International Climate Negotiations and Agriculture:

(1)

Sophie Steinkat

(2)

2

International Climate Negotiations and Agriculture:

A Global North-South Debate?

A Qualitative Content Analysis of the UNFCCC Negotiations on the Topic Agriculture

MA Thesis Report

Name: Sophie Steinkat

Student Number: s2260891

University: Leiden University

Major: International Relations

Area of Specialisation: Global Order in Historical Perspective

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Alanna O’Malley

Word Count: 14823

Date of Submission: 10th July 2019

(3)

3

Acknowledgements

I wish to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Department Faculty of International Relations and my thesis supervisor Prof. Dr. Alanna O’Malley, for their assistance and support.

Furthermore, I wish to thank Eric Fee and Christian Tietz from the Umweltbundesamt (UBA) for their assistance and efforts, and especially for the expert knowledge they shared with me throughout this study.

(4)

4

Abstract

This thesis demonstrates that postcolonial structures are reflected in the UNFCCC negotiations on agriculture and that a clear distinction between the key objectives of developed (mitigation of GHG emissions) and developing countries’ (food security) is identifiable. Firstly, the literature review establishes the current state of research on the topic, elaborates concepts, and identifies the theoretical framework underlying the thesis. The second chapter explains the qualitative content analysis conducted to ascertain postcolonial structures within the negotiations. The third chapter presents the results of the analysis, followed by a discussion that critically analyses the research performed, tests the thesis’s hypotheses, and examines the possibilities of how the conclusions drawn can be used to make international cooperation on climate change and agriculture more effective. Finally, the conclusion highlights that international cooperation on agriculture excludes the value of contributions from developing countries’ local entities in consulting on adaptation and climate change action, highlights the research’s limits, and suggests future research projects.

(5)

5

List of Abbreviations

BASIC Brazil, South Africa, India and China

CGIAR Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security COP Conference of Parties

EAA Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance EIG Environmental Integrity Group EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations GDP Gross Domestic Product

GHG Greenhouse Gas

ICSU International Council for Science

IIED International Institute for Environment and Development IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contributions IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISS Institute for Security Studies

KJWA Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture LDCs Least Developed Countries

MDGs Millennium Development Goals MRV Measuring, Reporting and Verification NDCs Nationally Determined Contributions NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

SBSTA Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

UN United Nations

UNCED UN Conference on Environment and Development UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC United Nations Conventions on Climate Change UNGA United Nations General Assembly

US United States of America

WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development WTO World Trade Organisation

(6)

6

The quote of the former Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) highlights the interconnectivity of essential international objectives. These are best and currently defined by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that were adopted in 2015 by all member-states of the UN. Referring to the period of 2016 to 2030, the 17 goals address the overwhelming empirical and scientific evidence that verifies the requirement of a more fundamental sustainable approach, in order to sustain the planet and life on it (Morton et al. 2017: 82). Despite the interconnectivity and universal application of the SDGs, however, the goals are prioritised differently amongst states. For instance, due to the fact that a failure to adapt to the changing climate can constitute a threat to food security in the most vulnerable countries, adaptation to climate change has been generally prioritised in developing countries (IFAD 2019: 4). In addition, global warming and the 2008 food price crisis have brought climate change and food security to the top of the international agenda (FAO 2009: 8). Agriculture plays a significant role in both issues (ibid: 8), and international discussions on climate change increasingly realise the importance of agriculture in both mitigation and adaptation efforts (IFAD 2019: 4).

Yet, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is defined by a lack of environmental effectiveness, which is partly due to a discrepancy between the regime’s institutional design and real-life developments (Happaerts 2015: 238), its demanding political dependence on institutional arrangements (Downs 2000; Barrett 2003; Victor 2011; Young 2011; Hovi et al. 2013), and the structural divide between the global North and the global South (Volger 2017: 395). While many scholars have examined the UNFCCC recently, none have analysed the UNFCCC negotiations on agriculture through a postcolonial perspective.

The topic of agriculture is interesting because it constitutes an intersection of the interests of the global North and the global South. Though characteristics of the agricultural sector vary between these state-groups, they are confronted by the same challenges: decreasing farm

(8)

8

incomes, increasing resource constraints, a rapidly increasing demand for food, and environmental concerns. The increasing international awareness of the significance of agriculture in regard to climate change, has led to its establishment as an individual agenda item within the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) in 2011. Although the adoption of agriculture as a mandate-topic and the vast majority of global North and global South countries consider agriculture as crucial in mitigation actions in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) (FAO 2016), the formal negotiations on agriculture under SBSTA, have moved forward very little since the Conference of Parties (COP) in Marrakech (2016), and negotiators are experiencing a deadlock on addressing mitigation, trade, and differentiated responsibilities of countries (CGIAR 2017).

Why is the UNFCCC negotiation on agriculture facing a deadlock even though the vast majority of all countries consider agriculture as crucial in mitigation actions? This thesis builds on Vogler’s (2017) argument that the postponement and difficulty in the implementation of collective action in regard to agriculture, is rooted in the global North-South divide, and Imber’s (1996) assumption that states act out of their sovereign interest within the UN framework. In addition, this thesis develops a new argument arguing that one major reason for the UNFCCC regime’s lack of effectiveness is that the value of contributions from local entities in developing countries in consulting on culturally sensitive approaches is overlooked. It is relevant to consider the North-South cleavage when analysing the UNFCCC because the “fading” of the Third World has led to an omission of the notions “dependency” and “imperialism” in academic literature, as has been identified by several scholars (Caporaso 1993; Patnaik 1997), and the emergence of the notion “global poverty”, has led to a drastic decrease of references to the North-South divide in the UN’s discourse since the end of the Cold War (Therien 1999: 732). By analysing the relationship between the SDG13 climate action and SDG2 food security within the UNFCCC negotiations on agriculture, this thesis aims at identifying postcolonial structures within the UNFCCC regime. This thesis contributes to an international relations (IR) postcolonial theory approach in the analysis of agricultural international cooperation and, hence, contributes to this academic gap. Postcolonialism is a major critical discourse in humanities and allows for an evaluation of the interaction of dominant and subaltern actors in the negotiating process. The postcolonial approach brings an alternative understanding of universalism with a deliberation and contestation of existing processes with equal respect for the diversity of actors. This is important because while developed states are mainly interested in the mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, many developing countries and most

(9)

9

Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are more concerned with guaranteeing food security, as agriculture largely constitutes their major economic sector and the main livelihood of 75 percent of the poor in developing countries (FAO 2009: 10). In the light of increasing temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events affecting agricultural production systems, particularly those in developing countries, the achievement of the SDG2 is further constrained (ICSU 2017: 40). An effective approach to the implementation of all goals requires effective governance, institutions, partnerships, and intellectual and financial resources. Moreover, the divide between developed and developing countries, must be overcome in order for significant progress to be achieved, otherwise agriculture will remain the overlooked key issue of the negotiations, despite the fact that it is the common thread that holds developed and developing countries together.

