Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

We orgnaized a second meeting in the implementation of SDGs which took place in Nake Bakundu of Mbonge Sub Division. Project targeting peasant communities who do mixed farming on lands with less open bush fires and soil tilling. Decomposed Cocoa shells and other composed manure is introduced to add the excellent organic manure , soil nutirents for the cultivation and growth of crops without requiring any artificial nutrients. These crops are of high nutritional value and have the opportunity for a better market.

Project is working towards eradicating poverty, hunger and increasing the social status among rural communities by achieving the Rio Conventions and Post 2015 Development Agenda among peasant communities in South West Region.

The project intends to reach out to over 5 million people, where women and young people are the target, encouraging the youths on agriculture. It is expected that between 2015 - 2030 over 500,000 new jobs for youths will be attained and will curb rural exodus or migration, violence, crime problems among the youth population especially as many try to reach the Sahara desert or cross the mediterenian sea into europe. It is also expected to improve living and working hours/conditions of families and improved social status by increasing family income and additional opportunities to market farm agricultural products and food security challenges. Children and youths would be opportuned to have sound nutritional and dietary choices and to go to school with filled bowels and smiles and an opportunity to study well. Communities will be empowered to make informed decisions about their rights and voting conditions.

Target Audince: This project works with Peasants, Women,Youths, Schools and Colleges,Cocoa growers, CSOs, NGOs, Cultural organizations, Chiefs and local authorities, forces of law and elected officials of government.

Activities:

1. Capacity building of communities and local institutions including NGOs, CSO, Businesses, Cultural Organizations, Schools and Colleges on sustainable land management climate change adaptation.

2. Participatory training and education, workshops and conferences among community organizations, youths groups, schools and colleges, cultural groups, policy makers and forces of law and order on sustainable land management and climate change adaptation.

3. Tree planting and planting of crops adapted to soil nutrients and increased varieties of endangered species of flora and fauna.

4. Integrated development involving, management of towns, river basins, forests, roads, infrastructure and constructions works

Constraints of peasant farmers in implemeting the Sustainable development Goals.

• Lack of Agricultural Imputs

• Lack of loan and credit facilities

• Lack of adequate information on markets and agricultural opportunities

• New breeds

• New technology

Effects of climate change are exacerbated by frequent natural disasters, salinity intrusion and land degradation, low productivity of  land, tradition agricultural practices, low availability of food items and poor income level of population in the southern districts of Bangladesh. Lack of dietary diversity is a severe problem in the population of this region, which results in micronutrient deficiencies and contributes to the burden of widespread malnutrition. Ongoing  projects in the South of Bangladesh have illustrated some coping mechanisms and traditional technologies that contribute to production diversity in the rural home gardens.  A tenth of gardens surveyed[1] in Shyamnagar Union in Sathkira district were destroyed completely by soil salinity, and seeds could not germinate; around 38% showed high levels of soil salinity and 34% moderate soil salinity. However, 50% of households implemented coping practices – 38% used organic compost and 34% planted crops in pits leached with water. Mulching with rice straw, coconut coir and other locally available organic materials were used to increase water retention of the soil and develop compost.  Greater resilience was found in salinity among vegetable crops which include Indian spinach (pui shak), sweet gourd, okra and kang kong (kolmi shak) which are good sources of micronutrients (beta carotene, folic acid and calcium) and dietary fibre. Kang kong is noted to be the most saline resistant crop but is relatively new to Southern Bangladesh. Small farmers reported that production of rice, an important cash crop and source of food had decreased since the 2012 storms.  Households with larger plots of land were noted to be moving from rice cultivation to shrimp cultivation which affected the day labour opportunities for poor households.  Households with better knowledge and means to adopt salinity coping practices were among the better off ones.  Climate change coping strategies and input resources including livelihood support need to be increasingly integrated into agriculture extension for promoting integrated home gardening for better diets and nutrition, particularly in flood affected areas.

Lalita Bhattacharjee, PhD

Senior Nutritionist

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Bangladesh

The question “What are the main issues for policy-makers to consider when linking climate change on the one hand and food security and nutrition (CC FS&N) on the other, in particular when designing, formulating and implementing policies and programmes” presupposes that the appropriate policy making and strategy formulating capacities and evidence based decision making mechanisms/systems exist in countries; and that decision makers (backed by political will) are able to take into consideration the comprehensive holistic vision of the inter-dependent relationships between CC, FS and nutrition problems. Furthermore, they have the ability and tools to translate it into policies and strategies for sustainable interventions that respect the guiding principles of the RIO+20 Declaration and the dominating leitmotif of the post 2015 development era, namely, “sustainability”.  

Are all developing countries positioned to undertake such a task?

In a recent publication, entitled “Africa Climate Change Policy” [1] the author to describes the situation in the African continent as being, “...  Scattered and incoherent climate related policies exist but are not sufficient to give the continent a survival chance under adverse climate change impacts.” He goes on to comment on  - inter alia - the lack of appropriate policies, the sluggish political systems; weak institutional capacity and framework; poor coordination and implementation of existing legislations, and more importantly the common absence of foresight in national development planning and climate resilience.  The global settings are described as unfavorable to enhance the countries’ capacity to develop climate change adaptation and mitigation.   The author draws attention to countries’ ability to generate climate data that may not always be availed internationally and hence, may not be incorporated into national/regional development planning or in disaster reduction strategies.  More importantly, the human resource technical limitations to produce, analyze and interpret and disseminate climate data as a result of poor investment into scientific research on climate change impacts are further undermined by weak governance and surveillance of natural resources. The tendency for sectoral-based implementation of environmental policies further undermines their impact. 

