Should agriculture be on the agenda of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations in Copenhagen in December 2009? This no longer seems to be the question but the demand from the African Civil Society movements.
It is argued that if fundamental climate change mitigation and adaptation goals are to be met, international climate deal or treaty if you may must include agriculture.
Why is agriculture all of a sudden becoming a key contested area in the climate change discussions? For Africa, it is quite clear the majority population relies on agriculture and natural systems for production and climate change is bound to impact them disproportionately compared to those who have other means of “securing production” under controlled environments.
So poor farmers farmers in Africa “with or without their consent have become a bargaining chip”- they need support and help to adapt to climate change. Now, most people will stop there even the most educated in this new emerging hot bed of money and politics. Simply put, how does one help these poor farmers adapt to climate change?
How many solutions or practical measures have been tabled on how “that help” will be formulated?
Different sources claim that climate change will have dramatic consequences for agriculture. Water sources will become more variable, droughts and floods will stress agricultural systems, some coastal food-producing areas will be inundated by the seas, and food production will fall in some places in the interior.
Does funding research on the interactions between climate change and agriculture offer any solution to the poor farmers? This is a dice of poker!
Does funding cost-effective mitigation in agriculture and research on promising technologies and management systems offer a solution for the poor? Another dice in the pack!
Does allowing innovative payment mechanisms and support for novel institutions for agricultural mitigation lead to giving or helping the poor farmers? A jack in the pack!
Does a funding mechanism that recognize the connection between pro-poor development policies for sustainable growth and sound climate change policies offer anything to the poor farmers? Recognition does not mean action, another card in the deck!
Well, do you want to continue playing this game or are you serious about change!!!!
Sphere: Related Content
If the whole stuff about climate change isn’t just a ruse, and I firmly believe it isn’t, Africa needs to think very carefully about how she is going to approach the 21st Century. My own country, Kenya, needs climate proofing. The agricultural sector, still the largest sector in terms of both GDP contribution and employment, must be approached very differently. Just now I watched in disbelief a feature on NTV depicting water trade as fast becoming a booming business in Murang’a of all places. Conflicts over resources are reported in the local media with disturbing regularity. Samburu is the most recent hotspot. Failing agriculture is likely to create a major humanitarian crisis. Clearly, a new paradigm is overdue. We need to implement sensible local and scientific knowledge about sustainable ecosystem management. Agriculture as we know it will not survive without mitigation and adaptation. This is not optional. Regarding payment mechanisms, a hybrid of a fund and the market seems to make a lot of sense, and would benefit small farmers if informed by a landscape perspective where agriculture, forestry and other land uses are included in addition to REDD. Naturally, poor farmers must access these resources if indeed they are meant to serve any meaningful purpose development-wise. And access too must be measurable and verifiable.