Therefore, this thesis focuses on the relationship between the SDG2 and SDG13 within UNFCCC mandate-topic agriculture. The argument that the negotiations reflect a Global North-South divide and that the value of contributions from local entities in consulting on culturally sensitive approaches is overlooked will be unfolded through a deductive approach: after an analysis of the international climate negotiations on agriculture, a potential global North-South divide in regard to the interests of states will be evaluated. More specifically, this thesis conducts a qualitative content analysis of the SBSTA submissions from parties on their views on issues relating to agriculture and the conclusions from 2011 to 2018 and the annual summaries of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) of the COPs from 2011 to 2018, following the methodology by Mayring (2014). This approach allows an evaluation of diverging interests between developed and developing states, on the one hand, and on the other, an analysis of the outcomes of the negotiations, that is, the relationship between SDG2 and SDG13. Applied postcolonial theory will highlight power structures of the links between both SDGs and is based on the premise that a postcolonial analysis of interactions across the SDG domains can support more coherent and effective decision-making within the UNFCCC. In regard to international agriculture, current academic literature widely focuses on (resource) economic and biology analyses. A key objective of the postcolonial approach applied here is to stimulate more IR-policy dialogue on the importance of interactions between SDGs, and to raise awareness amongst policy-makers and other stakeholders when setting their priorities and strategies within the negotiations.

(10)

10

Ultimately, the thesis poses the following research questions: To what extent are postcolonial structures reflected in the UNFCCC negotiation processes on agriculture? Which actors push the SDG2 or the SDG13 forward and why? Does the SDG13 dominate over the SDG2? Can the Paris Agreement (2016) be seen as progress towards addressing both SDGs equally? To what extent are parties’ interests included in the outcomes of the negotiations?

In order to find potential answers to these questions the thesis is structured as follows: the first chapter consists of a literature review. This chapter establishes the current state of research on the topic, elaborates concepts, and identifies potential answers to the questions and is divided into two sections: (1) concepts and (2) the theoretical framework underlying the thesis. On the basis of the literature review, hypotheses drawn from postcolonial theory and alternative explanations will be extracted and applied in the discussion of the analysis. This is followed by the second chapter which outlines the research design, illustrating the data selection, data analysis, the extracted hypotheses from the literature review, and the collection, coding, and processing of the data. The third chapter discusses the results of the conducted qualitative content analysis, examining the objectives of developing and developed countries on issues related to agriculture and their implementation under the UNFCCC. The fourth chapter critically analyses the research performed, tests the thesis’s hypotheses, and discusses the possibilities of how the conclusions drawn can be considered to make international cooperation on climate change and agriculture more effective. Lastly, the fifth and final section of this thesis ends with conclusory remarks.

(11)

11

Chapter One: Literature Review

This chapter discusses the findings of current literature regarding the theory underlying this research, concepts, and aspects of the international climate change regime relevant for the research. In addition, the following chapter contains two sections: the first section defines the concepts underlying this research. This section explains the UNFCCC and how it relates to the SDG2 and SDG13 and to the topic of agriculture. The second section establishes a theoretical framework on which the research is based on by elaborating on the global North-South divide and IR postcolonial theory.

Section 1: Concepts

The UNFCCC: Historical and Social Context

When analysing the international climate cooperation efforts, it is important to consider its emergence. Environmental degradation did not occupy the centre of the international stage for a large amount of time, despite the fact that it was related to the entire complex of economic, resource, population, and North-South development issues (Vogler 2005: 6). Vogler (2005) highlights the evidence of an indisputable and measurable increase in the level of public and governmental environmental concern by the late 1980s, and the fact that there had been little previous interest to the topic due to the discipline’s lack of association with policy questions, late response rates, but also due to the dominance of realist thought (ibid: 6-7). Therefore, it took decades until the international community acknowledged that the environmental problem climate change is a global challenge.

Established in 1992, the UNFCCC aspired the reduction of GHG emissions. The Convention commits the parties to holding a continuing series of COPs to discuss possible actions and review the appropriateness of existing commitments (Vogler 2017: 394). Nonetheless, while the UNFCCC aims at the “stabilisation” of GHG concentrations (UNFCCC 1992, para. 2), global GHG emissions have increased by 55 percent between 1990 and 2018 (PBL 2018: 11). An important development in the international cooperation on climate change was the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), which represented the idea of sustainable development and an acknowledgement of the environmental concerns of developed states and the economic demands of the global South countries (ibid: 387). This conference increased the profile of the environment as an international issue, and provided a platform for the Agenda 21 (the document produced by the conference), international conventions on

(12)

12

climate change, and the preservation of biodiversity (ibid: 387). Although the question of how to finance the environmental adaptations under discussion was heatedly discussed in this conference, and the Convention and the Protocol foresaw financial assistance from parties with more resources to those less endowed and more vulnerable (UNFCCC 2019a), the question of finance still remains unresolved today. Moreover, the thesis highlights that even though developing countries and LDCs prioritise the issue of financing within the UNFCCC negotiations on agriculture, no outcomes in that regard have been reached. Even though the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in 2002 shifted the UNFCCC's emphasis to the elimination of poverty, and the provision of clean water, sanitations, and improvements in agriculture, thus shifting from an emphasis on reducing GHG emissions to one on adaptation and sustainable development (according to Vogler 2017), this thesis suggests that there is still a fair distinction between these spheres reflected in the UNFCCC negotiations on agriculture.

After establishing the historical and social context of international cooperation on climate change, it is important to look at the current literature on its effectiveness. Most of the IR scholars who have assessed the UNFCCC regime’s effectiveness until the Paris Agreement, agree on low outputs generally (Downs 2000; Barrett 2003; Victor 2011; Young 2011; Hovi et al. 2013). While many scholars believe that the approach of the UNFCCC is insufficient, because climate change constitutes an extremely demanding and multidimensional issue, to which the private sector and particularly non-governmental organisations (NGOs), must contribute, this thesis, premised on the analysed data of the UNFCCC negotiations on agriculture, argues that one major reason for the UNFCCC regime’s lack of effectiveness is that the value of contributions from the consulting of developing countries’ local entities on culturally sensitive approaches is overlooked.