In short, several developing countries may be at a disadvantage and not in a posture to embark on “linking” the CC FS&N policies.  Attention therefore needs to be directed towards (a) strengthening the policy formulation process that is supported by data analysis and scientific evidence.; and (b) to institutional reform and support. The latter is a prerequisite for successful implementation of the trans-sectoral strategies of comprehensive approaches to sustainable development (RIO+20 Declaration refers).

The real challenge is to develop the governance and managerial model and to undertake the appropriate institutional reform that makes it possible for true broad-based strategic approaches that cut across sectors and generate synergy that maximizes mutual benefits. Original and innovative examples of success stories in this respect accompanied the implementation of the Scaling UP Nutrition (SUN) movement[2] and involved intersectoral coordination at the policy formulation, planning and implementation levels. The experience gained from successful alignment of the SUN policy and plan with the national FS policy and strategy (a precondition for approval of the SUN country plan) is expected to facilitate the incorporation of the appropriate CC dimension.  In most of the SUN countries, components of the latter  (CC) are already present in the national food security strategies that promote sustainable food production systems.

Please find the attached from my recent paper.

The evidence is now clear- all countries are in a state of committed global climate change food security and emergency.

UN departments must please make recommendations on this issue- to implement IPCC AR5 best case scenario RCP2.6 right away.

Above 1.0C all crops in all practically regions will be in decline, especially considering the several large adverse impacts which are not captured by the crop models. 

Only by implementing RCP 2.6 which calls for missions to stop increasing right away and to find from 2020 quite rapidly, can we possibly avoid a global warming above the catastrophic 2.0° C policy,target.

Adaptation measures should be being implemented now, though it is unacceptable in every way to assume benefits in policy making. The best result in the best situations possible is a delay of committed crop declines for less than a decade. With the projected increase in extreme weather events and climate variation we certainly cannot expect adaptation to be successful.

Best regards

Peter Carter

>> English translation below <<

Hola a todo/as. Saludo cordial.

Las " cuestiones " involucradas por las necesidades en Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición y vulnerables por el Cambio Climático, son evidentes:

Pobreza, inequidad, tenencia de tierra, educación, salud, seguridad, etc...Las relaciones de poder entre minorías ( pudientes) y mayorías ( clase media para abajo ), son las variables a considerar con genuino interés para  mitigar y solventar de manera sostenible la Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición de millones de seres humanos, los fenómenos económicos y de poder deben establecerse con una visión nueva, dadas las circunstancias. Fijar parámetros fiables en las inversiones globales de empresas y gobiernos, sustentar criterios en derechos humanos escenciales y darle efectividad a los acuerdos.

 Las inquietudes en la generación de políticas adecuadas a el CC versus Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición, son las mismas de siempre: efecto real y general en las poblaciones de agricultores y los recursos. Si hay decisión política en cuanto al balance económico y ambiental en los diferentes regiones, sobre todo las más pobres, se pondrán  dar las condiciones necesarias para crear encadenamientos en los factores prevalentes: calidad de vida, abastecimiento y crecimiento económico - desarrollo ?-, salud, distribución de la riqueza, inclusión, tenencia de tierra, educación, empleo, etc. Los factores e indicadores siguen mostrando lo mismo: carencia de acciones oportunas y coordinadas para una implementación eficaz a escala regional y global de unas políticas que no logran aterrizar en la mayoría de los casos. Cuando veo términos como " siempre que sea posible " y " programas y proyectos siguen estando en gran parte sin vincular ",  evidenciamos la falta de capacidad de lograr sinergias armónicas entre los actores involucrados. Por ello, la gobernabilidad y las relaciones multilaterales, deben conseguir un consenso en el mediano plazo y establecer controles y normativas vínculantes, convenios marco que logren una artículación real, genuina. Sistematizar procesos de investigación  y protocolos que invoquen las necesidades urgentes y prioritarias y dejar de seguir investigaciones infinitas y encuentros fatuos. existe un arsenal de investigaciones prácticas y nociones claras de lo " que se debe hacer ", más " no se hace ".

Las estructuras públicas nacionales ( ministerios, agencias, universidades, ong ) deben crear sistemas coordinados de sus operaciones, agilizar la toma de desiciones y manejar presupuestos conjuntos, ejecutar estrategias consensuadas con el sector privado y ser consecuentes con las políticas sociales de derechos humanos. La extensión en los campos requeridos y los sistemas de información ( públicos y privados ) deben regirse por un norte claro: las personas.

Existen cantidad de casos exitosos, desde la investigación y su acción práctica, hasta políticas acertadas y viables, la cuestión es ponernos de acuerdo para las necesidades específicas y las más apremiantes, los recursos existen. Los "cabilderos " deben dar un salto cualitativo en su " Oratoria ". 

No podemos darnos el lujo de dilatar las decisiones.

3) In your experience, what are key best-practices and lessons-learned in fostering cross-sectoral linkages to protect and improve nutrition while preventing, adapting to climate change and reducing and removing greenhouse gas emissions in projects?

My experience includes having traveled through France, Switzerland and The Netherlands from 1996 to 2006, filming towering green stalks and flowers, bearing abundant, essential seed nutrition.  Such organic resource abundance was and continues to be prohibited by “drug laws” in the country of my birth, in the California Republic of the USA.   

The first time I ate fresh, raw, organic, hemp seed, in 1997, I was camped out in a tent, with my cameras, in a chanvriere's field, overlooking Lake Zurich. (Please see photos below)

I was warmly hosted at in Zurich by Martin & friends at Hanf Hause, directed to the Swiss Federal Research Station near Bern, where I was welcomed like family for several days, learning from Vito Medillavilla of terpenes and the many properties of hemp essential oils. Backpacking through the Swiss alps, I was invited to help with the harvest at several organic and biodynamic (a.k.a. “Demeter”) farms.  I watched families harvest their shared wealth with gratitude to the Creator for that which is truly valuable. 

