Megan Moylan – MSc CCAFS student. Ryan Institute, NUIG

Shock-Responsive Social Protection

The frequency and severity of shocks is ever increasing as we continue to battle with the ongoing effects of climate change. These shocks are particularly devastating for already vulnerable communities, such as those living below the poverty line as well as those dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods. People in the humanitarian, disaster risk management and social protection sectors are working to improve systems to ensure that responses to emergencies can be more effective in helping the most vulnerable to adapt. Social protection is already being used to help those in poverty or in situations of crisis like illness or loss of employment. The challenge is to adapt these programmes to allow them to respond to shocks and disasters so that they can complement or even substitute current methods of emergency response.

This adaptation of existing social protection programmes and systems to cope with shocks is called “shock-responsive social protection”. This term is used to bring attention to shocks that affect large populations simultaneously (covariate shocks), such as drought. Covariate shocks can lead to loss of income or assets from say, the reduction of agricultural yield. These types of shocks, lead to an increase in demand for assistance, meaning that programmes need to have access to varying amounts of funds and resources depending on the scale of the shock.

Situations such as earthquakes, floods or conflict can disrupt services which can cause problems for social protection systems and the way that they function. Staff may not be able to get to work, payment infrastructure can be damaged, or funds could be diverted to somewhere of higher priority. Recipients may be displaced either internally or abroad, making them unable to reach the point in which they access their assistance, or they may lose identification documents. For social protection programmes to still be useful under these difficult circumstances, they must be prepared with contingency plans in place and be able to adjust their regular programmes when necessary. It is in these scenarios that shock-reponsive social protection is vital.

Some of the ways in which governments are working on this adaptation is by providing top ups to beneficiaries of social protection in times of crisis or by temporarily allowing new beneficiaries affected by disasters to benefit from assistance. Some humanitarian agencies temporarily put systems in place that can be absorbed by current social protection programmes once the disaster has passed. All social protection programmes can be altered to take the occurance of shocks into consideration. For example, by prioritising disaster prone areas, or adjusting the payment schedule of cash transfers to fit with seasonal vulnerabilities. However, these systems are only one part of the solution, many other forms of humanitarian aid will also be needed.

The social protection sector is eager to expand their skillset to make their programmes more responsive to shocks but this would require more sectors to collaborate. The disaster risk management sector has tools that could be helpful, such as early warning systems and vulnerability assessments. This strategic coordination between sectors is crucial for being more shock responsive and helping the most vulnerable.

Sources & further reading:

https://socialprotection.org/learn/glossary/shock-responsive-social-protection

https://www.wfp.org/publications/10-things-you-wish-youd-always-known-about-shock-responsive-social-protection

European Commission. 2019. “Social Protection across the Humanitarian-Development Nexus. A Game Changer in Supporting People through Crises”. Tools and Methods Series No. 26. European Comission.

Gender-Sensitive Social Protection

Social protection is a crucial tool for adressing shocks, vulnerability, gender equality and poverty. It can be the difference between a child going to bed hungry or missing school. It can enable people to access essential health care and adapt more easily to climate related shocks. Expanding the coverage and scope of social protection programmes to ensure that they reach the most vulnerable is essential for preventing households from falling into poverty during times of distress.

Women and children are over-represented among those living in poverty across the world. For example, women between the ages of 24 and 34 are 25% more likely to live below the poverty line and female headed households are nearly 50% more likely to be suffering from extreme poverty than male headed households. COVID-19 has only futher exacerbated this trend. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 5 (SDG5) aims to address these issues of gender inequality; ensuring equal access to resources, property ownership and financial sercvices for women, promoting empowerment and increasing resilience.

If social protection programmes are established with gender specific vulnerabilities and structural inequalities in mind, it can contribute to gender transformational change. This would involve gender specific programmes tailored towards women in their design, implementation and financing features (Camilletti et al., 2022). Addressing gender inequality through social protection has proven to be a successful way to achieve gender transformative results. Especially for improving girls’ access to education, women’s health and reduced poverty.

