View previous stories
	Agrifood systems are facing an escalating threat from climate change-induced loss and damage by FAO, IIED, OHCHR, IPES Food   Loss and damage and agrifood systems. (FAO)   Agrifood systems are facing an escalating threat from climate change-induced loss and damage, and actions – including increasing financing— must be taken to address their vulnerabilities, according to a new report released by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).   Agrifood systems are intrinsically linked to climate change and are particularly vulnerable to its impacts. Each year hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of crops and livestock production is lost due to disaster events, undermining hard-won development gains and livelihoods for farmers. At the same time, agrifood systems are substantial contributors of emissions. As such, agrifood systems must play a central role in providing solutions for climate change – both adaptation and mitigation – while meeting the food security needs of present and future generations.   The communities that support and depend on agrifood systems are on the front line of loss and damage associated with climate change. Loss and damage can generally be described as the negative impact of climate change that occurs despite mitigation and adaptation efforts. Addressing loss and damage in the agrifood system is crucial, given its importance for livelihoods and sustainable development. Taking collective action is essential to tackle loss and damage in agrifood systems to ensure that the livelihoods of the most vulnerable communities are adequately protected and food security needs are met.   The purpose of this report is to stimulate discussions on the central role of agrifood systems in the loss and damage debate and identify the gaps in data, knowledge and finance that need to be addressed. The report provides an overview of the loss and damage concept, the status of analytical methodologies and tools, a summary of the reporting on loss and damage in nationally determined contributions (NDCs), an outline of the policy needs and some preliminary analysis of the financing needs.   Overall, support to countries needs to be targeted and strengthened so that loss and damage in agrifood systems can be dealt with as early as possible. This support needs to ensure that no one is left behind while striving for better production, better nutrition, a better environment and a better life.   Communities relying on agrifood systems for their livelihoods currently face acute challenges, including poverty, food insecurity and limited access to services. Smallholder farmers, fishers and small-scale producers constitute the backbone of agrifood systems and food security. At the same time, they are the most vulnerable and least able to adapt to climate impacts due to socioeconomic barriers.   Agrifood systems are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Climate change affects their capacity to produce food by altering the quality of water and soil and by adversely impacting biodiversity.   Climate change not only increases the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events and causes shifts in the patterns of precipitation, but it also affects agricultural activities subject to the increasing risks of the spread of pests and diseases.   These impacts can cause reduction in crop yields, livestock productivity, and fisheries and aquaculture production, ultimately leading to food insecurity, malnutrition, and poverty.   Rural populations worldwide are particularly vulnerable to these effects, as they mostly depend on agriculture for their livelihoods, and have limited access to investments, infrastructure, resources and basic social services (health, education, communications, etc.). Moreover, they are faced with multiple issues involving marginalization and exclusion.   Agrifood systems are one of the fundamental elements contributing to a sustainable solution for food security in the future. In 2020, the agrifood sector employed 866 million people globally. It is a vital source of income, employment and food security for millions of people around the world, especially in developing countries.   At the same time, the contribution of agrifood systems to climate change is an estimated 29 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Changes in the global climate, whether they be slow-onset changes or extreme weather events, pose a multitude of threats to agriculture and food systems all over the world.   While we do not have exact data on impacts of loss and damage in agrifood systems, we know that losses and damages are on the increase and represent a high cost for agriculture overall. Data from post-disaster needs assessments undertaken from 2007 to 2022 shows that agricultural losses made up an average of 23 percent of the total impact of disasters across all sectors, and that over 65 percent of losses caused by droughts were experienced in the agriculture sector.   Furthermore, recent disaster statistics suggest that during the last 30 years an estimated USD 3.8 trillion worth of crops and livestock production has been lost due to disaster events, corresponding to an average loss of USD 123 billion per year, or 5 percent of annual global agricultural gross domestic product (GDP).   