View previous stories
	Supporting the most vulnerable? by Hannah Reid International Institute for Environment & Development   October 2015   Four reasons why the voices of the most vulnerable must be heard and prioritised if we are to ensure that the Sustainable Development Goals leave no one behind.   The declaration for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) pledges that no one will be left behind on the collective journey to end poverty, eradicate hunger and combat inequalities.   As such, it demands that special attention is paid to the world''s most vulnerable communities, to those who are most at risk from changes to the climate and wider environment.   But it is not enough to just focus on the needs of the vulnerable. There are logical, practical, economic and moral reasons why the poorest and most vulnerable must be actively involved and their needs must be prioritised.   It is, first and foremost, logical to involve the people affected in decisions about their lives. Working with the most vulnerable and supporting their proposed solutions can increase the effectiveness of initiatives by ensuring interventions are appropriate for the local context and needs.   Adapting agricultural production to climate change, for example, involves helping farmers to find appropriate local solutions that allow each farmer to increase productivity using less water. This ensures that the solutions meet farmers needs.   And this logic should extend to include children and young people, who have the most at stake in a changed climate: it''s their future and they are tomorrow''s leaders. Involving children and young people at an early stage will help to internalise actions, which means less investment to engage with them as adults.   Supporting locally-conceived solutions is also a practical approach. It will improve buy-in for actions, meaning that solutions are more likely to last. Such approaches capitalise on the energy, skills, knowledge and enthusiasm of those at risk.   As the IPCC has recognised, indigenous, local and traditional knowledge systems and practices can be a major resource when it comes to adapting to climate change. Integrating this knowledge into approaches to adaptation can increase capacity and reduce vulnerability.   Indigenous peoples have developed thousands of robust crop varieties and livestock breeds which communities around the world are now turning to in order to cope with climate change (as shown in Kenya, China, Peru and India).   There is also an economic reason. Research by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) shows that a more equal world is better for all its inhabitants.   NEF argues that "a more equal world by 2030 would dramatically reduce the number of people living in extreme poverty, and better brace us to mitigate and adapt to environmental shocks".   Solutions that address the needs of just one section of society are very likely to break down if other sections are excluded.   Take the Kenyan economy for example – the entire country suffers due to persistent poverty and vulnerability to drought, particularly in the drylands. This slows economic growth by 2.8 per cent per year, and creates periodic economic shocks, contributing to ongoing national and international security issues.   Failing to address the needs of the poorest will have increasing economic implications. Working with the poorest communities to find ways out of poverty (as for example with forest farmers in Vietnam) can provide a win-win solution.   There is also a strong moral argument for supporting the poor. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights states that "a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment is integral to the full enjoyment of a wide range of human rights, including the rights to life, health, food, water and sanitation".   Poor people have contributed least to the problem of climate change given their minimal greenhouse gas emissions, and yet they are shouldering the bulk of its negative impacts.   So far the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations have largely focused on equity between countries, with the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the LDC Group particularly vocal on these issues, but equity within countries also needs to be addressed. This means prioritising support for vulnerable communities.   Put simply, poor people usually suffer the most from environmental change. They are frequently unable to cope with current climatic (and other) shocks, let alone any future risks, due to a lack of resources and appropriate support, and because of political and economic marginalisation.   Their perspectives must be listened to, properly understood and acted on.   http://www.iied.org/why-listen-support-most-vulnerable http://www.iied.org/tough-journey-road-paris-addressing-needs-most-vulnerable http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/reducing-economic-inequality-as-a-sustainable-development-goal Visit the related web page
