in sight. Te impending arrival of several political leaders on Friday, the official closing day, meant that negotiators needed to engage in extremely high-level talks to develop some kind of agreement. Aſter several sleepless nights, the negotiators took note of a document called the Copenhagen Accord, emanating from several high-level meetings. Tis accord enshrined the goal of keeping the average temperature rise to 2°C and pledged US$10 billion a year from developed countries over the next three years, rising to US$100 billion a year by 2020, to help poor countries adapt to climate change. None of these commitments, however, were binding, and it is unclear that any have been or will be met. Although the Copenhagen negotiations were
unsuccessful overall, they marked the start of a push to formally include agriculture in the negotia- tion outcomes, with the first Agriculture and Rural Development Day providing a convening venue for those concerned about the challenges to agri- culture from climate change. Butons bearing the slogan “No agriculture, no deal!” made their first appearance and have become an increasingly com- mon sight at United Nations negotiations. At the following year’s convention, delegates
arrived in Cancun in late November 2010 with greatly lowered expectations and no plans for the atendance of large numbers of heads of state. With low expectations as a starting point, the eventual outcomes were substantial. Negotia- tors approved a large number of documents, col- lectively called the Cancun Accord. Important elements included the reaffirmation of the 2°C temperature increase target, improved reporting requirements, and the start of a process to design a Green Climate Fund. Te second Agriculture and Rural Development Day was held, with dele- gates pushing negotiators to formally include agri- culture in any outcomes and calling for approval of an official work program on agriculture. Unfor- tunately, the work program was lost in the final days of the negotiations when it got caught up in disagreements about whether individual sectors should be singled out and a perception by some negotiators that a work program would focus only on mitigation and ignore adaptation.
Te 2011 Durban round of negotiations was
widely perceived as particularly important for Africa, because a successful outcome would reflect well on the continent and because Africa is likely to be seriously affected by climate change2 and so would have much to gain from a successful out- come. One of the key challenges was the pend- ing expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. Te protocol set binding targets for emissions for most developed countries (the United States was not a signatory and therefore not a party to the emissions reduction commitments). Without an extension of the protocol, countries would no longer be legally bound to reduce their emissions.
Although the Copenhagen negotiations were unsuccessful overall, they marked the start of a push to formally include agriculture in the negotiation outcomes. With African agriculture especially threatened
by climate change, a major push was made to per- suade the negotiators to include an official work program on agriculture. Te activities of the third Agriculture and Rural Development Day were organized around this goal, and major public fig- ures, including former UN secretary general Kofi Annan and Jacob Zuma, president of South Africa, pressed the negotiators to approve the work pro- gram on agriculture. By the last Friday of the negotiations, it was
unclear whether anything would be achieved. But negotiators agreed to continue their work and extended their string of sleepless nights, ultimately finishing Sunday morning. Te outcome of this effort is called the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. A key element of the platform is that all Kyoto signatories plus the United States agreed to forge a treaty by 2015 that would bring all coun- tries, developed and developing, under a legally binding agreement by 2020. For the first time, China and India, two of the world’s largest emit- ters of greenhouse gases, agreed to this principle.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND AGRICULTURE 41
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126