In order to unfold this argument, the thesis builds on Imber’s (1996) assumption that the UN “is both the best and the worst place in which to conduct environmental diplomacy” (ibid 1996: 161). It is the best place because it is the “only global forum or arena in which norms and laws for the management of global environmental change can be negotiated.” (ibid: 161) At the same time, however, the UN is “the worst place” due to the fact that within its framework, states act in favour of their own sovereign interests. Even after the Rio Summit, the UN has been given the aspiration but not the means to create a world order based on environmental protection and sustainable development. This dilemma is also expressed by Rosenau and Cziempel (1992),

(13)

13

who define international politics generally as “governance without government.” Therefore, this thesis assumes that states are acting in favour of their own sovereign interests during the negotiations on agriculture and that this explains its modest outcomes.

Sustainable Development Goals: Zero Hunger (SDG2) and Climate Action (SDG13)

In order to analyse the states’ interests, the thesis evaluates the relationship between SDG2 and SDG13 in the negotiations. Though SDGs are not legally binding, they are important because they represent international consensus norms, and reflect the normative framework on sustainable development, that had been missing under the UNFCCC.

When analysing the SDGs, it is important to consider their historical and social context. The SDGs followed the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that were set for the years 2000 to 2015. The UN states that the SDGs differ from the MDGs in that they are broader in scope – covering the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection), their universal application (MDGs only referred to action in developing countries), a strong focus on the means of implementation (the mobilisation of financial resources), and in their recognition that tackling climate change is essential for sustainable development and the eradication of poverty (UN 2018).

On the other hand, it is important to take criticism into account. Though governments have stressed the integrated, indivisible, and interlinked nature of the SDGs (UN 2015), major interactions and interdependencies are generally not explicit in the description of the goals or their respective targets (ICSU 2017: 19). The 17 goals were added an extensive framework incorporating 232 indicators and 169 targets, in order to measure progress on all targets by 2030 (United Nations Statistics Division 2017). This framework, however, is described as weak and unbalanced (Adams 2019; Fukuda-Parr 2019; Honegger & Toussaint 2017). Indeed, in order to keep the indicator framework manageable, several SDG targets were constrained to one or two indicators each and, hence, often fail to capture the interlinks across different goals and targets, falling short of the “integrated approach” set forth by the 2030 Agenda (Honegger & Toussaint 2017: 7). Although indicators were revised in 2017, the new list failed to solve many of these concerns, creating ambiguity in regard to how and whether some states will measure progress on some of these targets.

(14)

14

Moreover, SDG13 and its targets have also been criticised due to their vague terminology and their contribution to global climate governance has been questioned (Honegger & Toussaint 2017: 5). Furthermore, the majority of the targets under the SDG13 repeat agreements made in other contexts. For instance, Target 13.a urges developed states to fulfil the commitment they made under the UNFCCC at COP16 in Cancún (2010), to collectively mobilise 100 Billion US-Dollars by 2020 each year. Honegger and Toussaint (2017) note that SDG13 could provide a useful normative framework for operationalising the central provision of the climate treaty, particularly in the context of market mechanisms. However, although the 2030 Agenda aims “to transform economies, consumption and production patterns” (ECOSOC 2017: 6), market mechanisms are hitherto not mentioned amongst the goal’s targets, nor the substantial issues occurring through climate mitigation. Another point worth considering is that the targets are focused on less controversial topics, namely, disaster risk reduction (13.1), education (13.3) and capacity-building (13.b).

The research question is based on the structural imbalance between SDG2 and SDG13 that is manifest in the Paris Agreement. Although both the Paris Agreement and the SDGs were established in 2015, Sindico’s (2016) analysis of the linkages between the content of the SDGs and the Paris Agreement shows that while SDG13 can be found in the agreement's operative part, SDG2 is placed in its preamble (ibid: 2). From a legal perspective, it significantly matters whether an issue is present in the operative part of a treaty or in the preamble: the placement of food security exclusively in the preamble makes it legally non-binding. To what extent climate adaptation and mitigation options are implemented in the agriculture sector under the UNFCCC, however, will be decisive for achieving SDG2. Simultaneously, unsustainable agriculture, deforestation and other types of land use contribute to 24 percent of total GHG emissions (IPCC 2014); hence achieving SGD13 necessitates the reduction of GHG emissions in agriculture.

By scrutinising the SDGs within international climate negotiation and agriculture, the thesis analyses the extent that the negotiations address both the concerns of the global North and the global South. Indeed, concerns over migration, environmental degradation, climate change, and overpopulation are all dependant on the North-South divide (Reuveny & Thompson 2008: 3). In regard to the last three concerns, industrialised states will seek to persuade less developed states to a more sustainable development, in order to prevent further degradation. This will create tension with global South countries, as their economic development should not be

(15)

15

dependent on the green preferences of the North. The problems arising through climate change, such as floods, droughts, desertification, and rising sea levels will affect the South more than the North as the agricultural sector is often their most important economic sector and because they lack the resources and finances to adapt to the effects of the changing climate. On the other hand, population growth, which has declined in the North, rapidly grows in developing countries within Africa or India, thus representing a further challenge for developing countries. The availability of food and water, especially in the light of a rising shortage due to climate change, therefore affects the global South more.

Agriculture

In regard to the research interest of this thesis, two developments of agriculture are important: on the one hand, agriculture underwent a transformation, leading to the internationalisation or “financialisation” of agriculture (Bonanno & Busch 2015; Sanderson 2014). With a case study on the transformation of the Mexican agriculture sector, Sanderson (2014) suggests that agriculture is a product of a systematic internationalisation of capital in agriculture and that it produces a new global division of labour on long-term (ibid: 6). Ultimately, this internationalisation of agriculture has resulted in a weakening of state power, an increased external dependence, and the domination of agricultural decision-making by agribusiness concerns (Sanderson 2014; Bonanno & Busch 2015). Bonanno & Busch (2015) argue that in less developed countries of the South, Fordism transformed into the application of modernisation policies and that “state intervention in agriculture took a form that favoured corporate investment and presence, the outflow of wealth and the exploitation of natural resources and labour.” (ibid: 2) Moreover, the establishment of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) largely impacted the dual system of large export-oriented farms and peasant agriculture in the South and contributed to the neoliberalisation of these agricultures and the limited availability of alternative policies (ibid: 4).