Experiencing Cannabis science, culture and freedom on such deep levels, solidly confirmed previous investigations, thought and theory. It is clear that the "cross-sectoral linkage" most urgently needed, is to link food security & nutrition to the impact of counter-productive “drugs” policy, inducing essential resource scarcity. 

It requires political courage, founded in strict objectivity. A closing “window of opportunity,” and our responsibility to future generations, demands that all possible biogenic solutions be applied immediately and proportionately, to the complex equation of survival we all face. 

Presently, exclusive, limited-spectrum thinking is based in past lies, bigotry and confusion, determining a polar misvaluation, from essential to “illegal.” This misdirection in value continues to warp governance, dominating U.S.-style global drug policy through bureaucratic influence and economic inertia. Inadequate, or in some cases, counter-productive strategies continue to dominate decision making, squelching an open discussion of all possible courses of immediate, effective action.  

The cross-sectoral disconnect between food security, nutrition, climate change and global "drugs" policy is a critical break in mankind's collective reasoning necessary for navigating toward a livable future. An uniquely essential, "strategic food resource" identified in seven U.S. Presidential Executive Orders as “hemp”; Also sequesters 9 tons of carbon per acre per growing season; As it produces sustainable biofuels; And copious amounts of atmospheric terpenes providing a “solar shield” against increasing UV-B radiation. Banned through "drugs" legislation, it seems obvious that the so-called "laws" prohibiting hemp agriculture are, at best, "void for vagueness"; and at worst, treason against God, country and planet.

Drugs don't make seeds. Herbs make seeds. As the result of this fundamental, illogical oversight, wrongful jurisdiction over a god-given "green herb" has been applied, under color of law.  It seems such an obvious and important distinction to make, yet we continue to allow a disingenuous, counter-productive "drugs" policy to suppress hemp agriculture, ecology and industry in many parts of the world. 

The most effective solution to climate imbalances and their increasing impact on food security & nutrition begins with recognizing the true, essential value of Cannabis. Redirection of military and civilian resources toward global distribution and cultivation to harvest and plant ancient strains of Cannabis seed is the ultimate strategy for addressing systemic collapse of environment, economics and the human social order. If our species fails to recognize why Cannabis is essential to our sustainable existence, then we will perish in a sickly and violent extinction, before the end of the 21st Century.

There are seven properties of Cannabis that make it an essential agricultural resource:

1. Our freedom to farm "every herb bearing seed" is the first test of religious freedom. Cannabis has served as spiritual sacrament and entheogen for many religions and cultures throughout human history. For example, Biblical scholars have determined that "qaneh-bosm," referred to throughout the Bible, is most certainly Cannabis -- a major ingredient needed for making the Holy Anointing Oil used by Jesus (Exodus 30:23). Without Cannabis there is zero religious freedom.

2. Complete, essential nutrition. Hemp seed contains all three essential fatty acids (EFAs); is the most available source of edestin protein; produces an abundance of terpenes, flavonoids, tocopherals, chlorophyll, vitamins, enzymes, minerals, and living, plant energy. Essential nutrition received with thanksgiving has always been celebrated as a sacrament through gratitude for Nature's grace.

3. Complete nutrition and sustainable biofuels from the same harvest.

Cannabis is unique in that food security and nutrition are increased at the same time zero-net-carbon biofuels energy is grown from the sun & soil. The Cannabis leaf is the most efficient, globally available and recyclable ‘solar panel’ on Earth.

4. Cannabis is the only crop capable of producing the quantity of atmospheric monoterpenes needed to replenish what has been lost with the death of 50% of the boreal forests and 40% of the marine phytoplankton that used to emit the terpenes that shield the Earth from deadly solar UV-B and UV-C radiation, while sequestering carbon and producing oxygen. The anti-viral, anti-fungal, and antibiotic properties of terpenes probably also play a key role in purifying Earth’s hydrologic systems.

5. Uniquely safe and effective herbal therapeutics: Cancer, severe head trauma, glaucoma, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, chronic pain, rheumatism, muscle spasticity, multiple sclerosis, insomnia, PTSD, ADD, Tourette’s syndrome, nerve disorders, emesis and eczema are just some of the ailments that have been effectively prevented, treated and cured by Cannabis.

6. Cannabis is the safest, most ancient, and globally popular herbal alternative to alcohol and hard drugs. 

7. Cannabis is unique and essential for its  exceptional agronomic properties. A non-invasive pioneer crop, Cannabis is essential for regenerating depleted and contaminated soils, stopping soil erosion, expanding the Earth’s arable base, while producing biodegradable "Gaiatherapeutic" industrial products, food, fuel, cloth, paper, etc. 

Cannabis is mankind's functional interface with the Natural Order. Time is running-out on our ability to heal the planet. 

"Essential civilian demand" is the most time-efficient, emergency preparedness protocol for accessing hemp in time to plant globally this Spring. Accelerating a proportionate, global, biogenic response is warranted by the extreme, unprecedented conditions we're facing. 

Substantiated climate science, our respect for Nature must guide our collective common sense and courage. Mankind must transcend irrational “Gaiacidal” social values, in favor of mutually sustaining, coordinated and purposeful “Gaiatherapeutic” evolution.

The impacts of climate change on food security and nutrition are real. According to recent UNEP figures, in 2050, half of the world population may be at risk of hunger. If everything goes well, in september UN states will commit to eradicate hunger by 2050. In the same time, the impact of climate chnage on food and nutrition security are not negotitated under the CNUCC. However, during the last ADP 2.8 intersession in Geneva, thanks to Saoudian arabia and Egypt, food Security has been added for the first time in the text (3 times). However we only have three mentions of food security out of 87 pages of text (and only as options).