Disasters inflicted the highest relative losses on low and lower middle-income countries, that lost an estimated 10 and 15 percent of their total agricultural GDP, respectively. Small Island Developing States (SIDS) lost nearly 7 percent of their agricultural GDP. Therefore, with climate change leading to an increase in frequency and/or intensity of weather and climate extremes, the impacts on agrifood systems are expected to be even more detrimental in the future.   The sixth assessment report of the Interngovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) provides the most recent scientific evidence surrounding the impacts of climate change on agrifood systems (IPCC, 2022a). Rising temperatures have already affected crop and grassland quality and harvest stability, and negatively impacted farmed aquatic species.   Furthermore, some current global crop and livestock regions will no longer be climatically suitable for production. At the same time, climate-related extremes have adversely impacted the productivity of the agriculture and fisheries’ sectors and led to unfavourable effects on both food security and livelihoods.   The IPCC report shows how limits to adaptation (that is, points where needs cannot be secured through adaptive action) have been reached, and how they are leading to losses and damages across systems, regions and sectors, including agriculture.   The report defines losses and damages as the adverse observed impacts and projected risks from climate change that can surpass limits to adaptation. Adaptation limits for agricultural production are related to water availability and the uptake and effectiveness of climate-resilient crops. As for fisheries, limits to production can be related to changes in fish distribution due to increases in sea surface temperatures or salinity.   The report also identifies a pressing need to enhance the methodologies and tools for assessing negative impacts of climate change, with existing methods often failing to capture slow-onset events and non-economic dimensions of loss and damage. The lack of an internationally agreed definition on loss and damage further complicates efforts to address the challenge, the study finds.   Financial support is identified as a crucial factor by the authors, with current levels of tracked climate finance falling below the potential needs for agrifood systems. The study also notes that specific data on financial needs for loss and damage is lacking, calling for solutions to target this issue.   As climate change continues to surpass adaptation limits, authors highlight that the spotlight on agriculture as a vulnerable sector becomes increasingly crucial for global efforts to build resilient and sustainable food systems.   http://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/fao-report-agrifood-sector-faces-growing-threat-from-climate-change-induced-loss-and-damage/en http://www.ifad.org/en/web/latest/-/sharp-decrease-in-climate-finance-going-to-small-scale-farmers-new-report-shows   http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5347-adverse-impact-climate-change-full-realization-right-food http://www.iied.org/poorest-countries-spending-billions-more-servicing-debts-they-receive-tackle-climate-change http://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/conflict-ravaged-countries-pushed-debt-traps-climate-funding http://www.ipes-food.org/pages/debtfoodcrisis
	Will growth be enough to end poverty by World Institute for Development Economics Research   Will growth be enough to end poverty, ask Arief Anshory Yusuf, Zuzy Anna, Ahmad Komarulzaman and Andy Sumner. (UNU Wider)   Today, October 17th is the UN International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. In new analysis for UNU-WIDER, we assess progress towards the global poverty-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically monetary poverty, undernutrition, child and maternal mortality, and access to clean water and basic sanitation. Our analysis then looks forward, making projections on the state of global progress over the coming years, up to the 2030 deadline for meeting the SDGs.   It’s not looking good. Our findings show that economic growth alone will not be enough to end global poverty and meet the global poverty-related SDGs, which will be missed by a considerable distance. That’s just numbers – we need to remember what they mean in terms that are all too human: millions of lives blighted unnecessarily by sickness, poverty, and death.   These basic goals will not be achieved by 2030 without radical changes in policies to address national and global inequalities. Stronger emphasis is needed on inclusive growth and productive capacities (a.k.a. SDG 8) alongside social policy.   In the 1980s, many developing countries experienced stagnant or declining progress on many indicators of standards of living, earning the decade the infamous ‘lost decade’ label. Our sobering new projections indicate we may face another lost decade in the 2020s unless urgent action is taken.   We make new projections across a set of poverty-related SDGs with a consistent methodology. We chose 7 indicators based on their strong historic correlation to GDP per capita (which we test) and the existence of sufficient country-level data to make projections. This enables credible projections using the growth forecasts.   