However, as of now, much work is to be done to achieve these desired results. In the rural communities in which they are most needed, challenges persist in making the programmes accessible to women. Women are likely to be excluded from many social protection programmes, as they often target the formal sector in which women are under-represented. This includes insurance, pensions and social legislation. Programmes that focus on redistributing assets to women, that tackle age-related and work-related vulnerabilities like childcare are very effective. Public works, unemployment insurance and tax polices are less so. Cash transfers are one of the most effective methods of providing assets to women, rather than employment schemes.

In order for social protection to be beneficial for women, access to social protection within the labour market must be extended to include the informal sector where women are more represented. Women shoulder the care of children and older relatives, often coming in the way of holding down a career, preventing income and economic independence. An important cause of this is that contributory schemes like pensions, benefit full-time, formal employment. As such, women’s benefits tend to be much lower than for men. Programmes would need more of a focus on assisting women in the household, like caring for elderly or disabled family members.

Gender sensitive social protection programmes address gender differences and inequality. Benefits must be constructed with the goal of mitigating these differences. Programmes need to be assigned in a way that accomodates different employment paths. For example, for mothers and children, univeral maternity benefits that provide income security for a sufficient period before and after childbirth is essential. This should coincide with paternity benefits to reduce the household labour burden for women and encourage shared responsibility of parenthood. Adjustments in pensions and the required number of contributory years can also help compensate for loss of income during years spent caring for elderly family members. Essential health care service packages must also be tailored towards women’s needs, including maternal health and childbirth, sexual health, cervical checks and assistance in cases of sexual violence.

For social protection to reach all women, schemes must be accessible in rural and urban areas. The best way to achieve this is to combine programmes with national policies that support gender equality. Electronic delivery methods are also an effective way to reach remote areas. However, a disparity remains with women’s access to technology and banking and as such, alternatives are needed. Social protection itself will not solve all gender equality issues but if done right, it has the potential to greatly reduce the gender gap.

How to design gender-sensitive social protection systems

Sources & further reading:

https://www.unicef.org/documents/social-protection-gender-equality-findings

UN Sustainable Development Goals https://sdgs.un.org/

Camilletti, E., Nesbitt-Ahmed, Z., & Subrahmanian, R. (2022). Promoting Gender-Transformative Change through Social Protection.

Luttrell, C. and Moser, C., 2004, ‘Gender and Social Protection’, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London

Social protection’s role in reducing the vulnerability of climate migrants

Climate change is now widely understood to be a leading factor for climate induced migration. As such, planning for and facilitating migration is becomming increasingly important for reducing the future costs and increasing human security. However, concrete policy and systems for appropriately managing migration are still lacking. Ongoing research is demonstrating that innovative social protection programmes can play an important role in addressing the root causes of and facilitating climate induced migration (Schwan & Yu, 2017).

Social protection refers to “all public and private initiatives that provide income or consumption transfers to the poor, protect the vulnerable against livelihood risks and enhance the social status and rights of the marginalised” (Devereux & Sabates-Wheeler, 2004).

In order for countries to reduce the occurances of climate induced displacement, they must plan and prepare for natural disasters and extreme weather events and take the appropriate steps to ensure that all people have access to an adequate standard of living. People are more likely to leave their homes if they are not provided adequate social assistance to adapt to the climate related impacts. Social protection has been proven an efficient method for strenghtening the resilience of communities against climate change.

However, migration is not always negative. In fact, it can be a very powerful tool for coping and adapting to shocks. Social protection can help provide the means for people to migrate in times of distress through the receipt of regular cash transfers. The guaranteed income stream lowers the cost of migration, allowing households to broaden their economic base through migration; by moving to cities with more opportunities for higher wage employment that can grant them the opportunity to move out of poverty. Staying home in areas that lack food security only exacerbates poverty.