Some states argue that the mention of the increase of food production is similar than having the mention of food security. We need to advocate to ensure that in Bonn Parties will strongly support the mention of FS in the preamble, in the general objective, in the adapation and mitigation chapters.

Moreover, language on loss and damage should be also supported and reinforced.

>> English translation below <<

Les impacts du changement climatique se ressentent déjà au nord comme au sud. Les projections sont alarmantes : si rien n’est fait pour lutter contre le changement climatique, 600 millions de personnes supplémentaires souffriront de sous-alimentation en 2080.[1] Les changements climatiques menacent de réduire à néant les progrès effectués ces dernières années dans la lutte contre la faim et la sous-nutrition.

Les changements climatiques influencent toutes les causes de la sous-nutrition

Sècheresses, irrégularités pluviométriques, hausse du niveau des mers, vagues de chaleur, perturbations des écosystèmes, cyclones plus fréquents. Frappant différentes régions du globe, les changements climatiques ont des effets particulièrement dévastateurs sur les pays les plus fragiles. Tous les déterminants de la sous-nutrition sont gravement exacerbés par les changements climatiques car la sécurité alimentaire, l’accès à l’eau, l’hygiène et à l’assainissement, et  la santé des populations sont gravement impactés.

Si les tendances climatiques actuelles se confirment, la production de blé pourrait enregistrer une baisse de 10 à 20% d’ici à 2030 comparé aux rendements des années 1998-2002.[2] Globalement, en Afrique subsaharienne, un réchauffement d’environ 2°C entraînerait aussi une réduction de 10% du rendement agricole total d’ici 2050, tandis qu’un réchauffement supérieur et donc plus probable pourrait porter ce chiffre à 15 ou 20%.[3] La baisse des rendements agricoles aura certainement pour conséquence une hausse des prix des produits alimentaires de base.   Sans changement climatique, l’IFPRI estimait déjà en 2009 que les prix des denrées alimentaires de base comme le riz, le maïs, le blé et le soja subiraient une augmentation importante entre 2000 et 2050. En intégrant le facteur climatique, les prix augmenteront de manière supplémentaire de 23 à 37 % pour le riz, de 52 à 55 % pour le maïs, de 94 à 111 % pour le blé et de 11 à 14 % pour le soja. De plus, les changements climatiques vont provoquer un accroissement sans précédent des maladies phytosanitaires, des zoonoses. La prévalence des maladies infectieuses à transmission vectorielle risque de s’aggraver, en entraînant un affaiblissement du statut nutritionnel. Par exemple, selon, l’OMS, 2 milliards de personnes seront exposées à la dengue d’ici à 2080.[4]

L’aide-mémoire de l’OMS de 2014 rappelle qu’il est probable que, d’ici 2090, les changements climatiques étendent les zones affectées par les sécheresses, doublent la fréquence des sècheresses extrêmes et multiplient par six leur durée moyenne[5]. Entre 350 et 600 millions d’Africains feront face à un déficit en eau (avec un scénario de réchauffement limité à 2°C)[6]. Finalement, entre 2030 et 2050, on s’attend à ce que les changements climatiques entraînent près de 250 000 décès supplémentaires par an, dus à la malnutrition, au paludisme, à la diarrhée et au stress lié à la chaleur.[7] Enfin, la concurrence sur les ressources naturelles (eau, pâturages) de plus en plus rares accentue le risque de conflits et les flux migratoires, qui à leur tour amplifieront le risque d’insécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle. L’Organisation Internationale pour les Migrations prévient qu’on pourrait compter jusqu’à 1 milliard de réfugiés climatiques en 2050.[8]

Justice climatique et sécurité alimentaire : les plus vulnérables sont toujours les plus affectés

Les projections les plus optimistes (+2°C à la surface du globe) prévoient que le taux de sous-alimentation en Afrique augmentera de 25 à 90% d’ici à 2050.[9] Cette situation traduit un paradoxe : ceux qui contribuent le moins au réchauffement climatique sont ceux qui en souffrent le plus. Les pays du Sud et les ménages les plus pauvres subiront la plus grande partie des dommages humains et économiques causés par le changement climatique, alors même que leurs capacités de réponse sont souvent limitées voire épuisées.

Ce sont pour la plupart de petits producteurs et productrices qui vivent de l’agriculture pluviale, de la pêche ou de l’élevage, des moyens de subsistance très fortement dépendants des conditions climatiques et environnementales. Les changements climatiques et l’accroissement de la fréquence et de l’intensité des aléas climatiques entrainent un affaiblissement ou une destruction de ces moyens de subsistance et de l’accès aux ressources naturelles. La communauté humanitaire doit se préparer à affronter une augmentation de l’intensité et de la fréquence des catastrophes naturelles.

Enfin, pour certaines régions du monde comme l’Afrique subsaharienne et l’Asie du Sud Est, les capacités d’adaptation seront, quoi qu’il arrive, insuffisantes pour faire face aux chocs à répétition (sécheresses, inondations, cyclones) qui mettent en péril la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle et les modes de subsistances de milliards de personnes. Selon un rapport du PNUE[10], « environ 50% de la population mondiale sera en risque de sous-alimentation en 2050 du fait d’une augmentation de la demande et du changement climatique (dans un scénario à 2°C de réchauffement) contre environ 30% sans changement climatique ».