On the other hand, another very important dimension of agriculture in this context is dependency. Through the rapid population growth and urbanisation, many developing countries increased their imports of agricultural products from global North countries (Kellogg & Ruppel 1991: 4). Ultimately, between the late 1960s and the early 1980s, net imports (imports minus exports) by developing countries tripled (ibid: 4). In addition, the independence of developing states during the 1950s and 1960s led to economic development becoming a primary focus (ibid: 3). Because agriculture was the most dominant economic sector in most of the developing

(16)

16

countries, agriculture received increased attention. This dependency, along with the conservation of foreign exchange for goods other than agricultural imports for structural transformation, are also important reasons why agricultural self-sufficiency became a significant policy goal in many developing countries. The objective of food self-sufficiency and agricultural exports in political and economic agendas is shared by developed states as well, however, being an important consequence of the Second World War (ibid: 3). This proves that geopolitically, food is a significant factor in the shaping of international relations (Bonanno & Busch 2015: 2).

Whilst Kellogg and Ruppel (1991) examine the conflict between developing countries that import agricultural products from developed countries (a conflict regarding to agricultural self-sufficiency), this thesis analyses the source of conflict between developing and developed countries in regard to the international goals of climate action and food security. Interestingly, only few academics have taken a critical perspective on the international climate negotiations and agriculture, particularly lacking a postcolonial approach. Evidently, it is important to analyse whether the conflict of interests is constructed by two groups: developed and developing states. That being said, it is important to clarify what this research means by the “global North-South divide” and “postcolonialism”.

Section 2: Theoretical Framework

Global North-South Divide

To begin with, it is important to recognise the historical foundations of the global dichotomy. Imperialism and colonialism presented ordering principles, or more specifically, a way to manage large territories, and an agreed-upon system. Colonialism developed as a way to push through imperial principles into other territories, and the concept of empire was used as a political strategy. Eventually, anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism developed in the spaces of the metropoles (located in Europe) and colonies (in Asia as well as Africa), resulting in a dynamic of communism and identity. Hence, the historical context demonstrates that the global dichotomy can be viewed as a North/South, but also as an East/West divide.

On the other hand, it is important to conceptualise the terms “North” and “South”. Reuveny and Thomson (2008), who analyse the growing political, economic, and social gap between the

(17)

17

world’s northern and southern hemispheres, call for more analytical attention on North-South questions, as these questions become increasingly important on the international stage (ibid: 1). The authors fail, however, to further elaborate on the terms “global North” and “global South”. It is important to conceptualise the global South divide, because although the North-South cleavage remains a field of reflection in international relations, the parameters of the North-South debate have radically changed. The literature gives different explanations for this. Some scholars argue that new attitudes towards a more mature partnership between the global North and the global South have evolved (Haq 1995: 204). Other scholars suggest that the global South “no longer exists as a meaningful single entity” (Gilpin 1987: 304), or that it “has ceased to be a political force” (Smouts 1995: 124) in international politics. On the other hand, scholars argue that “the North is generating its own internal South”, and that “the South has formed a thin layer of society that is fully integrated into the economic North” (Cox 1996: 531). Ultimately, the picture of a strong divide between a Northern developed hemisphere and a Southern developing hemisphere no longer offers an accurate representation of reality (Therien 1999: 724).

While Therien (1999) focuses on the conditions for the decline of the North-South analytical framework for explaining international poverty, this thesis uses the North-South roadmap as an analytical framework to explain the polarisation of interests within international climate negotiations and agriculture. Even though the expression “North-South” gained currency through the “war on poverty” in the Third World declared after the Second World War, the development of environment as a new political priority throughout the 1980s has led several scholars to consider a further North-South dispute (Hurrell & Kingsbury 1992; White 1993). While it has been argued that environmental politics help explain how and why globalisation has broken up the basic premises of the North-South cleavage (Therien 1999: 727), this thesis shows that the international climate negotiations and agriculture illustrate precisely the opposite, and that the North-South perspective is a useful roadmap to analyse the process of international climate negotiations. However, the thesis does not focus on the notion of poverty in regard to the North-South divide, but in regard to economic development and colonial history. The thesis conceptualises the terms “global North” and “global South” in the context of development for several reasons: first, the distribution of technology has created increasing unequal economies, and dependency amongst the economies that could or did not develop to the same extent (Reuveny & Thompson 2008: 2). The North-South divide was significant for

(18)

18

the explanation of inequality and poverty by scholars (Therien 1999: 723). In the light of rising inequality and increasing relative poverty, here “global North countries” will refer to developed countries, and “global South countries” to developing countries.

Postcolonialism

This thesis implies that dynamics of postcolonial politics still exist within UNFCCC negotiations today. While some scholars argue that the processes of globalisation since the 1970s have led to the collapse of the colonial order, other scholars perceive the colonial empires as precursors of globality (Conrad 2013: 543-544). Despite the inexistence of this form of imperialism today, empires remain: in the form of corporate organisations, norms, ideology, and international organisations.

Postcolonial theory is a useful tool for the analysis of postcolonial structures within the UNFCCC negotiations on agriculture. The reason for this is that postcolonialism is a critical perspective that aims at identifying and criticising the relation between power and knowledge. According to Young (2001), postcolonial theory aims to “critique (the) forces of oppression and coercive domination that operate in the contemporary world: the politics of anti-colonialism, neo-anti-colonialism, race, gender, nationalisms, class and ethnicities.” (ibid: 11) One important aspect of postcolonialism is the construction of binary oppositions, the “Self” and the “Other”, created by an imagined geography. Gregory (2004) argues that this imaginary geography does not differentiate between past, present, and future and that the image of the Other remains timeless. In various colonial writings the Other is described as having essential and unchanging features, legitimising colonial power in the form of guardianship (Grovogui 2013: 252). In addition, modern colonialism enacts in another type of violence by instituting “enduring hierarchies of subjects and knowledges – the coloniser and the colonised, the occidental and the oriental, the civilised and the primitive, the scientific and the superstitious, the developed and the developing” (Prakash 1995: 3).

Another reason for using postcolonialism as the underlying theory in this research is that it highlights the neocolonial relationship between the colonial powers and their former colonies. Thereby, former colonies still largely depend on their former coloniser politically, economically, and culturally. Moreover, the domination of the former colonisers is reinforced by the structure of the international system: former colonial powers to a large extent dictate international decision-making (Prakash 1995: 57).

