The following statement was delivered during the Arrangements for Intergovernmental Meetings (AIM) negotiations on observer participation on June 12 2026 on behalf of the ENGO-DCJ constituency during the 64th meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB64) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC):

We would like to make sure there is no misunderstanding where emissions come from. The biggest share of emissions is not generated by smallholders, Indigenous Peoples, peasants, pastoralists, or local food producers. Emissions are largely driven by industrial agricultural systems, particularly industrial livestock, export-driven monocrop plantations, and synthetic agrochemical production and use, through greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation, land-use change, fossil fuel use, and ecologically destructive practices. These industrial agricultural systems were historically imposed by the Global North upon the Global South.

The current text acknowledges the importance of livestock for livelihoods, food security and nutrition, but it fails to distinguish between small-scale livestock systems and industrial livestock production. Smallholder and pastoralist systems support livelihoods, biodiversity, cultural practices and food sovereignty, especially when managed through agroecological approaches and high animal welfare practices.

We welcome the mention of biodiversity loss. Whilst agreeing that this is not the focus of the UNFCCC, we would like to emphasize the importance of retaining it in the text in the name of policy coherence, in line with paragraph 14(b) of Decision 3/CP.27 and the objectives reflected in paragraph (d). Agroecology offers policy coherence on a plate. It is not only a climate solution, it also generates co-benefits across biodiversity, health, livelihoods, social justice, resilience and democratic participation.

We are deeply concerned about the continued emphasis on market-based approaches, including carbon markets. These approaches risk shifting responsibility from the Global North to the Global South and placing it in the hands of private markets and the financial sector, which contributes to the commodification of land, food and ecosystems — which must not become tools for speculation.

Instead, Parties should prioritise subsidy reform as an opportunity to reduce inequalities, rebalance power within food systems and finance a just transition towards agroecology. Let’s be clear: this does not replace the obligation of developed countries to provide public and grant-based climate finance to developing countries. 

Finally, we reject the footnote and clumping together of agroecology, a well proven community led solution, with false solutions promoted by agribusiness interests, including climate-smart agriculture, nature-based solutions, regenerative agriculture, biotechnologies, no-till practices, artificial intelligence in agriculture and so-called sustainable intensification. These approaches keep the status quo rather than moving away from destructive industrial agriculture systems.

What is needed is to put the well being of people, animals and the planet before corporate profit with a clear commitment to phase out industrial agriculture and support a just transition toward agroecology to ensure food security whilst safeguarding food sovereignty through equitable and inclusive access to land.