Social protection can offer an opportunity to reduce the vulnerability of migrants, migrating in response to climate change impacts. However, there are many barriers in the way of migrants accessing social protection benefits. As of now, access to social protection is constrained for non-nationals, including displaced people and migrants living in a country affected by a shock. Additionally, many migrants work in the informal sector, which means that they do not have access to social security benefits. This type of employment already lends them more vulnerable to shocks. Social protection programmes will need to be tailored with migration and displacement in mind.

Sources & further reading:

Longhurst, D., & Slater, R. (2022). Shock-responsive social protection: what is known about what works in fragile and conflict-affected situations?.

Mueller, V., Gray, C., Handa, S., & Seidenfeld, D. (2020). Do social protection programs foster short-term and long-term migration adaptation strategies?. Environment and development economics, 25(2), 135-158.

Schwan, S., & Yu, X. (2017). Social protection as a strategy to address climate-induced migration. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management.

Climate-induced migration: The importance of achieving refugee status

Oxfam Great Britain, climate migrant installation. Copyright: © Andy Aitchison / Oxfam

According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, since 2008 over 318 million people globally have been forcibly displaced from their homes by floods, windstorms, earthquakes or droughts, 30.7 million in 2020 alone. This is the equivalent of one person every second (Apap & du Revel, 2021). Climate change is possibly the single most pressing issue of our time and disaster displacement is one of its greatest consequences. Entire populations are already suffering the impacts but these impacts will be felt hardest by already vulnerable communities who have fewer alternatives for adaptation. The climate induced migration nexus is widely acknowledge but as of now, the international response is limited and protection for those affected remains inadequate. The United Nations (UN) 2030 Sustainable Development Goals include several targets on migration including SDG 10.7 – “Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.” However, so far the progress towards achieving this goal has been limited.

One of the most critical challenges for these people who are often described as “climate refugees” – is that there is no clear definition for this term or category of people. The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) does not currently endorse the term nor are they covered by the 1951 Refugee Convention, leaving them even more vulnerable. Refugee status is reserved for those in fear of persecution for their race, nationality, religion, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and are unable to seek protection in their home countries. However, climate refugees are still rendered stateless by circumstances beyond their control. This lack of definition leaves people in limbo and prevents them from accessing asylum, providing them with security and stability in a safer place.

Creator: Tavis Ford. Copyright: Tavis Ford. Flickr

While many of those forced to migrate do so within their own countries borders, some move abroad and are referred to as “externally displaced persons”. However, most of the research in this field is focussed on internally displaced persons, meaning it is harder to get a clear overview of the scale of cross-border migration resulting from environmental disasters. The lack of data on the matter is also due to the legal void regarding the status of external climate migrants and prevents the implementation of an international legal framework to address the issue.

The link between climate change and forced displacement has been acknowledged among many international organisations. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) has stated that climate related impacts are worsening living conditions for already vulnerable communities and acting as a trigger for migration. The UN has made efforts to establish a universal definition for what constitutes a “climate refugee”. However, this does not mean that climate migrants are granted refugee status and countries must come together to make this new definition legally binding to ensure the support and protection of these people.

COP26 missed the opportunity to draw attention to the issue of climate refugees. The Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley and the Foreign Minister of Tuvalu, Simon Kofe set the tone for the opening ceremony by highlighting the threat that is rising sea levels for many island nations. However, the link between the “pressing issues of human mobility under climate change” discussed in these speeches and the global refugee crisis was not made throughout the entirety of the conference. Expanding access to asylum for climate refugees is crucial for upholding commitment to human rights as well having the benefit of bolstering economic growth.

Sources & further reading:

IPCC Sixth Assessment Report 2022 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/

https://www.unhcr.org/en-ie/climate-change-and-disasters.html#:~:text=The%20impacts%20of%20climate%20change,the%20world%20that%20host%20refugees.

