Farms and Forests: Part of the Solution to Climate Change

Did government negotiators leave Copenhagen "without any clothes on," as sustainable development pioneer Gro Harlem Brundtland put it, referring to the incompetent emperor of the Hans Christian Andersen tale?

How observers answer that question depends on their level of satisfaction with the political agreement that was hastily patched together in the closing hours of the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference. Regardless of the answer, representatives of the agricultural and forestry communities, including the CGIAR and its partners, have every reason to be satisfied with their participation in the conference, which sent a strong message about the importance of farms and forests in climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Pros of the Climate Accord

Those inclined to view the Copenhagen Accord positively can find encouragement in its reaffirmation of developed countries' commitment to raise large amounts of money for climate change adaptation and mitigation in the developing world - US$30 billion within the next 3 years and $100 billion per year by 2020.

Of particular interest for the CGIAR is the document's urgent call for "actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing country Parties, especially least developed countries," such as those "in Africa affected by drought, desertification and floods."

Presumably, such actions would include initiatives aimed at enhancing the resilience of agriculture in the developing world. But until the sector is acknowledged explicitly, in relation both to climate change adaptation and mitigation, the rallying cry of "no agriculture, no deal" (raised by Lindiwe Sibanda of the South Africa-based Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network during Agriculture and Rural Development Day) will not be silenced.

Also important for the CGIAR is the accord's strong assertion that "adequate funding shall be provided to developing country parties . . . to enable and support enhanced action on mitigation." In this regard, the three-page document refers specifically to REDD-plus, which is the option of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation as well as through conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.

Clearly, the forestry sector has succeeded at positioning itself in the climate negotiations. And as Francis Seymour, director general of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), said in her welcome remarks at Forest Day 3, the sector can now look beyond Copenhagen to the "challenges that countries and communities will face, as they begin to implement mitigation and adaptation strategies related to forests." CIFOR and its partners have a clear role to play in helping meet those challenges.

Cons of the Climate Accord

As emphasized by the accord's critics, it is marred by a lack of details and guarantees on key issues, such as emissions reduction targets, the sources of promised funds and the manner in which they will be paid out.

The Copenhagen Accord may be a historic first for the world's major economies, as US president Barack Obama has insisted. But it is obviously not the legally binding arrangement that was originally envisioned for the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).

For that reason, according to media reports in Mexico, the accord represents something of a papa caliente, or "hot potato," for the hosts of COP16 in Mexico City, where negotiators will be under intense pressure to translate the good intentions expressed at COP15 into a more comprehensive and detailed plan of action.

A Welcome Display of Harmony

In the atmosphere of discord from which the controversial Copenhagen Accord emerged, the agricultural and forestry communities, including the CGIAR and its partners, offered a welcome display of harmony, speaking with one voice on the role of farms and forests as part of a climate change solution.

That was the outcome of a well-attended COP15 side event, which brought together a wide cross section of farmers, researchers and development experts. Immediately afterwards, key participants issued a joint statement, which conveys a clear message about the urgent need to address food security, rural poverty and the threat of climate change through an integrated approach that embraces both the forestry and agricultural sectors. The complete text of the statement appears in the newsroom section of the CGIAR website.

The joint statement on agriculture and forestry reflects the outcomes of three separate but closely related events held in conjunction with COP15, including a side event on Climate Change and Food Security, together with Agriculture and Rural Development Day and Forest Day 3.

The significance of the Climate Change and Food Security side event , according to a Rural Climate Exchange blog post , lay not just in what high-level panelists said but in the fact that they had come together to deliver a shared message. Organized by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) with several partners, the meeting opened with the signing of an agreement between FAO and Brazil's National Institute for Space Research (INPE) to work together in the field of emissions measuring and reporting. An FAO news release reports on the agreement in detail. FAO director general Jacques Diouf rounded out the discussions, calling for support to developing countries, as they seek to clarify their difficult choices in the face of climate change and its consequences.

Agriculture and Rural Development Day (ARDD) , which brought together more than 350 policymakers, farmers and scientists, was the first such event in the 15-year history of United Nations climate change negotiations. As described in a Rural Climate Exchange blog post, it opened with two powerful keynote presentations, the first by Sir Gordon Conway of Imperial College London, who offered a perspective from science, showing how agriculture is both a culprit and a victim of climate change. Kanayo Nwanze, president of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), complemented Conway's science message, arguing that food security, agriculture and rural poverty must move to the center of policy dialogue. The organizers of ARDD issued a statement of outcomes, which is available on the event's website, along with numerous webcasts and tweets made during the event by communications staff of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP) as well as informative blog posts and striking photos by CGIAR communicators.

Further details on the outcomes of four roundtable discussions will be published on the site, as this information becomes available. For a well-crafted overview of the event, which was widely distributed to government negotiators and others, see the website of IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development) Reporting Services .

Nearly 1,500 people attended Forest Day 3 , whose keynote speakers included Gro Harlem Brundtland plus Nobel laureates Elinor Ostrom, Ravendra Pachauri and Wangari Maathai. The event left no room for doubt about the important contribution of the Forest Day series in advancing the cause of climate change mitigation through the reduction of deforestation and forest degradation. This was evident both from the content of the sessions and from the eminence of the speakers delivering key messages.

Forest Day 3 is amply reported on the CIFOR website. See in particular a comprehensive summary statement, which offers highlights from plenary speeches as well as from sub-plenary discussions, together with main messages from learning events. Also of interest is a multimedia blog of the day's events at http://forestsandclimate.wordpress.com/ .

Following up on this strong participation in COP15, the CGIAR and its partners must now build on the momentum created. They can do so in two ways: first, by actively pursuing research aimed at better enabling rural people in developing countries to cope with climate change and, second, by continuing to press the case with climate negotiators that both farms and forests are an important part of the solution.