Civil society concern over the Hague conference on agriculture and climate change

Civil Society Statement of Concern on the Hague Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change (October 31 – November 5): To: Mr. Maxime Verhagen, Minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, The Netherlands Mr. Ato Teferra Derebew, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ethiopia Mr. Enrique Dominguez Lucero, Minister of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and FoodMr. David Carter, Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, New Zealand Mr. Lars Peder Brekk, Minister of Agriculture and Food, Norway Ms. Thi Xuan Thu Nguyen, Vice Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Vietnam Mr. Robert Zoellick, President, World Bank Mr. Jacques Diouf, Director-General, Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)   We, the undersigned civil society organizations from around the world, look with concern to the upcoming Hague Conference.  Hosted by the Netherlands Government in cooperation with the Governments of Ethiopia, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Vietnam, the World Bank and the FAO, the conference aims to produce a roadmap of “concrete actions linking agriculture-related investments, policies and measures, to the transition to lower carbon-emitting climate resilient growth.”    Climate change threatens the livelihoods and food security of billions of the planet’s poor and vulnerable, and it is urgent to get both the analysis and solutions right.  Getting it right also means following a correct process, including by involving those whose livelihoods are most at risk.  Top down solutions are not legitimate solutions.   Participation and transparency   We are concerned about a lack of transparency, participation and consultation with governments, farmers and others in civil society in preparing for the conference and its “roadmap”.  The process addresses agriculture and climate linkages, yet it is not evident that those representing developing countries at UN climate change negotiations where these linkages are being actively negotiated were also included. A regional pre-conference was organized in Africa but not in other regions, raising further concerns about uneven participation.   Ecological versus industrial agriculture   The industrial model of agricultural production threatens the viability of ecosystems and contributes massively to climate change.  Nothing less than a system change is needed in the face of the climate change threat.  The ecological model of agricultural production, based on principles that create healthy soils and cultivate biological diversity, and which prioritise farmers and traditional knowledge, is climate-resilient. This is “climate-smart” agriculture.    There is also a critical need to reverse the economic concentration of global markets – particularly for grains, livestock and food processing – that has led to unsustainable forms of industrial agriculture worldwide and the bulk of the emissions from the agriculture sector.  Unfortunately, the program agenda does not appear to address these necessary system changes in any significant way.    Avoid questionable technological fixes   The conference should avoid discussing costly and unproven technological fixes such as genetically modified organisms and other patented technologies and practices.  These technologies are not only prohibitively costly for developing countries, but also create new forms of corporate control over agricultural plant and animal genetic resources.[1]  Their safety is in doubt, and environmental, social and economic harm has already occurred from their use. They threaten to hinder rather than enhance agricultural adaptation to climate change.   A focus on adaptation   Adaptation to climate change in the agriculture sector should be the main priority of this conference. It must emphasize identified adaptation priorities of developing countries and the provision of steady and reliable public finance to developing countries that will have to cope with the worst consequences of climate change.  In addition, adaptation financing should be in the form of grants, not loans. Developed country mitigation and “offsetting” priorities should not and cannot drive the design of climate adaptation strategies.   Public finance not carbon markets   While much is being made of its market possibilities, we must emphatically state that linking soil carbon and carbon markets is not the solution for mitigation or adaptation in the agricultural sector. Money from a speculative market is neither steady nor reliable, and could mean disaster for food security and livelihoods in developing countries.  Moreover, “innovative” market-based approaches distract attention from the responsibility of developed countries for their historic emissions, and their obligations to finance adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. Carbon market mechanisms actually finance the mitigation commitments of developed countries through “offsetting” projects in developing countries, thereby allowing them to continue rather than change their unsustainable production and consumption patterns, while shifting the burden of mitigation and increasing the burden of adaptation to developing countries.   Implement rather than ignore IAASTD findings   The critical issues of agriculture, food security and climate change have in fact been addressed at length in the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD).  Initiated by the World Bank and FAO, sponsored by additional UN agencies and approved by 58 governments, the IAASTD is considered as the “Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of agriculture,” having drawn on the work of over 400 experts over a six year process.   