The UN Sustainable Development Goals https://sdgs.un.org/goals

Zurich.com. (2022). Retrieved 28 August 2022, from https://www.zurich.com/en/media/magazine/2022/there-could-be-1-2-billion-climate-refugees-by-2050-here-s-what-you-need-to-know#:~:text=The%20term%20%E2%80%9Cclimate%20refugees%E2%80%9D%20has,disruption.%E2%80%9D%20But%20the%20extent%20of.

The Issue that COP26 Overlooked: Climate Refugees

Lab-grown dairy: Moving towards a cow free future?

Recent years have seen a growing popularity in both plant-based and lab-grown alternatives to traditional meat and dairy products as people become more aware of the impacts of the agricultural industry on the environment. While there are currently a plethora of meat subsitutes on the market, there is a demand for animal-free dairy products that can mimic the taste, texure and nutritional value of the real thing. The plant-based milk market already accounts for over 35% of the U.S. plant-based food market. The dairy industry is responsible for 4% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, that is nearly two billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent every year. 37% of global methane emissions come from cattle production. Methane is a very powerful gas that is 25 times more effective at trapping radiation as CO2. Dairy also consumes a large amount of resources like land and water. If we are to continue to reach the demand of a rapidly increasing global population, we need to find more sustainable alternatives for the milk, cheese, cream and butter that we so enjoy.

Plant-based dairy has been around for centuries, but has only become popularised in the West since the 1970’s, with soy milk leading the way for those with lactose intolerance. The popularity of soy milk has since declined with worries regarding its impact on the environment and links to deforestation, other types of plant-based dairy have taken its place. Non-soy plant milks are now the fastest growing category in the dairy market. Consumption of cows milk in the UK has dropped by 50% since the 1970’s.

Companies like TurtleTree Labs and Perfect Day have successfully recreated the proteins found in conventional cows milk without the use of animals. Perfect Day have developed a form of genetically modified microflora that produces both whey and casein through a fermentation process called “precision fermentation”. The yeast is used in a controlled environment to create fermentation byproducts and the two processes simply employ different yeasts for a different purpose and output. TurtleTree Labs use cells from mammals inlcuding cows, goats, sheep and camels, and grow them in a lab and encourage them to produce milk in large bioreactors. The goal of these lab-based milks is to produce an alternative that mimics the taste, texture and nutritional value of cows milk that could convince even non-vegans to make the switch.

While it is difficult to produce animal free full fat milks that mimic the taste and texture of cows milk, these lab grown alternatives are doing a great job. The nutritional values match up with conventional milk that has approximately 3.3% protein, of which is casein and 18% is whey. The texture and taste provided by milk fat has been harder to achieve and have led the companies to shift towards processed products like ice-cream, yoghurt and cheese. With lab-grown dairy still being relatively new, it is currently too expensive for most dairy companies to take on, however, it is seen as a lucrative option to consider for the future.

Why do we want more animal free alternatives?

For many consumers, sustainability is an increasing concern when food shopping. People are becoming more aware of the carbon footprint of their food choices and see animal-free alternatives as a way to avoid contributing to the environmental impacts of dairy farming. 39% of consumers say that they choose plant-based milks due to health reasons. Dairy alternatives are often lower in calories, however, many lack the same levels of nutrition as cow’s milk. Increasing the nutritional value of alternatives is one of the greatest challenges the industry faces. Additionally, animal welfare is another concern leading many consumers towards plant-based dairy. With the increase in options available, more consumers are considering vegan lifestyles.

Sources & further reading:

https://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/follow-the-food/the-green-milk-made-from-cells.html

https://theconversation.com/lab-grown-dairy-the-next-food-frontier-117963

https://www.aptean.com/de/insights/blog/plant-based-lab-made-dairy-popularity

Is sustainable palm oil production possible?