(19)

19

Interestingly, few academics have taken a critical perspective on the UNFCCC negotiations, and even fewer still with a postcolonial approach. This is surprising given the fact the structural North-South divide is the obstacle to international climate change efforts (Volger 2017: 395). Therefore, applying postcolonial theory to the UNFCCC negotiations makes sense. Due to the fact that postcolonialism as a theory arose in response to the effects of Western Europe’s colonialism on Africa and Asian (to a lesser extent Latin American), postcolonialism to a large extent focuses on these former colonies. However, ‘postcolonial’ academics admit that colonialism is not an exclusively Western practice (Loomba 1998: 2-3). This study aims to take the postcolonial perspective one step further by applying it to current UNFCCC negotiations and empirically analysing postcolonial power relations.

More specifically, this thesis draws on the theories elaborated by Nkrumah (1965), who highlights the issue of continuing dependencies in the concept of neocolonialism. Nkrumah argues that neocolonialism represents the imperialism of today in its final and perhaps most dangerous stage, due to the fact that the ones who practice it gain means “power without responsibility” and for those who suffer from it endure “exploitation without redress” (ibid: 1-3). Dependency theorists argue that the international system promotes underdevelopment, which hinders poor countries from developing. This assumption is based on three key arguments: firstly, that an international division of labour exists between countries. Within that division, the core countries (such as the United States (US) and Europe) dominate in terms of capital-intensive industry, technology, and research. Meanwhile, other countries are characterised by a resource extraction economy, agricultural production, and the provision of cheap labour. As a result, the structure of the world economy is one in which all periphery countries serve the interests of the wealthier countries. Secondly, the international system is characterised by a class distinction. Thereby, political and economic elites across all groups cooperate with each other to ensure that they increase their own wealth to maintain the system (ibid: 5). Lastly, dependency theorists argue that the system is defined by global capitalism, a system in which liberal economic theory (theories of trade and finance) dominates. In addition, multinational institutions, corporations, and banks (such as the World Bank, or the International Monetary Fund (IMF)) constitute instruments of rich people in the core countries. All these characteristics serve the interests of the wealthy and not of the developing countries, do not promote development or equal opportunity, but instead promote dominance and exploitation. Hence, the system is designed to prevent developing countries from developing.

(20)

20

Additionally, this thesis draws on Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony and the subaltern. Hegemony is a wider concept, which is applicable to colonialism. It describes the ability of those in power to exert control over subalterns by shaping the thought of the latter according to their will, and in the context of colonial relationships, between coloniser and colonised. Therefore, “hegemonic control unfolds in the presentation of the specific interest of the dominator as an interest for all” (Wilkens 2017: 13). Important to highlight is the IMF’s differentiation between countries: the IMF’s less developed category contains Latin America, nearly all of the Middle East, and Asia and Africa. This shows that the developing countries are those situated in neocolonial areas (Nkrumah 1965: 8) and that these consist of two-thirds of the world's population. This world order not only establishes a normative hierarchy but blurs the link between capitalism and the recreation of postcolonial structures (Dirlik 2002: 434). To sum up, the literature review highlights several things. To begin with, it highlights the UNFCCC’s shift in emphasis on reducing GHG emissions to one on adaptation and sustainable development, and that the question of how to finance environmental adaptations was fairly early discussed. This thesis suggests that there is still a fair distinction between the spheres of mitigation of emissions and adaptation reflected in the UNFCCC negotiations on agriculture, resting on Volger’s (2017) argument that the structural North-South divide is the reason for international climate change negotiation and agriculture’s lack of effectiveness. Secondly, the literature coincides on the UNFCCC’s regime low outputs overall, largely basing it on the premise that the private sector and NGO’s must contribute. This thesis argues, however, that one major reason for the regime’s lack of effectiveness is that the contributions of local entities in developing countries remains unrecognised. This is underlined by Imber’s (1996) assumption that states are acting in favour of their own sovereign interests during the negotiations. The research question is based on the structural imbalance between SDG2 and SDG13 that is manifest in the Paris Agreement and analyses the extent to which the UNFCCC negotiations on agriculture address both concerns of the global North and the global South. The section on agriculture highlights two important developments, which the thesis builds on: (1) the internationalisation of agriculture; and (2) the dependency of developing countries towards global North countries in regard to their economic development and food security. While it has been argued that environmental politics help explain how and why globalisation has broken up the basic premises the North-South cleavage, this thesis shows that international climate negotiations and agriculture illustrate precisely the opposite, using the North-South perspective as a roadmap to analyse the process of the negotiations. Lastly, this thesis assumes that

(21)

21

postcolonial theory is a useful tool for the analysis of postcolonial structures within the UNFCCC negotiations on agriculture, because it identifies and criticises the relation between power and knowledge. The thesis draws on Nkrumah’s concept of neocolonialism and Gramsci’s concept of hegemony and the subaltern.

(22)

22

Chapter Two: Research Design

This chapter further elaborates on the specifications of the research design that the thesis is based on. Firstly, the data selection is discussed, followed by a section on the data analysis, before finally introducing the hypotheses that the thesis tests.

Data selection

The starting point of the analysis is the COP at its seventeenth session, held in Durban in 2011 (CP.17). That year marks the first time that the topic of agriculture was given its own mandate by the UNFCCC and is, therefore, the starting-point of the analysis. 2018 marks the analysis’s end date because it is the most recent concluded year. This time range allows for a valid analysis of the negotiations, leaving enough time after the application of agriculture as a mandate topic and incorporating time before and after the Paris Agreement of 2016. Furthermore, the selection of this time frame exposes the impact of the Paris Agreement on the UNFCCC negotiations on agriculture and evaluates whether the new course in the global climate effort also induces a new course in regard to agriculture.

The UNFCCC negotiations are the selected unit of analysis for several reasons. Firstly, the thesis looks at the power relations between different states – while states are represented in the UNFCCC, they are not in the FAO. In addition, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) remains a mere programme, despite extensive discussions about granting UNEP the higher and more autonomous statues of a UN specialised Agency (Vogler 2017: 390). The programme can therefore only issue declarations to persuade national publics that action must be taken, even if environmental issues intensify. Furthermore, agreement in the UNFCCC generally increasingly depends on the readiness of wealthy countries to entirely fund adaptive actions and to allocate compensation for poorer states, seriously affected by climate change (ibid: 391).