Why now? This year is halfway to the 2030 deadline, from 2015 when the SDGs were agreed. Further, our estimates use economic growth forecasts that take into account recent global shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the inflation shock triggered by the Ukraine war.   What do we find? Widespread failure to meet the set of poverty-related SDGs.   Here are the headline findings for countries of the Global South: over 600 million people will remain in extreme poverty in 2030; the number of undernourished people will be higher in 2030 than in 2015, when the SDGs were agreed, reaching 665 million in 2030. More than 1 in 5 children will be stunted in 2030.   There will be an increase in the number of people living in extreme poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and low-income countries (LICs), though most of world’s undernourished people will continue to be in middle-income countries.   1 in 10 of the population of developing countries will still lack access to clean water; 1 in 3 people in SSA and in LICs. More than 1 in 5 people in developing countries will still lack basic sanitation, with 2/3 of people in SSA and in LICs lacking access to basic sanitation.   In short, the findings are sobering. A potential ‘new lost decade’. The major constraint on growth and progress towards the SDGs will be debt-servicing, which will limit social and productive spending in the Global South between now and 2030.   In fact, that is the root cause of this potentially catastrophic failure: the post-pandemic debt overhang and rising interest rates are triggering a new era of austerity across much of the Global South to ensure that debt repayments are met.   This in turn is hampering governments’ abilities to raise incomes and spend what is need on the SDGs (and could delay essential climate adaptation investments).   What should be done? Urgent policy action is required. There is an urgent need for redistributive measures.   To change course, we need urgent policy action on two fronts:   First, a stronger focus is needed on inclusive growth and productive capacities. Specifically, new international financing needs to be made available through debt relief or other forms of finance to expand fiscal space across countries of the Global South to ensure that a stronger focus on SDG 8 can happen. This financing should ensure social and productive spending expands, rather than contracts.   Second, that focus should entail redistribution alongside growth, through policies that build productive capacities, introduce, or expand income transfers to meet the extreme poverty target, and ensure sufficient public investment to meet the health, water, and sanitation SDGs.   In short, today’s trajectory demands a forceful, seismic shift towards redistribution, nationally and globally.   It also requires new finance to flow to the Global South. Facing lost decades past and present, radical policy changes now provide the only hope of ending global poverty. This is the pathway to have any hope of achieving the poverty-related SDGs.   * Arief Anshory Yusuf is Professor of Economics, Padjadjaran University, Indonesia. Zuzy Anna is a lecturer at Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Universitas Padjadjaran. Ahmad Komarulzaman is a Lecturer and researcher at the Department of Economics, Padjadjaran University. Andy Sumner is Professor of International Development at King’s College London.   http://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/will-growth-be-enough-end-poverty http://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/new-estimates-cost-ending-poverty http://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/just-transitions-and-importance-social-protection-reforms-ambitious-climate-action http://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/are-knowledge-monopolies-driving-global-inequality   Development aid cuts will hit fragile countries hard, and could fuel violent conflict, write Patricia Justino and Laura Saavedra-Lux.   Fragile and least developed countries have had their development assistance cut drastically, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. For instance, net official development assistance to sub-Saharan African countries has shrunk by 7.8% compared to 2021. And development aid for peace and conflict prevention has declined to its lowest in 15 years.   These cuts will hit fragile countries hard. Fragile countries make up 24% of the world’s population and account for 73% of the world’s extreme poor. The list includes Mali, Lebanon, Somalia, Syria and Iraq.   Budget cuts are already having far-reaching effects and fuelling humanitarian crises. The World Food Programme estimates that “every one percent cut in food assistance risks pushing more than 400,000 people towards the brink of starvation”.   UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres has warned that aid cuts threaten to undo gains in development. Keeping in mind that poverty has increased in conflict-affected countries despite a global downward trend, we anticipate that such a reversal could contribute to global instability.   