Palm oil is one of the most versaltile and cost efficient vegetable oils, making it the most widely used vegetable oil in the world, particularly in processed foods, but also household cleaners, cosmetics, as well as biofuel and oleochemicals. Palm oil constitutes 36% of the total oil produced worldwide and the demand and production is ever increasing (Lye Chew, 2021). In 1995, 15 million tonnes of palm oil was produced, in 2019 it had increased to 65 million tonnes. The Food and Agriculture Association (FAO) estimates that if we continue along this path, demand will increase to a staggering 156 million tonnes by 2050 (Lye Chew, 2021). The distribution of palm oil is unequally divided with 86% of the world’s supply produced in Malaysia and Indonesia.

Palm oil has played an important role in the socioeconomic development of many of the Asian, Latin American and African regions in which it is produced, creating employment and contributing to poverty reduction. Its production supports the livelihoods of 4.5 million people across Indonesia and Malaysia. Palm oil creates jobs in rural areas where alternative employment is scarce. However, it also has detrimental effects on our environment, causing deforestation as well as community conflict.

The versatility of palm oil expands beyond a food additive, with more than 50% of the palm oil entering Europe being used for biofuel, a renewable and non-toxic fuel (Green Peace, 2019). With a larger yield than other vegetable oils, palm oil is better suited as a biofuel with a potential to produce 3.93 tonnes per hectare per year. This is over three times the yield for rapeseed oil. This is still a land-intensive process. If the rest of the world had the same demand for palm oil biofuel as Europe, a further 4,300,000 hectares of land in the tropics would be needed.

Palm oil contributes to large scale destruction in the tropics through land clearing, deforestation and disruption of biodiversity. To meet the growing demand for palm oil, 5.5 million hectares of forest have been removed for palm oil plantations. It has also threatened the habitat of many endangered species. Half of the Bornean orangutan population has been devastated in the last 16 years as a result and globally, 193 endangered species are threatened by the expansion of palm oil plantations (Green Peace, 2019). 43% of the Tesso Nilo National Park in Sumatra, which is the home of the endangered Sumatran tiger, has been overrun by illegal palm oil plantations (WWF).

Global production of palm oil is also causing harm to air quality, soil and water. This is a result of the excessive pesticide use and liquid waste or effluent that is dumped into waterways, having a knock-on effect on biodiversity and the health of people. In Indonesia, around 25 different pesticides are used with little regulation.

What about sustainable palm oil?

Certified sustainable palm oil (CSPO) is produced by plantations that have been independently audited and certified against the RSPO (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil) standard. Sustainable palm oil is produced under promises that it will not be responsible for any deforestation, peat development or exploitation. However, a debate surrounds sustainable palm oil, with many questioning its sustainability. Many major food companies such as Nestle, use RSPO certified palm oil in their products. The RSPO only banned its members from participating in deforestation in 2018 but many of its plantations are said to still be doing so without consequence. During the forest fires in Indonesia in 2015, many of the palm oil plantations responsible were RSPO certified (Green Peace, 2019).

Sources:

https://www.earthrise.studio/reads/is-palm-oil-the-most-destructive-or-versatile-vegetable-oil

Gatti et al. (2018). Science of The Total Environment. Sustainable palm oil may not be so sustainable

Russell. (2018). Palm Oil: Economic and Environmental Impacts

Chew, C. L., Ng, C. Y., Hong, W. O., Wu, T. Y., Lee, Y. Y., Low, L. E., … & Chan, E. S. (2021). Improving sustainability of palm oil production by increasing oil extraction rate: A review. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 14(4), 573-586.

Greenpeace International. (2019). Greenpeace International Annual Report 2019.

Green shoots for grey cities – What the COVID-19 pandemic taught us about our green spaces

Path by lake in Phoenix Park, Dublin © P L Chadwick cc-by-sa/2.0 :: Geograph Ireland — Phoenix Park, Dublin. Geograph Ireland

When the world came to a halt in March of 2020, people were confined to their homes, factories were shut and roads became quiet. In Ireland, the population was confined to within 5km of their homes. And with that, people relied on what was on their doorstep to support their mental and physical health. The COVID-19 pandemic changed the way that people viewed and interacted with their natural environment. Whether you lived in a densly populated urban jungle or the rural countryside, drastically impacted your quality of life. For those living in urban areas, public parks and green spaces remained open as essential infrastucture and became a refuge for people throughout the pandemic. Urban nature became a source of resilience but lack of access became a problem for many. COVID-19 highlighted the inadequacy of green spaces for urban populations and reinforced inequities regarding unequal access to parks in relation to size and quality.