S’adapter au changement climatique pour mieux atténuer ses impacts

Le besoin d’atténuer le changement climatique est une évidence. En effet, le GIEC nous rappelle qu’un scénario à +4°C de réchauffement ou plus par rapport aux niveaux de la fin du XXe siècle, combiné à une hausse de la demande d’aliments, engendrerait des risques considérables pour la sécurité alimentaire à l’échelle mondiale et régionale.[11]

De plus, d’après le PNUE, les coûts nécessaires à la mise en place de mesures d’adaptation, jusque-là mesurés à 100 milliards de dollars par an d’ici à 2020, ont été largement sous-estimés. Le PNUE prévoit en effet que même en réduisant nos émissions, l'adaptation pourrait coûter jusqu'à 150 milliards de dollars d'ici 2025/2030, et entre 250 et 500 milliards de dollars par an d'ici 2050.[12] En l’état actuel des financements internationaux disponibles pour l’adaptation, nous sommes encore très loin du compte. Plus le temps passe, plus le coût économique, environnemental et social sera élevé. Des fonds publics additionnels sont nécessaires dès aujourd’hui pour soutenir les pays les plus pauvres à mettre en place des stratégies d’adaptation et de renforcement de la résilience.

Le secteur privé est à juste titre considéré comme un acteur majeur du financement du développement durable. Cependant, on assiste à un déséquilibre dans les investissements privés qui vont privilégier la rentabilité offerte par les actions d’atténuation et peu s’engager dans le financement de l’adaptation. Dès lors, comment assurer une mobilisation financière à la hauteur des enjeux pour soutenir les petits agriculteurs familiaux et le développement de plans d’adaptation efficaces en matière de sécurité alimentaire ?

La sécurité alimentaire, au cœur de la convention de Paris

L’accord international sur le climat doit permettre de fixer les engagements des Etats en matière de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre, d’adaptation aux impacts du dérèglement climatique et de financement. C’est dans ce cadre qu’une reconnaissance des risques sur la sécurité alimentaire doit être explicitée afin de permettre le déploiement de solutions et mesures efficaces contre la faim. Il est notamment primordial de ne pas limiter la réponse à un appel à l’augmentation de la production agricole mais bien de rechercher l’objectif de sécurité alimentaire qui comprend des enjeux tels que l’accès et la disponibilité d’une nourriture de qualité pour tous.

A Genève, lors des négociations de l’ADP 2.8 en février dernier, le terme « sécurité alimentaire » est apparu pour la première fois dans le texte pour Paris, à la fois dans le préambule du texte provisoire, mais aussi dans le paragraphe sur l’adaptation au changement climatique. Cependant, rien ne dit qu’il y restera jusqu’à la COP 21.

En effet, le texte des négociations n’est pour l’instant qu’une compilation de positions très divergentes, sur des enjeux variés. Les nombreuses options laissent la porte ouverte à toute modification. Il est impératif que la mention de la sécurité alimentaire ne soit pas utilisée comme un « trade-off » d’ici la COP 21, c’est-à-dire qu’elle soit supprimée à la dernière minute pour satisfaire un autre enjeu.

Enfin, il est impératif de demeurer vigilant face aux mirages que constituent certaines « fausses solutions », à l’instar de l’alliance pour une agriculture intelligente face au climat (AAIC) qui présente par exemple les OGM comme une action d’adaptation au changement climatique, aux dérives des marchés carbone, aux agro carburants.   

Telle que définie aujourd’hui, l’agriculture intelligente face au climat est encore un concept beaucoup trop imprécis. Il est susceptible d’englober des modèles agricoles extrêmement différents, dont les impacts environnementaux (ressources naturelles), sociaux (emplois, égalité de genre, droits humains), et économiques (autonomie/dépendance des paysans) sont réels. Ce concept fait peser un risque énorme : celui de faire de l’AIC un label qui permettrait  de légitimer les modèles agricoles productivistes et de l’agrobusiness, qui n’ont pas réussi jusqu’ici à assurer la sécurité alimentaire des 560 millions d’agriculteurs et d’agricultrices qui souffrent de la faim aujourd’hui. Il n’y a pas de « quick fix » à espérer pour permettre aux plus pauvres de faire face aux impacts du changement climatique. Lutter contre le changement climatique et lutter contre la faim sont deux objectifs indissociables qui ne peuvent plus être pensés et atteints de façon dissociée.

Il est donc urgent pour la communauté internationale et les négociateurs de relever un quadruple défi:

1. Adopter et mettre en place de manière urgente un plan d'action ambitieux d'atténuation du changement climatique, afin  de maintenir la température à la surface du globe en deçà des +2°C de réchauffement en 2100, afin de limiter les impacts du changement climatique sur la sécurité alimentaire.
2. Faire de la lutte contre l’insécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle un objectif commun de l’ensemble des Parties de la CCNUCC. Pour ce faire, il est important que la convention climat qui sera adoptée à Paris reconnaisse explicitement les risques du CC sur la sécurité alimentaire et s’engage à ce que les mesures d’adaptation et d’atténuation contribuent à une meilleure sécurité alimentaire.
3. Accroitre les financements publics dédiés à l’adaptation et assurer un rééquilibrage entre les fonds consacrés à l’atténuation et ceux destinés à l’adaptation.
4. Reconnaître que le changement climatique va accroître l’exposition aux risques des pays et populations plus vulnérables et mettre en place un système de compensation des pertes et dommages occasionnés par le changement climatique et qui ne peuvent être évités.

The impact of climate change is already felt in the Northern hemisphere as it is in the South. The forecasts are alarming: by 2080, if nothing is done to fight against climate change 600 million additional people will suffer the effects of undernourishment. [1] Climate changes threaten to wipe out the progress achieved in the fight against hunger and undernourishment in recent years.

Climate changes have an effect on allthe causes of undernourishment.