Violent conflict has already been on the rise among countries that rely heavily on foreign financial assistance. Decades of research (including ours) show that marginalised populations are most vulnerable to be (re-)mobilised into fighting and are typically also most affected by armed conflict (even after violence ends).   It is true that political and societal context matters and needs to be taken into account. But the reduction in aid allocation to least developed countries and especially those recovering from violent conflict could put fragile countries on a trajectory of (renewed) political instability and underdevelopment. Already vulnerable populations will have to yet again carry the brunt of new cycles of violence and impoverishment.   We have been researching links between development and violent conflict for decades and close to a decade, respectively. Our latest research project is on the institutional legacies of violent conflict. It shows how and why violent conflicts persist, how and why their legacies endure, and what can be done to reduce the risk and impact of violence. We recommend that development aid needs to correspond more closely with mounting peacebuilding and humanitarian needs in fragile settings.   Not all development aid is effective in bringing stability or building peace. Nevertheless, based on our analysis, development aid plays a crucial role in six key areas.   Firstly, development aid is effective when linked to the delivery of public services. These in turn strengthen the social contract and mitigate the risk of violence.   Secondly, financial assistance can help governments absorb the effects of economic shocks. Economies across the global south are already stifled by the aftermath of the COVID pandemic, climate risks and the economic consequences of the war in Ukraine. Fragile countries often rely on assistance to meet some of their population’s most basic needs such as food or water.   Without additional financial assistance many governments will not be able to manage their way through these shocks. That may embolden violent non-state actors to gain power.   Two examples stand out. In west Africa violent non-state actors operating in the Sahel region are set to expand their influence into new areas considered stable thus far, such as the north of Cote d’Ivoire.   Similarly, the current Israel-Palestine conflict risks spreading instability into neighbouring countries amid longstanding tensions and economic fragility.   Thirdly, cuts in development aid may reduce the limited leverage western countries still have to prevent the rise of opportunistic armed groups such as the Wagner Group, the spread of extremism and the risk of civil conflicts.   The Sahel region is also emblematic for this dynamic. Mali and Burkina Faso have seen the deadliest year on record as their military transitional governments struggle to contain jihadist insurgencies. Since the recent military coup in Niger, which prompted withdrawal of both aid and international troops, the country has also experienced a surge in militant violence.   Fourth, worsening economic and security conditions in fragile and least developed countries are already reverberating into Europe. There have been spikes in irregular border crossings into European Union countries in 2023.   Fifth, rising discrepancy in development aid allocation could amplify mistrust in international institutions and western actors. That could contribute to worsening security situations. Some governments in fragile countries are already reluctant to continue to engage with the UN and especially western actors to combat violent non-state actors.   An example of this is the Democratic Republic of Congo’s recent request to the UN for an “accelerated” withdrawal of troops. It comes 24 years after the start of Monusco, the UN’s peacekeeping mission in DRC, one of the largest in the world. Violence may increase in the absence of such international intervention, as has happened since the withdrawal of Minusma, the UN mission that was in Mali for ten years.   Sixth, the reduction in aid allocation to least developed countries and especially those recovering from violent conflict could result in continued political instability and underdevelopment.   Development funding should be allocated in a way that corresponds more closely with peacebuilding and humanitarian needs. This is also made clear in the UN’s New Agenda for Peace. It calls for action now to reinforce the cooperative frameworks that are necessary to move us from the path to destruction to the path to prosperity … based on a reforged commitment to multilateral solutions, grounded on trust, solidarity and universality.   Correcting course in aid allocation could address some of the growing mistrust among developing countries and support prospects for peace.   * Patricia Justino is Deputy Director at UNU-WIDER and Professorial Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) in the UK. Laura Saavedra-Lux is Research Associate at UNU-WIDER.   http://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/development-aid-cuts-will-hit-fragile-countries-hard-could-fuel-violent-conflict http://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/welfare-works-redistribution-way-create-less-violent-less-unequal-societies http://www.wider.unu.edu/blog Visit the related web page
	View more stories