Access to green space is an issue of social justice and the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how many people are unable to access important green areas. In many cases BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) and lower income communities lacked access as these communities statistically share less space and have less access to public parks. It is these communities who will be hardest hit by COVID-19. Increasing green spaces in these areas is vital as it can help improve community cohesion, and reduce lonliness. These communities will also benefit from reduced socio-economic related inequalities in health when living in greener communities.

However, where people were able to enjoy access to these areas, many have recognised the importance of green spaces during the lockdown. Regular access to these spaces for as little as 30 minutes a day can help to reduce morbidity and mortality. This can be done through simple exericse like walking. Which many people took advantage of during lockdown. Green spaces also faciliate recovery from mental stress, and psychological relaxation as well as improving social cohesion by providing a safe meeting point for people to gather outdoors at a safe distance.

Green spaces also have the ability to improve pro-environmental behaviour, by providing a space for people to enjoy nature and see wildlife, sparking a positive emotional response. In addition to improving public health, greenspaces also have environmental benefits, like increasing wildlife and reducing impacts of air and noise pollution. They can reduce the risk of flooding by absorbing excess rainfall and reduce effects of climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide emissions, and provide shade, thus reducing temperatures. They are also critically important for biodiversity conservation. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), every city should have at least 9 square meters of urban green space per person. This space should be safe, clean and accessible.

It is vital that governments take note of the lessons learned during the pandemic and make efforts to increase urban green spaces. This can be done by simply adding greenery to grey spaces or uprading already existing parks, improving basic facilities could make them more usuable spaces for the local community. The creation of new parks will increase accessibility and creating large scale regional parks in the urban fringe will provide access to large numbers of people without the need for a car. To do this properly, cities need to adopt whats called an ecosystem planning approach, which incorporates a nature based design to make cities more livable and resilient. This requires managing cities as ecosystems. Some cities, such as Toronto, incorporate this method by mapping the green dots of trees canopy cover to ensure that urban forest is well-managed. Decision makers need to develop landscapes with the benefit of plants and soil in mind.

Urban apartment garden, lush building. | Free Photo - rawpixel

Unfortunately, due to the costs caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, together with budget cuts, proposals to increase urban green space may be hard to achieve. Additionally, plans may fail because they are lacking the tools and techniques to implement something like an ecosystem based urban design. COVID-19 has taught us that the current quality and quantity of green space in our cities is inadequate. As we emerge from this pandemic, more focus on ecosystem based design and an increase in urban green spaces is crucial if we want our cities to continue to be pleasant to live in and also improve biodiversity and climate adaption.

References and further reading:

Bai, X. (2018, July 4). Advance the ecosystem approach in cities. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05607-x

City leaders aim to shape green recovery from coronavirus crisis. (2020, May 6). the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/01/city-leaders-aim-to-shape-green-recovery-from-coronavirus-crisis

Coronavirus park closures hit BAME and poor londoners most. (2020, July 1). The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/10/coronavirus-park-closures-hit-bame-and-poor-londoners-most

COVID curbed carbon emissions in 2020 — but not by much. (2021, January 15). Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3

Life after coronavirus – The importance of the green spaces within our cities | Space. (n.d.). Space. https://www.spacearchitects.co.uk/blog/life-after-coronavirus-the-importance-of-the-green-spaces-within-our-cities

Life after lockdown: How to make green space accessible to all. (2021). Friends of the Earth. https://friendsoftheearth.uk/nature/life-after-lockdown-how-make-green-space-accessible-all