This analysis has chosen the mandate-topic of agriculture within the UNFCCC is due to the fact that the sector has massive implications on climate change, and because although the profile of agriculture within the climate change negotiations has improved, it is still considered to be a difficult sector (FAO 2009: 11). The work programme on agriculture was placed within the UNFCCC SBSTA in order to address methodological issues related to reference levels, financing, and measuring, reporting and verification (MRV). The objective is to help to bring agriculture into the mainstream of mitigation action (ibid). An additional reason might be the

(23)

23

fact that the UNFCCC contains more resources and decision-making power than any other international institution concerning climate change, and hence may represent a more attractive platform for states to push forward their interests.

Data analysis

The analysis is based on a qualitative content analysis of the UNFCCC negotiations on agriculture, applying the methodological approach by Mayring (2014). Mayring (2014) establishes a coherent way of conducting a qualitative content analysis, consisting of three steps: quoting, generalising, and reducing. This methodological allows the identification of states’ interests in the negotiations on the topic agriculture as well as an analysis of the outcomes. Accessibility to the documents and their coding are regarded as the two main problems of document analyses. However, accessibility was not a challenge in this case, since the data derives from different open sources.

On the one hand, analysed primary sources include SBSTA documents (submissions from parties on their views on issues relating to agriculture and conclusions for this agenda item). In 2011, at the COP 17, the mandate was given for an agenda item to be discussed under the SBSTA “issues related to agriculture” (CP.17, Decision 2). The report states that cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions will be taken, in order to enhance the implementation of Article 4, paragraph 1(c), of the Convention (CP.17: 16). In regard to agriculture, the report “requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to consider issues related to agriculture at its thirty-sixth session, with the aim of exchanging views and the Conference of the Parties adopting a decision on this matter at its eighteenth session” (CP.17, Para. 75). The SBSTA serves as a permanent subsidiary body of the UNFCCC for scientific and technical advice. For each year, one document presents the submissions of the Conferences of Parties and the document’s additions. The other document that is published each year is the report of the SBSTA negotiations, capturing the results of the negotiations. Including additions, sixteen SBSTA submissions have been analysed and captured in the table of contents in the appendix. It is important to note that the years 2017 and 2018 of the SBSTA work on agriculture do not contain submissions from Parties and only conclusions and workshop reports. Because the SBSTA conclusions and reports are very brief and relatively details, these documents are not included in the content analysis table in the appendix. Nevertheless, their outcomes are considered in the chapters on results and discussion.

(24)

24

On the other hand, the negotiation-outcomes will be contextualised with reports of the negotiations published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development Reporting Services (IISD RS). In collaboration with the UN System Chief Executives Boards of Coordination, the IISD publishes behind-the-scenes documents of the UN Climate Change Conference negotiations. In total, twelve IISD annual summaries from 2011 until 2018 have been analysed and the results also recorded in the table included in the appendix. These summaries give a solid insight into the negotiation process and include opinions of the parties and observer organisations.

On the basis of the literature review, hypotheses drawn from postcolonial theory and alternative explanations are extracted and applied to the results of the analysis. The thesis analyses climate change and agriculture from a postcolonial perspective for several reasons. Firstly, academic IR literature on international environmental politics of the late 1980s and early 1990s was predominantly “problem-solving” rather than “critical” in its approach (as seen in works such as Young 1989; Mathews 1991; Porter & Brown 1991; Hurrell & Kingsbury 1992; Haas et al. 1993). However, North-South arguments since the UN conference in Rio in regard to the extent of aid and technology transfer in order for developing countries to achieve sustainable development have led to many disappointments (Vogler 2017: 391). Another reason is that many studies on colonialism focus on a national-history paradigm, hardly considering the broader world around them (Conrad 2013: 544). Rethinking colonialism in a global age allows one to see more clearly the imperial dimension of the global North in setting the UNFCCC’s agenda on agriculture.

Hypotheses

Although postcolonialism lacks a coherent methodology (Gandhi 1998), the following hypotheses can be drawn from postcolonialism through the thesis’s literature review and are validated and falsified in the discussion chapter of the thesis. In this context, postcolonial structures represent the dependent variable. The UNFCCC negotiations on agriculture constitute the independent variable.

(25)

25

Concerning this matter, the dependent variable postcolonial structures can have at least two manifestations: (1) x (reflection of postcolonial structures); or (2) y (no reflection of postcolonial structures). Postcolonial structures are reflected in the UNFCCC negotiations on agriculture if:

- A clear distinction between the key objectives of developed (mitigation of GHG emissions) and developing countries’ (food security) is identifiable (hypothesis x1). - The goal of mitigating GHG emissions dominates over food security (hypothesis x2). - Developing countries are described as having specific features that legitimise the power

of developed countries in the form of guardian- or leadership over developing countries within the negotiations (hypothesis x3).

In the case of the variable’s manifestation y (no reflection of postcolonial structures) the following hypotheses can be extracted. Thereby, postcolonial structures are not reflected in the UNFCCC negotiations on agriculture if:

- No obvious distinction between the key objectives of developed (mitigation of GHG emissions) and developing countries’ (food security) is identifiable (hypothesis y1). - Both SDGs are equally represented and negotiated on within the negotiations

(hypothesis y2).

- No differentiation between the features of developing or developed countries is made, that legitimises the bargaining-power of one group over the other (hypothesis y3).

Collection, Coding, and Processing

In order to analyse the different objectives of developing and developed countries within the submissions, states were allocated groups. This division was mainly undertaken according to the IPCC (2014) for the SBSTA documents: (1) Africa; (2) North America; (3) Latin America; (4) Oceania; (5) Asia; and (6) Europe. In addition, the group of LDCs (7) and the Environmental Integrity Group (Lichtenstein, Mexico, Monaco, the Republic of Korea, and Switzerland) (8) was added, due to the fact that these state groups submitted submissions collectively. Furthermore, it must be clarified that in this context the group Oceania consists of Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Due to significant differences in the level of development in comparison to the three states, Indonesia is allocated to the group 5 (Asia). Parties throughout the IISD summaries, are coded to as: 0 (observer organisations and officials); 1 (developing countries); 2 (developed countries); and 3 (LDCs).

(26)

26

Once the sources were identified, they were analysed in regard to climate action, food security, and adaptation. The respective quotes were then transferred into the table, followed by two steps: a generalisation and a reduction of the statement. After the table was created, the final step consisted of data processing, including assessing, interpreting, and summarising the coded data to determine the results of the research. The following chapter illustrates the results of the analysis.

