Progress slows on Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work
Due to deep political divisions over finance and technology, the Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work (SJWA) on agriculture and food security stalled at COP30, deferring crucial implementation decisions to the final six months before its scheduled conclusion at COP31.
The Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work on the implementation of climate action on agriculture and food security (SJWA), launched at COP27, is the UNFCCC’s four-year process to move agriculture from a recognised priority to practical, country-led climate action. It aims to do this through shared evidence, in-session workshops, and annual synthesis reports focused on what works, where, and why.
COP30 was expected to be a pivotal moment in that cycle. Parties were meant to take stock of progress to date, consider the Secretariat’s synthesis of lessons emerging from workshops and submissions, and provide clearer political direction on implementation priorities—setting the course for how agriculture and food security would be taken forward under the UNFCCC ahead of the joint work’s formal reporting point at COP31.
Instead, what was anticipated to be a relatively technical negotiation became politically charged. While Parties acknowledged incremental progress since Bonn, deep differences—particularly on finance, technology pathways, and how outcomes should be framed—meant COP30 concluded with procedural decisions only. Substantive issues were deferred to June 2026 at SB64, leaving a narrow and consequential final window before the joint work concludes.
What the Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work is designed to do
The SJWA sits jointly under SBSTA and SBI and aims to promote holistic, context-specific approaches to agriculture and food security within climate action, while improving coherence across UNFCCC bodies and climate finance mechanisms. It explicitly recognises farmers as key agents of climate action and seeks to better align science, policy, finance and implementation.
To deliver this, the UNFCCC Secretariat was mandated to prepare annual synthesis reports, convene in-session workshops at Subsidiary Body meetings, maintain an online portal for sharing policies and initiatives, and report on overall progress to COP31 in 2026. A roadmap agreed at SB60 structured this work through 2026, including annual submissions by Parties and stakeholders and thematic workshops at SB62 and SB64.
From Bonn to Belém: unresolved questions surface
Negotiations at COP30 drew heavily on the SB62 Bonn workshop report, which captured Party views on systemic and holistic approaches to implementing climate action on agriculture, food systems and food security. Discussions were also informed by outcomes from the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) Forum on financing sustainable food systems and agriculture, held earlier this year at FAO.
In the first week, a broad group of Parties argued that the Bonn report provided sufficient substance to extract key messages and guide a draft decision. Others, however, viewed it primarily as a compilation of views rather than a basis for negotiated outcomes.
Developing countries consistently highlighted gaps on means of implementation, particularly finance. Many stressed the need for clearer signals of support for smallholder farmers, women and youth, and called for more focused and outcome-oriented workshops. There was also growing attention to the role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in shaping solutions.
At the same time, clear divergences persisted over technology pathways. These ranged from debates over agroecology versus digital and AI-enabled farming, to differing views on the role of carbon markets and incentives for farmers under Article 6.
A crowded draft—and little convergence
By 13 November, a draft conclusions text was circulating that reflected limited areas of convergence. These included recognition of a food systems approach, the central role of smallholder farmers, and references to both agroecology and technology. The text also gestured toward incentives for farmers, including potential links to carbon markets.
However, the draft remained long and heavily bracketed. G77 and China proposed additional elements, including calls to substantially increase grant-based adaptation finance. Australia and others emphasised AI-driven approaches and high-integrity carbon markets as mechanisms to reward farmers and mobilise investment. Despite efforts by co-facilitators, positions remained far apart.
On 14 November, the co-facilitators formally proposed procedural conclusions, with minor amendments from the COP30 Presidency noting that “progress was made.” Substantive elements from the Bonn workshop were forwarded in a bracketed annex to SB64 in June 2026.
In effect, COP30 deferred the core political questions underpinning the SJWA: how food systems adaptation will be financed, how technology pathways are framed, and how progress is assessed. With the joint work scheduled to conclude at COP31, the final phase will span just six months—from June to November 2026—to translate years of dialogue into agreed outcomes.
Why this matters
Agriculture and food systems sit at the intersection of adaptation, mitigation, livelihoods and resilience. The SJWA remains one of the few formal UNFCCC spaces where these dimensions are addressed together. The outcome in Belém highlights a familiar challenge: while many Parties broadly agree on what needs to happen on the ground, alignment on finance, implementation and political framing remains elusive.
The clock is now ticking on whether the joint work can deliver tangible guidance and momentum before it formally ends.
What this means for CGIAR Climate Action
Evidence must be actionable: As negotiations narrow, demand is growing for concrete, implementation-ready examples that link science, farmer outcomes and finance.
Food systems framing is gaining ground: Continued emphasis on integrated food, land, water and biodiversity approaches aligns strongly with CGIAR research and country engagement.
Finance remains the fault line: Clear, credible pathways connecting adaptation needs, investment readiness and support for smallholders—especially women and youth—will be critical ahead of SB64.
The next six months are decisive: The final phase of the SJWA will determine whether agriculture and food security emerge from this process with lasting political and financial traction under the UNFCCC.