Droughts, irregular rainfall, rising sealevels, heatwaves, disturbed ecosystems, more frequent hurricanes. Hitting different parts of the globe, climate changes have especially devastating effects on the most vulnerable countries. All the determining factors for undernourishment are seriously exacerbated by climate changes because food security, access to water, hygiene and sanitation, and the health of the people are seriously impacted.

If the present climate trend is confirmed, wheat production could drop by 10 to 20% between now and 2030 compared with the period 1998-2002. [2] In general, in Sub-Saharan Africa, a rise in temperature of around 2°C could imply a reduction of around 10% in the total agricultural yield from now to 2050, while a higher, andtherefore more probable, level of warming could raise this figure to 15 or 20%. [3] This decline in agricultural production would surely result inincreased prices for basic food products.  Even without climate change, IFPRI estimated in 2009 that prices of basic food products like rice, maize, wheat and soya will registera significant increase between 2000 and 2050. When the climate factor is included, prices will increase by a further 23 to 37% for rice, from 52 to 55% for maize, from 94 to 111% for wheat and from 11 to 14% for soya. Additionally, climate changes will cause an unprecedented increase in the number of phytosanitary and zoonotic diseases. The incidence of vector borne infectious diseases threatens to become worse, bringing with it a deteriorating nutritional situation. For example, according to the WHO, 2 billion people will be exposed to dengue fever between now and 2080. [4]

The 2014 WHO memorandum notes that it is probable that between now and 2090 climate changes will expand the areas affected by drought, doubling the frequency of extreme droughts and multiplying by six their average duration. [5] Between 350 and 600 million Africans will face a water deficit (with a global warming scenario limited to 2° C). [6] Finally, between 2030 and 2050 it is expected that climate change will cause almost 250 000 additional deaths per year, due to malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea and heat stress. [7] Indeed, the competition for increasingly scarce natural resources (water, pastures) accentuates the risk of conflicts and migrations, which in turn increase the risk of food and nutrition insecurity. The International Organization for Migrations forewarns that by 2050 there could be a billion climatic refugees.[8]

Climate justice and food security: the most vulnerable people are always the most affected

The most optimistic forecasts (+2°C on the surface of the earth) anticipate that the rate of undernourishment in Africa will increase from 25 to 90% between now and 2050.[9] This is a paradoxical situation: those who least contribute to global warming are the ones who suffer most from it. The countries in the Southern hemisphere and the poorest households will suffer mostof the  human and economic damage caused by climate change, while at the same time  their capacity to respond  is  often limited if not exhausted.

They are in the majority small, men and women, producers living on rain-fed agriculture, fishing or livestock, means of subsistence which are extremely dependent on climatic and environmental conditions. Climate changes and the increased frequency and intensity of climatic natural hazards cause a weakening or a destruction of these means of subsistence and of access to natural resources. The human community must be prepared to face an increase in the intensity and frequency of natural catastrophes.

At any rate, for some regions in the world, like Sub Saharan Africa and South-Eastern Asia their capacities for adaptation will be, whatever happens, insufficient to face the recurring blows (droughts, floods, hurricanes) which threaten food security and nutrition and the means of subsistence of billions of people. According to a UNEP [United Nations Environment Programme] report [10], around 50% of the world population will be at risk of undernourishment by 2050 due to increased demand and to climate change (in a scenario of global warming of 2°C) against around 30% without climate change.

Adapting to climate change to better mitigate its effects

The need to mitigate climate change is evident. In fact, the IPCC points out that a scenario of  global warming of +4°C or more in relation to the levels at the end of the 20th century, combined with an increase in the demand for food would generate considerable risks to food security at global and regional levels.[11]

Moreover, according to UNEP, the expenditure needed for the implementation of adaptation measures,up to now forecast at 100 billion dollars per year from now until 2020, have been greatly underestimated. UNEP forecasts, in fact, that even reducing our emissions, adaptation could cost up to 150 billion dollars from now to 2025/2030 and between 250 to 500 billion dollars per year from now til 2050. [12] In the present state of international finances available for adaptation, we have nowhere near the budget. The more time passes the greater the economic, environmental and social costs will be. Additional public funds are needed from now on to support the poorest countries in the implementation of strategies for adaptation and thereinforcement of resilience.

The private sector is justly considered as a major actor in financing sustainable development. However, we are witnessing an imbalance in private investments which favor profitabilityarising fromalleviationinitiatives and which is not much involved in the financing of adaptation. Consequently, how can financing be mobilizedwhich is adequate to meet the challenges ofsupporting small family farmers and the development of efficient adaptation plans in terms of food security?

Food security at the heart of the Paris Convention

The international agreement on climate should enablethe commitments of States to be determined in terms of reduction of greenhouse gases, and adaptation to the effect of climatic and financial disruptions. It is in this framework that recognition of the risks on food security must be explicit with the goal of allowing the implementation of efficient solutions and measures against hunger. It is of primordial importance that the response should not be limited to a call for increased agricultural production but also tofindan objective for food security which includes issues such as access to and availability of quality food for all.

In Geneva, during the ADP 2.8 last February, the term "food security" appeared for the first time in the text for Paris, both in the introduction to the draft text and also in the paragraph on adaptation to climate change. However, that is not to say that it will remain there until COP 21.

In fact, the text to be negotiated is at present no more than a compilation of very different positions on diverse issues. The many options leave the door open to every possible modification. It is imperative that the mentioning of food security is not used as a "trade-off" leading up to the COP 21, in other words that it is not eliminated at the last minute to satisfy another issue.

Anyway, it is imperative to remain vigilant when facing illusions constituted by certain "false solutions", like the alliance for a climate-smart agriculture (AAIC) which presents for example the GMOs as actions of adaptation to climate change, to carbon markets derivatives, to agro fuels.

