BURSTAfter years of being virtually ignored, the critical role of food and agriculture in the climate crisis finally has a seat at the table at COP28.
The conference has dedicated a day to the theme of “Food, Agriculture, and Water,” which acknowledges that agriculture accounts for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions and uses 70 percent of water consumed worldwide. The U.N. is expected to release a roadmap to align food systems with the Paris Agreement that will call for wealthy countries to consume less meat. For the first time, even the menus at COP will be mostly plant-based to reflect the conference’s goals.
But bringing food systems into the conversation won’t be enough to fight the climate crisis unless it’s paired with action and accountability. And it could even push us in the wrong direction if we’re served false solutions.
It seems that every few months — sandwiched between stories of climate-related extreme storms, droughts, flooding and fires — a new analysis finds that the world is on course to hurtle past the emissions-reduction targets that would avert the worst harms of climate change. The U.N. itself just published a report that current national climate plans aren’t enough to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
But we’re not beyond hope yet. Scientists have made it clear that every degree we can slow global warming matters for the frequency and severity of storms, our ability to grow food, the health of ecosystems and the number of lives at risk.
They’ve also made it clear that we can’t meet emissions-reduction goals without addressing food and agriculture, even if fossil fuels are immediately phased out, as they absolutely must be.
Despite the meat industry’s attempts at greenwashing, there are promising signs that COP28 might finally address the cow in the room and admit that high-consuming countries, like the United States, need to eat less meat and dairy — a mitigation strategy identified by dozens of studies and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Yet when it comes to agricultural production, the strategies expected to be on the conference agenda still feature a buffet of false solutions like “carbon farming,” “sustainable intensification,” carbon credit and offset schemes, biogas and regenerative agriculture.
In fact, the conference organizers boast a flagship initiative called the COP28 Presidential Action Agenda on Regenerative Landscapes. While we don’t know exactly how this will play out yet, the focus on regenerative has raised flags for many food advocates.
Regenerative agriculture is a bit like a Rorschach test. While there may be a common purpose of restoring soil health and, in doing so, conserving water, sequestering carbon and protecting biodiversity, in practice it’s whatever the producer wants it to be.
There’s no clear definition of “regenerative agriculture” and no standards for how it’s measured. Perhaps that’s why it’s gaining so much traction with agribusinesses. With no definition and even fewer regulations, anything could be called regenerative, even if it’s harming wildlife or not actually providing meaningful climate benefits.
That’s just one of the challenges that the regenerative landscapes agenda faces. As the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) points out, regenerative agriculture is “largely promoted by white males from the Global North.” It’s not rooted in social justice and doesn’t give credit to its origins in Indigenous practices. Without that at the forefront, the initiative risks failing to uphold UNFCCC’s principles of equity and justice.
In addressing food and agriculture, COP28 has much more than carbon emissions and food security on its plate. Global leaders are calling for a united approach to the climate and biodiversity crises. Food systems are intertwined with land, water, biodiversity, nutrition, public health, workers’ rights, Indigenous rights, gender equity, environmental justice, animal welfare, livelihoods, tradition and culture. A major global framework for how to move forward can’t cherry pick one or two of these dimensions.
That’s why COP28’s food and agriculture agenda should be focused on real solutions like agroecology. The U.N. defines agroecology as a science, a set of practices and a social movement that addresses environmental and social issues from farm to fork. With agroecology, there’s a common understanding from the start that food systems are about more than just the crops.
And it emphasizes the importance of including those who are most impacted — not the multinational corporations responsible for destroying rainforests for cheap hamburgers or polluting waterways with pesticides, but elevating the voices of smallholders, peasant farmers, Indigenous growers, and women in agriculture.
COP28 presents an opportunity to transform food and agriculture in a way that slashes emissions while advancing health and justice. But that can only happen if it takes false solutions that could further entrench industrial agriculture off the menu.
Stephanie Feldstein is the Population and Sustainability director at the Center for Biological Diversity.