Skip to main content

Inside the food fight brewing at COP27

#5 of 121 articles from the Special Report: Negotiating survival
Illustration by Ata Ojani

A new item is on the menu for the thousands of people gathering this month at COP27, the United Nations' annual climate conference: food.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a global group of experts who provide the gold standard of climate science — estimates that from farm to fork to compost, food is responsible for about a third of all greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans, in addition to contributing to pollution and biodiversity loss. Yet it has been largely overlooked at past climate conferences.

This year will be different. What we eat has been vaulted into the spotlight by soaring food prices and hunger as negotiators from around the world gather in Egypt. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, supply chain chaos and extreme weather have exposed vulnerabilities in the world's food systems. For the first time, food and farming will feature prominently at COP27 as Big Ag, activists and governments fight over the future of what and how we eat.

Here's what you need to know:

What’s the biggest fight in the food world?

The battle between so-called climate-smart agriculture and agroecology. Agroecology is an approach to food systems and farming that seeks to reform how we produce, transport, sell and dispose of food to make it more ecologically sustainable and fairer to farmers, workers and vulnerable communities. Climate-smart agriculture is a tech-focused approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from farming that doesn't address social and economic disparities entrenched in how we grow and eat food.

A new item is on the menu for the thousands of people gathering this month at COP27, the United Nations' annual climate conference: food. 

The world's largest food and farming companies and their lobbying groups are advocating for climate-smart agriculture. Countries that rely heavily on food exports and industrialized farming systems — including Canada — have largely supported these companies' positions in international negotiations, advocating for the expansion of climate-smart farming. Critics say the approach will deepen the world's reliance on industrial farming, contribute to further environmental harm, erode the resilience of our food systems and hurt farmers and their communities.

Agroecology has received more support from many low- and middle-income countries and the European Union, which embraced the approach last year. Many academics, and civil society and environmental groups are also strong agroecology advocates, arguing it is the best way to tackle the interlinked problems of climate change, pollution, inequality and hunger. Critics of agroecology say it can't meet our demand for food and will hinder countries’ efforts to reduce poverty.

Has food come up at previous climate conferences?

Yes.

In 2017, the countries signed on to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) decided to create the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA), a series of workshops and discussions on agriculture that recognized its climate impacts and potential benefits. Koronivia is noteworthy because it addressed both adapting to and reducing climate change. The KJWA has leaned towards bolstering agroecological solutions to the climate crisis over climate-smart ones — including reducing global consumption of meat, a big emitter — earning resistance from countries like Canada that are vested in industrialized agriculture for export.

The KJWA's mandate is drawing to a close this year, and countries are expected to decide on its uncertain future. Moving forward, the agreement could shape how agriculture is addressed in the institutions and funding systems crafted under the UNFCCC. African countries are pushing for the KJWA to go in this direction, but developed countries are resisting because of concerns about costs, according to Ryan Hobert, managing director of climate and environment for the UN Foundation.

Moreover, last year, the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates launched the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate (AIM for Climate), an initiative that aims to boost investment in climate-smart agriculture globally. It has since gained support from 40 countries, including Canada, and aims to secure $8 billion in investments by the end of this month. AIM for Climate has been heavily criticized by environmental and civil society groups as a ploy to broaden the reach of major agribusinesses and industrial farming.

What's new this year?

Plenty.

For the first time, there will be four pavilions at COP27 dedicated to food systems and food security; there were none at previous events. Pavilions are spaces in the main conference venue that host panels, presentations and other networking events. While they are not directly related to the official negotiations aimed at lowering countries’ greenhouse gas emissions, the pavilions are a place lobbyists use to spread their message to politicians and other conference attendees.

This year's pavilions are being run by groups supporting agroecology — the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, agriculture research group CGIAR, a coalition of tech-focused groups advocating for technologies like vertical farms or alternative meats, and representatives from the world's largest food and agrochemical companies.

World leaders will host two sessions on food security that will focus on how to increase farmers’ and the food supply’s resilience to climate change, how to reduce waste and finding funding to bolster more sustainable practices. Civil society groups will be calling for countries to support agroecological approaches to farming as part of their efforts to fund climate change adaptation. Only two per cent of climate finance is spent on food, land use, and nature, according to Food and Land Use Coalition Policy and International Engagement director Edward Davey.

Additionally, the COP presidency has dedicated half a day to food and agriculture — a first for a COP. This designation brings more attention to the issue and can also guide when governments or advocacy groups make new pledges about farming and climate.

Comments