As defined today, climate-smart agriculture is still a very imprecise concept.  It is able to include very different agricultural models whose environmental (natural resources), social (jobs, gender equality, human rights) and economic (autonomy/dependence of peasants) impacts are genuine. This concept can carry an enormous risk: that of making AIC a label which will allow the legitimization of productive agricultural models and agro-industries which so far have not succeeded in ensuring the food security of 560 million men and women farmers who at present are suffering hunger. There is no "quick fix" to enable the poorest people to face the impact of climate change. The fights against climate change and against hunger are two inseparable objectives which cannot be thought about or achieved separately.

It is therefore urgent that the international community and the negotiators take account of a quadruple challenge:

Adopt and implement urgently an ambitious action plan to reduce climate change with the objective of maintaining the temperature on the surface of the earth below +2°C of global warming by the year 2100 so as to limit the impacts of climate change on food security.

Make the fight against food and nutrition insecurity the common objective of all the members of the UNFCCC. To achieve this it is important that the convention onclimate that will be adopted in Paris recognizes explicitaly the risks of climate change on food security and commits itself to the contribution by measures of adaptation and reductionto better food security

Increase public financingdedicatedto adaptation and ensure a new balance between the funds destined to reduction and those destined to adaptation.

Recognize that climate change will increase the exposure to risks of the most vulnerable people and countries and implement a compensation system for the loss and damage caused by climate change which cannot be avoided.

Having just commented on the Sustainable Food Systems consultation, I was surprised there was so little mention of climate change in its draft concept note, yet the two consultations are inextricably linked....

1. Climate change and food security are also inextricably linked. Policymakers need to consider the latest research highlighted by Ackerman and Stanton (2013) which argues that climate change impacts on agriculture could be much worse than expected, particularly regarding the temperature threshold of crops, above which yields rapidly decline, and the variability and intensity of rainfall.

So first and foremost we need an increased urgency from governments to implement effective policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stablilise climate change, including regulatory policies where market-based solutions have already failed: without that adaptation and mitigation policies may achieve very little.

Adapatation policies need to be nutrition-sensitive, with a greater emphasis on sustainability throughout the food system - we need to improve nutrition whilst reducing emissions. What may have been a sustainable system in the past may no longer be so in the face of climate change, requiring different cropping and livestock systems that can adapt to the changing conditions.

And policymakers need to consider the whole food system when implementing climate change adaptation and nutrition policies, from production (eg conservation agriculture) through to the consumer (eg behavioural change toward more sustainable and more nutritious diets), including trade policies which may currently exacerbate emissions.

But we also need to keep livelihoods at the forefront of such policies. In some recent research I have been doing on the impact of biofuel operations on food security, I found that households with employees on large biofuel estates in Mozambique had significantly better food and nutrition security outcomes than other households in the same locality, largely due to paid employment: food access is likely to remain the key issue in food and nutrition security. 

2. Here at University College Cork (UCC) we have been running an AgriDiet project in Ethiopia and Tanzania over the past two years and institutional barriers have emerged as a key issue in linking agriculture and nutrition, not so much at the national level where policies have now been put in place, but more so at the local level where ag extension and health officials rarely liaise. We have held workshops in both countries to bring local extension and helath worlers together and there is now growing recognition of this problem and things are starting to change. It will be important that ag extension staff also work with nutritionists on climate change issues to promote resilient food systems that also deliver optimum nutrition to the most vulnerable.

UCC has also been working with the NGOs Valid International and Concern to address the barriers in sourcing locally produced raw materials and producing ready-to-use therapeutic foods in food insecure countries so that the most vulnerable households have access to nutritious foods and local farmers can also benefit through new markets.

3. The improved coordination between local ag extension staff and health workers in Tanzania is a good example of improving the effectiveness of the public sector, although climate change impacts remain a new and uncertain issue for most local extension staff. Also, as part of my bioenergy and food security research I have encountered a number of food-energy integrated projects that could be regarded as cross-sector initiatives. For example, in response to deforestation and smoke-inhalation related illnesses from open fires, a number of community-scale projects are intercropping oilseed plants to produce fuel for oil-based stoves, as well as for generators used for irrigation and food storage of perishable crops. The urgent need for clean energy to replace wood and fossil fuels is often overlooked, but without renewable sources such as solar and bioenergy, it will be difficult to improve the production of nutritionally important foods, such as fruit and vegetables and reduce wastage in hot climates.

best regards

Stephen Thornhill

Lecturer and Research Fellow at University College Cork, Ireland.     

Reference - Ackerman and Stanton (2013) Climate Impacts on Agriculture: A Challenge to Complacency? GDAE Working Paper No 13-01.

1)       What are the main issues for policy-makers to consider when linking climate change on the one hand and food security and nutrition on the other, in particular when designing, formulating and implementing  policies and programmes?

Policy makers must:

• Prioritise ways to conserve natural resources
• Disincentivise the marketing of products that have a high environmental burden or the potential to harm health.  
• Ensure policy setting processes are free from commercial influence
• Adopt, as a minimum requirement, the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and all subsequent relevant Resolutions as binding Regulations and integrate them into all relevant Codex standards.[1]
• Adopt policies and practices that support  biodiverse multi-variety, multi-crop ecological production that can adapt to changing weather patterns, allowing  farmers to freely share seeds across communities, countries and continents.
• Avoid innovative quick fixes and seeds, instead focus on reducing mono cropping and practices that deplete soil quality. 
• Implement transparency measures that require that lobbyist and lobbying expenses be made public
• Address the increasing influence of big economic actors on public decision-making and global democratic governance.
• Bring in effective regulations that stop corporations violating human rights – and beware of voluntary commitments.
• Support the efforts of the Human Rights Council working group to draft a binding  Treaty to protect people from corporate human rights abuses.
• Avoid business language and terminology and indiscriminate/inappropriate use of business terms such as ‘stakeholder’  ‘partnership’  ‘non state actor’ etc
• Define Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as marketing and ban publicity surrounding CSR activities
• Adopt measure to protect whistle-blowers.[2]
• Adopt accountability mechanisms that require independent, on the ground monitoring of what companies DO - not just what they SAY they do.

