1700 lives lost and destruction of critical infrastructure, loss of schools for millions of children, hospitals and health centres destroyed and livelihoods, farms and homes gone. I can’t help wonder, can that ever be compensated for? The progress on loss and damage is indeed historic and has the potential to support and increase the support for the most vulnerable. But lots of work has to be done before that is a reality.

For me in my role as an advisor, working with environment, climate and development, I have followed the meeting with great intensity. Although not physically present, I have been able to follow both side events and official meetings. Reports, comments, tweets, live streams and various notifications have strangely, despite the seriousness and the gloomy tones, given me energy to continue work for climate justice and climate action. From this year’s COP, I especially take with me, an increased dedication of keep referring to science in all my advisory services and that all my recommendations should be Paris aligned.

Decisions taken at the Sharm El-Sheikh climate change conference can be accessed here:  Sharm el-Sheikh Climate Change Conference – November 2022 | UNFCCC

More information on the Paris Agreement can be accessed on UNFCCC webpage: The Paris Agreement | UNFCCC

---

The Division of Environmental Integration at SLU was established in 2018 and works for an increased environmental integration in various sectors in society. The division manages Sida’s Helpdesk for Environment and Climate Change in cooperation with the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida).

 

 

The article was originally published on the Agroecology TPP website

Event proceedings at CIFOR-ICRAF Headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya

On 30 May, the Transformative Partnership Platform on Agroecology (Agroecology TPP), together with co-hosts CIFOR-ICRAF, SEI, SIANI, SLU and UNEP, hosted the Stockholm+50 associated event on ‘The scope for agroecology to support integrated implementation of the three Rio Conventions through food system transformation.’

As a hybrid event – with panelists and the audience present in Stockholm, Sweden (SEI Headquarters), Nairobi, Kenya (ICRAF Headquarters), and online – it set out to explore the role of agroecology in strengthening the implementation of the three Rio Conventions and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), all the while putting smallholder farmers and indigenous communities at the center.

The diverse group of panelists included names such as Pat Mooney of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) and the Co-founder and Executive Director at ETC Group; Laura Scandurra, President at the Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE) Board of Directors; Veronica Ndetu, Head of the Climate Change Unit in the Ministry of Agriculture in Kenya; Elisabeth Simelton, Senior Policy Specialist – Agriculture at the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida); and Marcos Lana, Associate Professor at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences – with critical reflections from farmer representatives including Monica Yator, Founder of the Indigenous Women and Girls Initiative, and Irish Baguilat of the Asian Farmers Association.

The event was moderated by Fergus Sinclair, who is the Co-convenor of the Agroecology TPP, one of the coordinators of the Agroecology Coalition, and Chief Scientist at CIFOR-ICRAF. He gave an overview of the existing agroecology-related work on the ground as well as present-day partnerships and commitments. For instance, the Agroecology TPP, launched at the 46th Plenary of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS 46) in 2021, is a partnership that brings multiple actors together, interested in addressing knowledge and implementation gaps constraining agroecological transitions. The Agroecology Coalition that emerged from the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) in September of last year is a coalition of the willing focused on action, with 33 countries, including the African and European Unions, and 63 organizations already on board. These include key UN bodies, civil society, research and regional farmers organizations, all committed to making agroecological transitions a reality.

Pat Mooney talked about a recently issued special report from IPES-Food – ‘Another perfect storm’ – which discusses the current global food crisis – a third one in 15 years – and what can be done to prevent the next one. He referred to ‘black swans’, talking about apparently unanticipated global challenges of which there are many, happening at the same time, and feeding off one another – such as broken food systems, degradation of land and water resources, climate change and biodiversity loss. However, when writing the report, the IPES-Food team realized these events were not such a bolt from the blue but could be expected, and so referred to them as ‘grey swans’. What does this mean in practice? He explained:

“These ‘grey swans’ – or challenging events – are not simply a one-off occurrence, they will happen again. The response to such crises starts with knowing that they are out there. On the food side, for example, we should be thinking about ways in which we can create a system that takes care of global food needs when normal structures fail … and ways of overcoming the existing legal obstacles when faced with, say, the food crisis. One possibility could be a treaty for food emergencies.”

The event strongly underlined the fact that these global challenges we face are connected with one another and therefore, as Elisabeth Simelton put it, “they should not be treated in isolation.” Instead, we should try to tackle them in a holistic – or systemic – manner.

Another important argument made concerned the critical role of smallholder farmers and indigenous communities in supplying food to the world. Both Marcos Lana and Monica Yator stressed that these farmers require support. As Monica outlined:

“Today, fertilizers are incredibly expensive. Indigenous and other farming communities simply cannot afford them. We need action, which means supporting these farmer groups. We need to listen to them. They should be heard.”

There were numerous interactions with the audience over the course of the event, with live questions being addressed by the panelists. A five-step poll was also shared, to get insights into what the audience deems important for the work on agroecology in relation to the implementation of the three UN Rio Conventions. As such, those in attendance – both physically and online – were asked to rate the importance of different proposed actions on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is not relevant and 10 is of vital importance. Reducing power asymmetry amongst actors in food systems was considered most important (77% ranking it of vital importance, with a mean score of 9.3).

Following the discussion held between the panelists, the outcome of an online poll and numerous comments and remarks from the audience, one important – and constant – theme emerged: moving from talking to action. This is exactly the remit of the Agroecology Coalition, which, building on the scientific knowledge of the Agroecology TPP and other organizations, will take the lead in making sure that the commitments made are being turned into real action on the ground.

Watch the recording here