The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was established in 1992 to ensure effective follow-up to the Earth Summit by reviewing progress in the implementation of Agenda 21, Rio, Johannesburg, etc. To meet this mandate, the CSD convenes on an annual basis in 2-year thematic cycles, the first year to gather data, case studies, and related info, and the second year to draft policy that will guide development solutions that address these thematic challenges. This year, May 4th-15th, was the 17th session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-17); a policy year addressing the themes of Agriculture, Rural Development, Desertification, Land Use, and Africa.
This was my fourth time participating in a CSD conference, and each time I notice this – it is extremely difficult to discuss sustainability, a concept defined most fundamentally by interrelationships, within a framework that compartmentalizes its issues into thematic clusters (ie. agriculture, rural development, . . . climate change, energy . . . water, human settlements, etc.). Certainly each of these themes warrants its own debates, research, and policy recommendations. It is also true that each CSD conference has an “interlinkages” working group with an objective to address the interrelationships between the themes being discussed. My point, however, is that there are interrelationships between themes of previous years, and years ahead even, that should not be left out of the conversations simply to conform to the organizational structure of the Commission. I bring this up not to complain, but to set the stage for the purpose of this blog – to highlight the important relationships between Agriculture and Climate Change that were overlooked at CSD-17.
First, I will give credit where credit is due. The final text culminating from two weeks of negotiations does not overlook climate change entirely. The text acknowledges, “Agriculture is also dependent on climate and sensitive to climate change. Sustainable agriculture practices, as well as sustainable forest management can contribute to meeting climate change concerns.” The text also calls on member states to “Support training and capacity building of rural communities to effectively implement adaptation programmes to climate change at the local level.” Beyond these references, however, there is little more mention in the 54pg document of what I would consider the elephant in the room. Below I summarize a few of the major connections between Agriculture and Climate Change that I have adapted from a publication by Third World Network titled “Enduring Farms: Climate Change, Smallhoders, and Traditional Farming Communities.”
First, it is important to understand the centrality of agriculture in sustainable development. Agriculture consumes nearly 40 percent of global land surface and consumes 70 percent of global water resources. At every point of production, agriculture is heavily influenced by ecosystems, biodiversity, climate, and the economy. Modern agriculture today is a fossil-fuel-energy-intensive industry that causes a positive feedback loop fueling further climate change, less productive agriculture, and consequently less food security. For example, “World agriculture and forestry practices (e.g. conversion of wetland to agriculture, deforestation, rice paddies, cattle feedlots, fertilizer use) today contribute about 25 percent to the emissions of greenhouse gases, while reducing carbon sinks and changing hydrological cycles, thus exacerbating climate change effects. In turn, the increasing frequency of storms, drought and flooding has implications on the viability of agro-ecosystems and food security.” It is important to note that the impacts of climate change on agriculture are already being felt by many communities, primarily in the Southern hemisphere.
Apart from the landless and urban poor, small farmers are among the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in the developing world. Most climate change models show that these small farmers will bear a disproportionate brunt of climate change damages. Where subsistence agriculture is the norm, a mere 1-ton yield decrease (primarily maize, beans, potatoes, rice, etc.) could lead to major disruption of rural life. These risks are especially great in the drylands of Africa where yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50 percent by 2020.
Another potentially significant impact of climate change on agriculture is the loss of soil organic matter due to soil warming. High temperatures are likely to speed the natural decomposition of organic matter and other soil processes that affect fertility. In drylands where desertification is a major problem, root growth and decomposition are suppressed, consequently diminishing soil cover and increasing soil erosion from intensified winds. In other areas, soil erosion will come from an expected increase in convective rainfall due to more atmospheric moisture and stronger gradients of temperature and pressure.
Climate change is also exacerbating agricultural challenges associated with pests and plant disease. Warmer climates enable some insect pest species to complete a greater number of reproductive cycles during the summer, winter, and fall. During the winter, warmer climates allow larvae to “winter-over”, causing greater infestation during the following crop season. There is limited literature that analyzes the impact of climate change on plant diseases and pathogens. What does exist indicates that the most likely impacts will be felt in three areas: losses from plant diseases, the efficacy of disease management strategies, and the geographical distribution of plant diseases. Although the ultimate impacts are still unclear, it is widely determined that increased temperatures and humidity will increase the severity of many pathogens. The challenge is to make sure that the agrochemical industry does not exploit increased pest and disease infestations as a profiteering opportunity disguised as altruism (as had been the case of GMOs and “golden rice“).
A discussion about the impacts of climate change on agriculture would not be complete without addressing biofuels. Biofuels was perhaps the most contentious topic at CSD-17. There is tremendous pressure, also cloaked in clean energy altruism, to ramp up the rate of biofuel production. Unless this agenda is carried out with utmost attention to equity and long-term environmental sustainability, it will likely be disastrous and perpetuate an already violent and inequitable ideology whereby the Western world assumes entitlement to global commons like water and other ecosystem services. Expected increase of biofuel monoculture production will lead to increased rates of biodiversity loss and genetic erosion. A possible compromise may lie in prioritizing third-generations biofuel crops over first and second generation. Finding a fair biofuel solution is a significant topic that cannot be adequately addressed here. The main point is that arable land must be used to strengthen food security in the Global South as opposed to fueling (pardon the pun) excessive consumption behaviors in the western world.
As you can see there are inextricable connections between climate change and agriculture that need to be addressed specifically. We cannot “wait until Copenhagen” to tackle climate change as was suggested by one delegate at CSD-17. The related trends and challenges above should have been brought to the table during CSD-16, the data gathering year of this thematic cycle. This would have positioned CSD-17 to more effectively develop specific policy recommendations that allow agriculture to not only adapt to climate change, but mitigate. Agriculture and forestry can be part of the solution through carbon conservation, sequestration, and substitution, and establishing ecologically designed agricultural systems that can provide a buffer against extreme weather. Other solutions include permaculture practices, water harvesting, infiltration pits, drought-tolerant crops, multiple cropping and polyculture systems, wild plant harvesting, agroforestry and mulching, use of local genetic diversity, and soil organic matter enhancement. As the TWN document concludes, “The diversity of these systems, and the creativity and knowledge of family farmers and indigenous communities are assets of great value for solving the daunting problems affecting agriculture in the 21st century.”