Conservation

Innovative products are often seen as win win routes to jobs and economic growth. However their potential risks are often overlooked, and strategies to conserve natural resources are sidelined.

While innovative thinking is important, innovative products must be underpinned by a commitment to truly independent testing, evaluation and post-market monitoring. Impact assessments need to consider health and development – not just effects on business, as is the current case in the EU..

Infant and young child feeding

Breastfeeding is the first and perfect ‘food system.’ There is no food more locally produced or sustainable than breastmilk.  The protection of breastfeeding and strict control of the marketing of formulas and processed foods for babies should be considered as an integral part of a package of measures to conserve carbon and water.  

Water usage in formula manufacturing It takes 800 litres of water to manufacture a 1 litre of milk and 4700 litres of water to make a kilo of milk powder

The water usage on dairy farms used in the production of formula is also substantial.

Water at Household Level

To prepare the feeds for a three month old baby, a litre of water is needed each day. Two litres are needed to boil bottles and teats and more to wash and rinse the bottles, that should be boiled for 10 minutes (up to 60 minutes per day).[3]

Baby food market

Breastfeeding has to compete in a highly profitable and competitive market - estimated to be worth US$ 41 billion a year – and where breastmilk itself is being commoditised and its ingredients patented. The need to protect breastfeeding becomes more urgent in emerging markets where “elitist” and “scientific” products are promoted with claims for unfounded health benefits, such as the suggestion children fed on formula will have better eyesight or be more intelligent.

Meanwhile corporations are investing in public/private partnerships across a broad spectrum of players in public health and development. Through these partnerships and the new trade agreements,  industry influence is growing and facilitating industry’s top strategic priority to change traditional food cultures.  Babies are the perfect entry point for market-driven solutions.  The efforts of governments to bring in effective legislation is becoming even more of an uphill battle. Meanwhile, the market for formulas for older babies, many with high levels of sugar, is being fuelled with cross-branding and deceptive marketing tactics.

Risks of artificial feeding   While many more people now have better access to drinking water, sanitation and health care, the world is still an unequal place: 2.5 billion – more than one third of the world’s population – still have totally inadequate sanitation. Artificial feeding of an infant instead of breastfeeding in such settings can literally mean the difference between life and death. In such circumstances Infants not breastfed are 15 times more likely to die from pneumonia and 11 times more likely to die of die of diarrhoea.[4] Breastfeeding could prevent 13% of all under-5 deaths Appropriate complementary feeding could prevent a further 6% Breastfeeding is far more effective than any other preventive intervention, such as water and sanitation (3%).[5]

2)       What are the key institutional and governance challenges to the delivery of cross-sectoral and comprehensive policies that protect and promote nutrition of the most vulnerable, and contribute to sustainable and resilient food systems?

It is essential that governments and UN bodies have strong Conflict of Interest safeguards in place that keep the policy setting process free from commercial influence. 

Governments have a duty to uphold the rights of citizens. However, in the context of ‘multi-stakeholder’ PPP ideology, the false notion is created that voluntary self regulation is preferable to binding legislation. (see above)

The participation of Corporations as (more than) equal “stakeholders” in public health policy setting and planning is a further threat and is contrary to the spirit behind conflict of interest regulation. It obscures the fact that corporations “primary interest” is not to act in the public interest (Jonathan H. Marks 2013) and that their legal fiduciary duty is to maximise profits for their shareholders. Corporations are not “stakeholders” in public affairs, and should not be made so through principles of “inclusiveness”

Partnerships by definition are arrangements for ‘shared governance’ to achieve ‘shared goals.’ Shared decision-making is their single most unifying feature. They imply ‘respect, trust, shared benefits’ and pave the way for voluntary self-regulation.  Corporations derive strong emotional and financial benefits from the ‘image transfer’ from UN or NGO ‘partners’.

Of particular concern is the World Economic Forum’s Global Redesign Initiative that proposes that some issues taken off the agenda of the UN system and addressed by ‘plurilateral, often multi-stakeholder, coalitions of the willing and the able.’   WEF seems to envisage a world managed by a coalition of multinational corporations, nation states (including through the UN System) and select civil society organisations. 

According to David Michaels, appointed by U.S. President Obama to head the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), “I am convinced that conflict of interest cannot be “managed” It must be eliminated. Too much is at stake.”

3) In your experience, what are key best-practices and lessons-learned in fostering cross-sectoral linkages to protect and improve nutrition while preventing, adapting to climate change and reducing and removing greenhouse gas emissions in projects?

World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative (WBTi) and World Breastfeeding Costing Initiative (WBCi) The WBTi is  an innovative Tracking, Assessing and Monitoring (TAM) web tool that provides objective scoring and colour coding of countries progress in implementing measures to protect and support breastfeeding. Launched by IBFAN in 2004/05 in South Asia and then to other regions. It has been used in 82 countries.

The WBCi is another tool to assist IBFAN’s Global Drive for Financial Investment in Children's Health and Development through Universalising Interventions for Optimal Breastfeeding.

http://ibfan.org/wbti-and-wbci

http://worldbreastfeedingtrends.org/

For more information contact:

Patti Rundall [email protected]