As a result, the IAASTD contains some of the most complete and authoritative sets of policy and investment options to strengthen the productivity and resilience of the world’s food and agricultural systems, while prioritizing social equity and sustainability. The consultative, multi-stakeholder process that created the assessment imbues its findings and policy options with legitimacy; and its findings were welcomed by many of the developing countries that suffer the effects of hunger and food insecurity most severely.    The Conference ignores at its peril the IAASTD. The World Bank and the FAO should be championing the IAASTD, rather than attempting to ignore or subvert it.  Given the World Bank’s highly criticized track record on agriculture, its spearheading of the Hague process warrants close scrutiny.   Conclusion   We demand that the Hague Conference support fair and effective solutions to the agriculture and climate crises. We call on it to champion a global transition to ecological agriculture, avoid questionable technological fixes, focus on enabling farmers to adapt to climate change, and ensure adequate public financing for agriculture. Many of these recommendations are embodied in the IAASTD, reflecting broad public consultation, and should be endorsed by this process, and implemented by governments and international organizations, including the World Bank and FAO.   We believe that the international food and agriculture community, in particular, small scale farmers, laborers, indigenous peoples, women and civil society organizations engaged on issues of food security, food sovereignty, the right to food, and the preservation and use of traditional knowledge are essential to this debate and are providing practical, just and affordable solutions to the problems of food security and climate change.  They need to be heard. The international roadmap of “concrete actions” will first and foremost impact smallholder farmers worldwide, and any process that ignores their voices will be questioned for lack of legitimacy.   31 October, 2010 Signatories (92):   ActionAid International African Centre for Biosafety, South Africa Agrecol (Association for AgriCulture & Ecology), Germany Argentine Movement of Organic Production (MAPO), Argentina ASEED Europe Asociación Nacional de Empresas Comercializadores de Productores del Campo (ANEC), MexicoBharat Jan Vigyan Jatha (BJVJ), India Biofuel Watch, UK/US Biowatch South Africa Both Ends, Netherlands Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale (CRBM), ItalyCEEweb for Biodiversity, Hungary CENESTA, the Centre for Sustainable Development, Iran Center for Development Programs in the Cordillera (CDPC), Philippines Center for Food Safety, USA Centro Para La Autonomía Y Desarrollo De Pueblos Indígenas (CADPI), Nicaragua COECOCEIBA-Amigos de la Tierra Costa Rica Consumers Association of Penang, Malaysia Corporate Europe Observatory DoctorsEnviroVoice, New Zealand Earthlife Africa eThekwini Branch, South Africa Ecological Society of the Philippines Ecologistas en Accion, Spain Econexus, UK Edmonds Institute, USA ETC Group Fair, Italy Focus on the Global South Food and Water Europe FLO Centroamérica, Central America Friends of the Earth International Friends of the Earth, Malaysia Fundación Ambiente Y Sociedad, Ecuador Gaia Foundation Global Exchange, USA Global South Initiative, Nepal Grassroots International Green Foundation, India Health and Environment Action Team, Tanzania Hivos, Netherlands Indonesia Organic Alliance (IOA) Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, USA Institute for cultural research and action (ICRA) India Institute for Nonviolent Economics, USA Institute for Responsible Technology, USA Institute for Sustainable Development, Ethiopia International Center for Technology Assessment, USA International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Jeunes Volontaires pour l'Environnement-International, TogoJINUKUN – Coalition pour la Protection du Patrimoine Génétique Africain  (COPAGEN), Benin Joint Effort to Save the Environment (JESE) and smallholder farmers of Rwenzori district, Uganda Kaana Foundation for Outreach Programs, Uganda Kalanjium Women farmers Association, India Knoll Farms, USA League for Pastoral Peoples and Endogenous Livestock Development, Germany Milieudefensie / Friends of the Earth Netherlands Millennium Institute, USA (President as co-chair of IAASTD) Movement for the Advancement of Sustainable Agriculture Philippines (MASA), Philippines Network for a GE free Latin America NOAH - Friends of the Earth Denmark Oakland Institute, USA Organic Agriculture Program-Office of the Provincial Agriculturist, Negros Occidental, Philippines Organic Consumers Association, USA Organizacion Internacional Agripecuaria, Argentina Partners for the Land & Agricultural Needs of Traditional Peoples (PLANT), USA Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific  Pesticide Action Network North America Pesticide Action Network, Germany Pesticide Eco-Alternatives Center (PEAC), China Platform Aarde Boer Consument, Netherlands Practical Action, UK Red de Acción en Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas de América latina (RAPAL PAN latinoamérica), Latin America and the Caribbean Rural Advancement Foundation International, USA Servicio de información mesoamericano sobre la agricultura sostenible, Central AmericaSoCCSKSarGENDS - Alliance for Genuine Development, (AGENDA) Inc., PhilippinesSouth Asian Dialogues on Ecological Democracy (SADED), India Soy Alliance, UK Sustainable Community Development Services (SCODE), Kenya Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Pakistan Tamilnadu Resource Team, India Tanzania Organic Agriculture Movement Third World Network Uganda Environmental Education Foundation (UEEF), UgandaUnidad de la fuerza indigena y campesina (UFIC), Mexico Unnayan Onneshan, Bangladesh Washington Biotechnology Action Council, USA Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Network (WaSH-Net), Sierra Leone Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom' (WILPF) Women's Collective , India Xarxa de Consum Solidari, Spain Xmin Y Solidarity Fund, Netherlands