president and CEO of Humanitas Global and chair of the Community for Zero Hunger,
Washington, DC.
6. Dont forget the economic case
We have to make the economic case. Disasters cost the global economy $38 trillion
between 1980 and 2012. Some 87% of these reported disasters (18,200 events), 74%
of losses (US$2,800 billion) and 61% of lives lost (1.4 million in total) were caused by
weather extremes.
Compare that with WFPs Cost of Hunger study results which show that 1 dollar
invested in nutrition yields 16 times the benefit. With that return on investment, its clear
that nutrition and food security need to be priority investment areas for climate finance.
Richard Choularton, chief, climate and disaster risk reduction programmes, World Food
Programme (WFP), Stowe, USA.
7. Ensure the Paris Agreement accelerates progress
The Paris Agreement needs to accelerate efforts to bolster local, national and global
capacity to manage the impacts of climate extremes and slow on-set climate change
through comprehensive risk management approaches. This includes strengthening local
and national disaster management capacities to prepare for, respond to, and recover
from climate disasters. Richard Choularton, chief, climate and disaster risk reduction
programmes, World Food Programme (WFP), Stowe, USA.
8. We need to get better at producing and sharing food
We need to stop calling all the time for yield increase. We know that sustainable agrimodels like agro-ecology are able to feed the world. Agro-ecology maintained by two
billion farmers is based on local knowledge and know-hows and land. It is one of the
most reliable solutions to ensure food and nutrition security for all. It also contributes to
improving smallholders farmers yield and income, developing a fossil-free, independent
and sustainable agriculture, improving farmers resilience to climate change and
meeting the challenges of climate adaptation and mitigation. Peggy Pascal, food
security advocacy officer, Action Against Hunger, Paris, France.
9. Encourage more collaboration
Collaboration is certainly necessary, but there is not enough of it. There seems to be
increasing acknowledgement and dialogue among the academic and technical
communities about the interplay between climate change, food security, nutrition and
gender, but this is less evident on the ground in programmatic design. I think that much
of what is happening is reactive.
The binding part of the deal states that boosting the worlds ability to adapt to those
impacts and foster climate resilience and low-emissions development should be done
in a manner that does not threaten food production.
Yet, despite the politics that largely excluded agriculture, the FAO welcomed the
agreement, noting that for the first time ever, food security features in a global climate
change accord.
This is a game changer for the 800 million people still suffering from chronic hunger,
and for 80 percent of the worlds poor who live in rural areas and earn income and
feed their families from agriculture, FAO Director-General Jos Graziano da Silva
said in a statement after the deal was reached.
By including food security, the international community fully acknowledges that urgent
attention is needed to preserve the well-being and future of those who are on the
frontline of climate change threats, he added.
Paying for Plans
Others in the agricultural research community and agencies working with small farmers
highlighted the widespread inclusion of agricultural policies in the nearly 190 national
action plans submitted to the United Nations as a basis for the climate deal.
Analysis by the CGIAR Research Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food
Security (CCAFS) shows agriculture is discussed in 80 percent of those plans, a signal
that addressing agriculture in the context of climate change is a priority.
Kanayo F. Nwanze, president of the International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD), said this was a good springboard for approaching top decision makers in
developing countries about protecting their farmers from climate change.
In a report released in Paris, IFAD said technical interventions like hardier seeds and
accurate weather forecasts are not enough to help small farmers cope, and must be
backed up by national strategies, laws and budgets.
One major barrier to helping small-scale farmers adapt to extreme weather and reduce
emissions from their activities is insufficient money for research and action on the
ground, experts noted.
The CCAFS study of national climate plans found the 48 least developed countries
alone will need funding of $5 billion per year $3 billion for adaptation and $2 billion for
reducing farm emissions.
That sum is much higher than current commitments to climate funds for agriculture, and
at least 10 percent more per year than multilateral climate funds spent on agricultural
projects in the last decade, it said.
Climate finance needs to include agriculture as a key sector, and support countries to
implement the plans they have laid out, said CCAFS director Bruce Campbell.
To reach these ambitious and important goals, appropriate financial flows will be
put in place, thus making stronger action by developing countries and the most
vulnerable possible, in line with their own national objectives, according to the
UNFCCC.
More than half of the delegations earlier signified their intention to adopt the draft
agreement, most notably the G77+China bloc a group of 134 nations mostly from
the developing world, and includes China, India, and most of the oil-producing Gulf
nations that are seen as the biggest possible stumbling blocks to a deal.
The Paris Agreement on climate change is a monumental triumph for people and
planet, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the assembled group.
Here in Paris, we have heeded their voices as was our duty, he said.
When historians look back on this day, they will say that global cooperation to
secure a future safe from climate change took a dramatic new turn here in Paris,
he added.
We have an agreement. It is a good agreement. You should all be proud, Ban
added.
Financing issues
Developing nations had insisted rich countries must shoulder the lions share of
responsibility for tackling climate change as they emitted most of the greenhouse
gases since the Industrial Revolution.
The United States and other rich nations countered that emerging giants must also
do more, arguing developing countries now account for most of current emissions
and thus will be largely responsible for future warming.
On the crucial financing issue, developed countries agreed to muster at least $100
billion (92 billion euros) a year from 2020 to help developing nations.
However, following US objections, it was not included in the legally- binding section
of the deal
Ahead of the talks, most nations submitted voluntary plans to curb greenhouse-gas
emissions from 2020, a process billed as an important platform for success.
But scientists say that, even if the pledges were fully honored, Earth will still be on
track for warming far above safe limits.
In an effort to get countries to scale up their commitments, the agreement will have
five-yearly reviews of their pledges starting from 2023.
Nations most vulnerable to climate change lobbied hard for wording to limit
warming to 1.5C.
Big polluters, such as China, India and oil producing-giant Saudi Arabia, preferred a
ceiling of 2C, which would have enabled them to burn fossil fuels for longer.
Chinas chief negotiator Xie Zhenhua said the pact was not perfect.
However, this does not prevent us from marching historical steps forward, he said.
This indeed is a marvelous act that belongs to our generation and all of us.
Whats next?
The agreement will be kept at the UN in New York and be opened for one year for
signature on 22 April 2016, Mother Earth Day, the UNFCC said.
The agreement will enter into force after 55 countries that account for at least 55%
of global emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification, it added.
The agreement also includes the following details, according to UNFCC:
All countries will submit adaptation communications, in which they may detail their
adaptation priorities, support needs and plans. Developing countries will receive
increased support for adaptation actions and the adequacy of this support will be
assessed.
The existing Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage will be
significantly strengthened.
The agreement includes a robust transparency framework for both action and
support. The framework will provide clarity on countries mitigation and adaptation
actions, as well as the provision of support. At the same time, it recognizes that
Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States have special
circumstances.
The agreement includes a global stocktake starting in 2023 to assess the collective
progress towards the goals of the agreement. The stocktake will be done every five
years.
The agreement includes a compliance mechanism, overseen by a committee of
experts that operates in a non-punitive way.
Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist for the World Bank who has become a
prominent global advocate of climate action, also hailed the deal.
This is a historic moment, not just for us and our world today, but for our children,
our grandchildren and future generations, Stern said.
French scientist Jean Jouzel, who contributes to the UNs Nobel-winning climate
panel, was cautious.
He told Agence France-Presse the 1.5C goal was legitimate for climate-vulnerable
countries but in reality, it was a dream, and certainly too ambitious to reach.
My disappointment is about action before 2020, which would help avert future
warming, Jouzel said. There is really no ambition there at all.