	Industrial agriculture is one of the major causes of climate change by Oxfam, FAO, agencies   Global Alliance on Climate Smart Agriculture: solution or mirage, by Rashmi Mistry   In Paris later this year, global leaders will meet at the Conference of Parties to thrash out a deal to reduce dangerous greenhouse gas emissions and to find a solution to the pressing financial needs of billions of people, smallholder women farmers among them, on the frontline in the fight to adapt to climate change.   One of the solutions put forward to address these challenges is the concept of ‘climate smart agriculture’ – but what is it? And should we be worried?   Industrial agriculture is one of the major causes of climate change. Around 25 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions globally derive from the food system, including from methane from livestock production, deforestation to clear land for agriculture and nitrogen from fertilizer use.   Climate change is also creating havoc in many of the world’s farming systems, and endangers the progress made in the last few years to ensure the right to food for millions of people. Slow, insidious changes in global temperatures and shifting weather patterns, as well as increasing intensity and frequency of extreme weather events are disrupting production and distribution systems.   As a result – there is an increasing interest from both companies and policymakers in finding and promoting forms of agricultural production which can reduce emissions, as well as ways in way agriculture can adapt to changing conditions.   The concept of ‘climate smart agriculture’ is one way that some policymakers, companies and various stakeholders are promoting to push this agenda forward. One year ago, a Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture was launched in New York.   Of course, this concept of Climate Smart Agriculture could help focus attention on critical issues such as helping farmers adapt to climate change, reducing world agricultural footprint or increasing sustainable food production and farmers’ incomes.   However, the Alliance and the concept of CSA is generating considerable criticism from civil society groups (CSOs) and environmental campaigners.   Due to its governance and design, the Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture threatens to perpetuate both inequalities of power and forms of industrial agricultural production that cause major greenhouse gas emissions and drive climate change.   Comprised mainly of northern industrialized countries and multinational companies, this alliance excludes both alternative visions of agriculture and those who suffer the most from climate change: southern smallholder farmers themselves.   It appears to be an attempt to capture the agenda on climate change - by those that caused many of the problems in the first place.   Moreover, the concept of climate smart agriculture as used by the Global Alliance does not involve any criteria to define what can or cannot be called “climate smart”, nor any criteria for membership in the Alliance itself Concretely, almost everything can be considered “climate-smart” by the members of the Global Alliance, including the extensive use of GMOs or chemical fertilizers.   Today, 60% of the private sector membership of the alliance is related to the fertilizer industry. In these conditions, the Alliance could become a veritable ‘rogues gallery’ of some of the worst polluters.   In addition, with no measurement or benchmarks for progress: it is impossible to see whether, or in which ways the Alliance has actually contributed to reducing at all GHG emissions in agriculture or improved adaptation options for producers. At the end, the Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture failed to embrace any accountability framework.   Rather than business as usual, countries, companies and research institutions, including those in the Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture, need to embrace real solutions to our broken food system.   The good news is that there are options to tackle the challenges posed by climate change to our food! Scaling up agro-ecological agricultural practices can help reduce agricultural emissions and adapt to climate change.   Agro-ecology is a scientifically grounded approach that has been field-tested by farmers around the world for decades, and that offers a powerful pathway to maintaining biodiversity, improving soil health and to protecting genetic resources.   Based on techniques, knowledge and innovations developed by the farmers themselves, agro-ecology is a major alternative to the industrial agriculture model. If sufficiently supported by political and economic decision makers, it could become a very powerful weapon to fight against both food insecurity and climate change.   A few months before COP21 in Paris, world leaders can still put agriculture and food security at the heart of the response toclimate change. Any initiative aiming at reducing the global agricultural footprint and at promoting adaptation to climate change will be welcomed. But catchwords and loose coalitions are not sufficient anymore.   To be successful, any initiative, alliance or coalition on climate change and agriculture should:   Fully involve, and be driven by small-scale producer organizations and other stakeholders in both design and governance at a global and national level.   Prioritize food security and adaptation for smallholders, who are the most impacted by climate change and the first victims of food insecurity.   Support the scaling up of agro-ecology, which will truly modernize agriculture by improving the sustainability of farming systems, while putting farmers in the driving seat of the innovationprocess.   Shift the burden of mitigation, by recognizing that large-scale industrial agriculture players – the major contributors to climate change- should bear the weight of the emission reduction efforts.   In its current guise, the Global Alliance on Climate Smart Agriculture is far from meeting these criteria. A new start is needed.   http://blogs.oxfam.org/en/blogs/15-09-26-global-alliance-climate-smart-agriculture-solution-or-mirage http://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/home/en/ http://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/smallholders-ecology/en/ http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2016-08-29-too-intense.html http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-016-0793-6 http://www.opendemocracy.net/olivier-de-schutter/food-democracy-south-and-north-from-food-sovereignty-to-transition-initiatives
	View more stories