(27)

27

Chapter Three: Results

This chapter illustrates the results of the research carried out on the UNFCCC SBSTA and COP negotiations on agriculture. In order to structure the analysis’ results and to support the argument underlying this thesis, the sub-questions outlined in the introduction will subdivide the chapter. First, the negotiations are looked at under the question, which actors push SDG2 or SDG13 forward and for what reasons. This is followed by an analysis of whether the SDG13 dominates over the SDG2 within the negotiations. Finally, an analysis as to what extent parties’ interests in the outcome of the negotiations are met, before analysing whether the Paris Agreement (2016) can be seen as a progress towards addressing both SDGs. All results are obtained from the sources provided in the codified table of contents included in the appendix.

Which actors push the SDG2 or the SDG13 forward and why?

To begin with, it is important to clarify that in this context the UNFCCC is conceptualised as an arena for interaction that allows the connection of both goals. This assumption is supported by the results of the analysis, clearly demonstrating that there is a clear distinction between developing and developed countries in addressing both issues within the negotiations and that the UNFCCC possesses no agency of its own. Differing interests between the two state groups and a lack of UNFCCC agency is evident for several reasons: firstly, the extreme faltering in the development of the negotiations can be interpreted as a lack in the UNFCCC’s agency: eight years of negotiating have led to parties’ submissions on issues relating to agriculture and workshops that address specific issues outlined in the respective submissions, excluding urgently required implementation-actions and concrete financing measures. Furthermore, the analysis demonstrates that voices from observer organisations are not heard. The analysis is based on the neorealist assumption that states act according to their own interests.

Throughout the UNFCCC negotiations on agriculture, it becomes evident that most developing countries prioritise adaptation over mitigation (IISD 2011-2018; SBSTA 2011-2018). As food availability, food access, and food stability, are largely dependent on how states will be able to adapt to climate change effects such as droughts and extreme weather events, the prioritisation of adaptation can be translated to the prioritisation of SDG2 in this context. A lot of developing countries emphasise common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), adaptation, and means of implementation (IISD 2013b: 5). The African Group, for instance, states that adaptation constitutes the biggest priority for Africa and that work on agriculture must take into account the goal to enhance food security and the livelihood of local communities, and

(28)

28

constructive response measures (IISD 2012a: 18; IISD 2012b: 5). This is supported by Asian states, who stress that because agriculture is a vulnerable sector, the focus of the negotiations must be on adaptation (IISD 2014: 19), and that “parties must acknowledge the close links between climate change, agriculture, and food and water security, and must ensure that cooperative sectoral approaches should in no way weaken developing countries’ capability to achieve food self-sufficiency.” (SBSTA 2012: 25) Asia recognises the primary function of the agriculture sector in creating jobs, reducing poverty and guaranteeing food security in developing countries (SBSTA 2012: 18) and that resources must be provided for developing countries because the costs of the implementation of adaptation costs are so high. This is also supported by Latin America, which holds the opinion that the main focus of the discussions on the topic of agriculture should be to guarantee that food production is not threatened (Article 2) (SBSTA 2014: 3). This supports one of the most significant principles set out in the UNFCCC, notably CBDR. Although climate change is a common concern of all states, it is a consequence of the development of the established industrialised countries and it is their responsibility to take the lead in SDG13.

Developing countries also point out that the objective should be a key research area, that the focus of the discussions should be on vulnerable developing countries, and that the international cooperation on agriculture must involve work with indigenous peoples and local communities (SBSTA 2014: 18). It is important to take into consideration that the 2030 Agenda recognises the different level of vulnerability between countries and people, and that some countries face greater challenges in achieving sustainable development, requiring special attention in order to guarantee that no one is left behind. The analysis of the documents highlights the diversity of agricultural systems, different national and regional priorities, objectives and circumstances and that context-dependent approaches have to be applied in order to address agriculture and climate change. Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the LDCs highlight the fact that agriculture is the primary sector to “food security, economic growth, and wealth creation.” (SBSTA 2012-2018) Although they recognise that mitigation in the sector must be undertaken, the groups stress their dependency on agriculture in regard to food supply and labour immensely. China states that “food security is of great importance for developing countries” (SBSTA 2012: 7), and that “the negotiations on agriculture should be in accordance with the principles and provisions of the Convention, in particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and in line with the mandate of 1b(iv) of Bali Action Plan to enhance the implementation of Article 4.1(c) of the Convention, and emphasise how to fulfil the objective of “ensure that food production is

(29)

29

not threatened.” (ibid) Therefore, developing countries generally support work on adaptation in the agriculture sector, India even colliding with Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC), calling for discussions on agriculture to focus only on adaptation (IISD 2013b: 6). This is supported by Asia, claiming that climate action in the agricultural sector in developing countries should focus primarily on adaptation of the agriculture sector to climate change (SBSTA 2012: 25, 28).

The reasons why the goal climate action is not pushed forward by developing countries are mainly equity and national circumstances (IISD 2012a: 18). However, there are also discrepancies between the developing countries interests. For example, at COP 18, the FAO reported on the report by the High-Level Panel of Experts on food security and nutrition, which emphasises the need for the agriculture sector to adapt in order to ensure the goal of food security. While some developing countries support the necessity to focus on adaptation issues (IISD 2012b: 24), Venezuela and other countries share the opinion that because of the technical nature of the issue, agriculture should not be discussed at the COP. In Venezuela’s case, the reaction can be explained by agriculture’s relatively small share of the economy than compared to other Latin American countries, and by the fact that the state imports most of its food, mainly from Columbia and the US (Clark 2010). This may explain Venezuela's disinterest in the negotiations’ focus on agriculture and on adaptation.

New Zealand, on the other hand, emphasises mitigation in the agriculture sector, suggesting “partnerships with the private sector to provide long-term viability.” (IISD 2013a: 10) In contrast, despite Saudi Arabia’s support for addressing mitigation, it pledges on non-market instruments (ibid: 11). One observer organisation reminds that the “Warsaw walk-out” was caused by rapidly growing corporate influence in the negotiations, calling for “a holistic, rights-based approach focused on non-market-rights-based mechanisms.” (IISD 2014: 13) Indeed, market mechanisms seem to be a key problem in addressing both goals effectively, as demonstrated when more than 800 observers from NGOs and social movements walked out from the Climate Change negotiations, accusing wealthy developed states of jeopardising international climate action. This result highlights agriculture’s transformation to an internationalisation, with agricultural decision-making being largely dominated agribusiness concerns. Global GHG emissions in 2030 have to be cut by 55 percent in comparison to 2017 in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (UN Environment 2018). This can only be achieved, if the

(30)