Sivarajah, S. (2020, June 11). How cities can add accessible green space in a post-coronavirus world. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/how-cities-can-add-accessible-green-space-in-a-post-coronavirus-world-139194

Sustainable diets at COP26: The missing ingredient

Inside Cop26's carbon-heavy food menus with burger 'worse than 10-mile car ride' - Euro News Source — Inside COP26’s carbon-heavy food menus. Source: Euro News Source

Although there were several achievements of last month’s COP26 in Glasgow, there were also many shortfalls and issues that were ignored. One of these issues is that of sustainable diets. The main priority of the COP26 conference is to ensure the goals of the Paris Agreement are kept alive, to keep global warming below 2°C or preferably, 1.5°C. What we eat plays a major role in achieving this goal. Reducing the global consumption of animal products is the single biggest way a person can reduce their carbon footprint. The United Nations say that the farming of livestock accounts for 14.5% of global greenhouse (GHG) gas emissions, and this is a modest estimate. This is the equivalent of the emissions produced by the transport sector, which had a whole day of the conference dedicated to it. With animal products taking up 60% of the menu at COP26, which activist group Animal Rebellion compared to “serving cigarettes at a lung cancer conference”, it seems that despite the weight of scientific evidence supporting the benefits of a shift towards plant based diets, the penny has yet to drop among those in decision making positions.

We can see that the topic of sustainable diets and dietary change is not at the top of the agenda by looking at the NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions). Out of the countries that submitted their NDCs before the UNFCCC deadline of July 30th 2021, only Mexico and the UK mentioned dietary change, but made no reference to meat and dairy consumption. Other nations have acknowledged the need for changes in the food system, but focussed on reforming agricultural production to make it more sustainable through technological innovation rather than changing food consumption habits. The issue with this is that there are limits to how sustainable food production can be, particularly livestock farming and the subsequent impact it has on the environment (land use, deforestation, methane emmissions). Technological advancements will only have a small impact if our consumption patterns continue on as ‘business as usual’. We need policies that will focus on the reduction of livestock numbers rather than a focus on changing farming methods.

Other secors such as finance and energy were also allocated their own days, but there was no day dedicated to agriculture or food systems. Farming was discussed within Nature day and there was discussions about reducing deforestation, but little about reducing meat consumption, food waste and clear policies regarding changing agricultural practices or introducing subsidies to ease the transition for farmers to more plant based and sustainable farming. On Nature day, Thomas Vilsack, the US secretary of agriculture said that Americans do not need to reduce their consumption of meat to keep global warming under 2°C but suggests that livestock can be made more sustainable and methane emissions can be reduced by reducing livestock by 30%, using food additives and changing feed, and capturing methane for biogas. The most significant announcement made regarding agriculture and farming at the summit was the Global Methane Pledge. The US and the EU led the pledge and over 100 countries signed, committing to reduce methane emissions by 30% by 2030. Methane is one of the most potent GHGs, and while it only lasts in the atmosphere for decades as opposed to the centuries of carbon dioxide. It has significantly longer lasting effects on global warming. Although this pledge is a great step in the right direction, a study shows that only 18% of livestock producers measure even some of their methane emissions (Coller FAIRR Protein Producer Index, 2021). It will be interesting to see how the sector will overcome this barrier and achieve this goal by 2030.

Pro-vegan groups at COP26 noted that there was more discussion of meat at the conference than there was two years prior, but that policy was still inadequate and lagged far behind the current science. At the beginning of the conference, the UK dairy industry sets out to reach at least net zero on carbon by 2050. They aim to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions by adjusting their practices and identifying the key contibutors and barriers to GHG emission reduction and set a minimum standard for improvement across the industry. Efforts were made by campaigners at COP26 to have recommendations on a move away from animal based diets in the Koronivia report but it was not accepted by any of the countries and as such it did not make it into the final analysis.

Why does this matter?

Studies have shown that even if we reach all of our fossil fuel emission reduction targets, if we don’t change our food consumtion patterns and transform the food system, achieving the other climate targets will be increasingly difficult. A move to more plant based diets will not only have tremendous effects on GHG emission reduction but it also serves a multitude of public health and biodiversity benefits. So, what needs to happen next? Firstly, we need to consume less meat and dairy. Policy makers need to acknolwedge the link between production and consumption by adopting a food systems approach food systems approach that realises that consumption controls production systems. Governments also need to open the conversation about individual consumption patterns and do more to educate and support people to make better decisions for their health and the environment.

There needs to be better regulations in the agriculture and food sectors, to ensure that emissions are being accurately measured, subisidies should be provided to ease the transition for farmers to more plant based farming. There should also be more regulation on food packaging, informing consumers of the carbon footprint of various foods and clearly stating their nutritional values so that consumers are better equipped to make informed decisions.

More information:

Is meat really that bad?

https://unfccc.int/news/world-leaders-kick-start-accelerated-climate-action-at-cop26

https://foodresearch.org.uk/blogs/dietary-change-at-cop26-the-missing-ingredient/

https://vanguardrenewables.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Global-Food-System-Emissions-Science-Magazine-110620.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/09/the-cow-in-the-room-why-is-no-one-talking-about-farming-at-cop26-aoe

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/06/americans-can-eat-meat-while-cutting-global-heating-says-agriculture-secretary

IFIAD Conference 2021 – Reflections

As a student in the MSc Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, I was able to attend the annual conference for the Irish Forum for International Agricultural Development (IFIAD). It was very enlightening to be able to hear from key people in the field and the range of opinions held regarding the topics of food security and agriculture and how climate change will affect it. The conference took place in a crossroads between the Food Systems Summit and COP26, discussing the outcomes of the Food Systems Summit and what is left to discuss for COP26.

One of the key issues that was repeated throughout the conference was the idea of trust among smallholder farmers. This remains a big issue, coming in the way of development within food systems, that was first addressed by Sinead Mowlds, an international development consultant and researcher. There is the consensus that there needs to be more transparency regarding the decision making process; policy formation, where finances are allocated and the influence large private sector companies have on these decisions. If farmers are going to implement new practices, there has to be incentives; finances are the most important way to show farmers that they are being supported. Farmers should also be trusted early on to be involved in the decision making process and to encourage engagement. They hold important first hand knowledge that is extremely beneficial to policy makers and other stakeholders.

This issue of engagement was repeated by Anna Maria Loboguerrero, who discussed the importance of ensuring youth involvement, as they are the ones who will be able to bring about significant behavioural change such as through the successful Fridays for Future movement led by Greta Thunberg. Policy makers and researchers need to get involved with youth movements, learn the language and give the youth a platform to be heard and have a say in important climate action decisions. Not only the youth but all marginalised groups must be included. The conference ended with the sentiment that, it appears that our governments are lacking a sense of urgency, holding them back from making critical transformational change. How do we work towards communicating this urgency to them?

Fridays for Future 25.01.2018 Berlin, Joerg Farys

An area of polarisation at the conference was that of power structures and the transformation of food systems. While it was agreed that policy is fundamental to bringing about change, the private sector still holds big stakes in the process through lobbying. While this is a be a big issue in much of the world, in countries with more unstable governments, this could have a more substantial impact. Additionally, while many of the speakers thought it was possible that we remain under a 1.5°C warming, there was a lack of consensus as to whether or not the neccessary action would be taken to ensure this globally.

The 2021 IFIAD conference highlighted the key issues facing food systems around the world and the numerous potential solutions. However, there was little concrete guidance as to how to implement these solutions. For example, putting more emphasis on the importance of climate smart agriculture as a means towards mitiagting climate change and its effects, building resilience within communities and bringing that information to farmers, helping them to implement these techniques. Solid goals and targets for governments and stakeholders have to be created and there should be consequences for countries that fail to meet these targets. These are some of the areas that I thought were missing from the 2021 IFIAD conference and that I hope to see discussed at the upcoming COP26.