30

2030 Agenda extends the SDG13’s normative framework for mitigating GHG emissions and addresses market mechanisms.

There are, however, also parties that address the adaptation of the agricultural sector to climate change and mitigation of GHG emissions from the agricultural sector with the same level of priority, such as the EIG (SBSTA 2013: 8) and the European Union (EU) (SBSTA 2012: 11). Europe even stresses that “that while useful work on agriculture mitigation has been carried out to date under the UNFCCC, this work did not adequately address adaptation and the close relationship between adaptation and mitigation in agriculture and in particular the synergies between them.” (SBSTA 2014: 15-16) This is supported by the fact that the EU pushes both mitigation and adaptation forward within the negotiations (IISD 2013b: 5). The importance of Article 2 of the Convention is also acknowledged by developing states. The EU, for instance, regards the adequate consideration of agriculture in relation to climate change under the UNFCCC “as the basis for food production, food security, livelihoods and rural development” (SBSTA 2012: 11), and affirms that further work on agriculture under the UNFCCC must guarantee that food production is not threatened (SBSTA 2012: 12). It is noteworthy that throughout the documents the EU highlights its “significant contribution” to the implementation of actions on adaptation and mitigation in agriculture worldwide (SBSTA 2012: 11).

Hence, the differences in the prioritisation of adaptation and mitigation in the UNFCCC negotiations becomes obvious. Considering that developing countries hardly account for the global amount of GHG emissions and are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, it seems more than reasonable that developing countries prioritise adaptation. Moreover, although the interlinkages of the two goals are generally acknowledged by both groups, the negotiations do not approach both SDGs equally. A major problem in regard to both SDGs is that their major interactions and interdependencies are generally not explicit in the description of the goals or their respective targets. In order to achieve both SDGs it is important to identify the interlinkages and to address them. This is noticed by parties, all stressing the identification of synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation and the discussing of research and technology transfer, however, for developing states the topic financing is often addressed (SBSTA 2012: 8).

(31)

31

Does the SDG13 dominate over the SDG2?

In order to answer this question, it is important to consider the development of the UNFCCC negotiations on agriculture. In the beginning, the COP merely, and quite broadly, requested submissions on the “views on issues relating to agriculture” (decision 2/CP.17, paras. 76– 77). In the light of the fact that the topic of agriculture was given a mandate in 2012, the request’s broadness is understandable. The SBSTA negotiation that followed on basis of these submissions concluded with the request on “views on the current state of scientific knowledge on how to enhance the adaptation of agriculture to climate change impacts while promoting rural development, sustainable development and productivity of agricultural systems and food security in all countries, particularly in developing countries, and taking into account the diversity of the agricultural systems and the differences in scale as well as possible adaptation co-benefits” for the year 2013 (FCCC/SBSTA/2013/3, para. 81). The fact that the same conclusion and, ultimately, a further request on this matter was given in 2014, highlights the complexity of the relationship between agriculture and climate change: on the one hand, agriculture is highly affected by climate change, due to the fact that farming activities directly depend on climatic conditions. On the other hand, agriculture contributes to climate change through the release of GHG emissions into the atmosphere. In preparation for the negotiations in 2015, the SBSTA invited parties and admitted observer organisations on their “views on issues relating to (a) the development of early warning systems and contingency plans in relation to extreme weather events and its effects such as desertification, drought, floods, landslides, storm surge, soil erosion, and saline water intrusion; and (b) the assessment of risk and vulnerability of agricultural systems to different climate change scenarios at regional, national and local levels, including but not limited to pests and diseases.” (FCCC/SBSTA/2014/2, para. 86) For the negotiations in 2016, parties and admitted observer organisations were invited to submit “their views on issues relating to: (1) the identification of adaptation measures, taking into account the diversity of the agricultural systems, indigenous knowledge systems and the differences in scale as well as possible co-benefits and sharing experiences in research and development and on the ground activities, including socioeconomic, environmental and gender aspects; and (2) the identification and assessment of agricultural practices and technologies to enhance productivity in a sustainable manner, food security and resilience, considering the differences in agroecological zones and farming systems, such as different grassland and cropland practices and systems.” (FCCC/SBSTA/2014/2, para. 87) This shows that the UNFCCC’s request for submissions got

(32)

32

more concrete over time, calling for consideration of food security, adaptation, and ingenious knowledge systems.

In order to map the development of the negotiations, however, it is also important to consider individuals who drive the SBSTA agenda on the topic of agriculture forward. From the IISD summaries, the Zambian climate advisor George Wamukoya can be identified as a driving force. During the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance (EAA)’s side event ‘Can we achieve food security in a world challenged by climate change?’, Wamukoya greatly articulated the submissions to the UNFCCC on the EAA’s recommendations for ensuring the rights of farmers and the wellbeing of the planet (EAA 2012). The EAA is an international network of over 90 churches and Christian organisations. Wamukoya is now Facilitator in the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) and noted progress made on agriculture (IISD 2011b: 9). Indeed, based on the Wamukoya’s note from the COP 17, parties considered language for the topic of agriculture and identified shared views on aspects of food security, trade, economic development and poverty eradication (ibid: 9), and in addition, focused the discussion on three key areas of his text: “the general framework, agriculture, and international aviation and maritime transport.” (IISD 2011c: 19)

Another driving force identified are the international organisations and NGOs that are present at the negotiations, to a large extent pledging on adaptation and food security, instead of mitigation. For instance, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (an umbrella organisation of organic farming NGOs) underscores adaptation in the agriculture sector to address food security and support farmers to cope with the impacts of climate change (IISD 2011a: 24; IISD 2014: 19). Moreover, the importance of agricultural values is placed by the International Indigenous People’s Forum on Climate Change, who declare that “drivers of deforestation pose a threat to indigenous peoples’ survival and that MRV systems must capture forest and agricultural values.” (IISD 2012a: 18) The FAO emphasises the necessity to consider food security and people and calls for “improving data collection and tapping mitigation potential in the land and forest sectors at all levels, including the global, national, and local ones.” (IISD 2013a: 10) Farmers state that the UNFCCC “could make a huge contribution to food security, adaptation and resilience while helping close the mitigation gap”, calling it “essential to treat agriculture comprehensively and not to create artificial divisions between food security, adaptation and mitigation” (IISD 2013b: 12), and lament “limited progress on a work programme on agriculture promoting food security, adaptation and mitigation” after

International Climate Negotiations and Agriculture:

Sophie Steinkat

International Climate Negotiations and Agriculture:

A Global North-South Debate?

MA Thesis Report

Acknowledgements

Abstract

List of Abbreviations

Table of Contents