Dear Delegates, I am Enric speaking on behalf of Climate Save, Global Forest Coalition and World Animal Protection, members of the Demand Climate Justice alliance.

It is disheartening to witness the slow progress in taking action, despite the overwhelming evidence that immediate measures are necessary. 

The IPCC report is clear that if we were to halt all fossil fuel emissions immediately, the emissions originating from our food systems alone could result in a devastating increase in global temperatures, surpassing the critical threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius. The world has demonstrated its ability to act swiftly and cohesively during the recent COVID-19 emergency. We need to channel that same sense of urgency and cooperation into addressing the negative impacts coming from the agriculture sector.

We cannot ignore the destructive practices of agribusinesses that continue to ravage our planet – such as the massive destruction to our world’s habitats caused by factory farming and its demand for animal feed. Large-scale agribusiness operations not only contribute significantly to emissions and environmental destruction, but also push away smallholders and small-scale fishers who are unable to compete, displace indigenous communities, and threaten food sovereignty. It is imperative that we address these injustices and protect the rights and livelihoods of those most affected. 

In light of this alarming reality, we urge the new joint work to prioritize the implementation of effective solutions including non-party actors in this work. False solutions such as climate smart agriculture, gene editing and so-called sustainable intensification will only serve the interests of the big polluters in the agricultural sector.

The global north should take responsibility for its historical emissions and take the lead in first reducing their animal protein production and consumption, and support the global south countries to shift towards agroecological practices and safeguard sustainable existing food systems. The global north must start by redirecting public finance to support smallholders to shift towards a just, humane and sustainable food system.

Agroecology, along with dietary shifts – as advised by the IPCC, which identified plant based proteins as having the highest mitigation potential – are urgent solutions to confront these challenges. Agroecology and dietary shifts are not just concepts; they are real and accessible solutions for our communities worldwide.

The time for action is now. We must prioritize the implementation of agroecology and truly sustainable food systems. Let us harness the lessons learned from the COVID-19 emergency and act collectively, swiftly, and decisively. 

Thank you.

Delivered by Meena Rama, Third World Network on behalf of ENGO – DCJ

There is a clear need for an honest assessment of the lack of adequate progress on the moi, without beating around the bush. We talk of raising ambition on climate actions, but we do not see the reciprocal ambition on the means of implementation for developing countries.

There is evidence to indicate the following:

1. Developed countries have collectively failed in meeting their commitments on the provision and mobilisation of the financial resources that have been agreed to. This is borne out by –
   • The failure to mobilise the US$ 100 billion per year by 2020 and even up till now. While the numbers of what exactly has been mobilised and delivered vary in the SCF reports, the fact of failure to meet this commitment in a timely manner is loud and clear. This is a pre-2020 implementation gap which has been carried over to the pre-2025 timeframe.
   • This 100b goal is not based on the needs of developing countries but was a political number arrived at in Copenhagen, as we all know.
   • The SCF’s Needs Determination Report clearly indicates that what is needed at least in the pre-2030 timeframe is around $ 5-11 trillion, even with only 30% of the costs estimated in the NDCs of developing countries. Hence, the needs far outweigh what is currently available.
2. Even the promise to deliver on the doubling of adaptation finance is far from what is needed, as seen from the various reports from various UN agencies.
3. The Green Climate Fund and the Adaptation Fund are languishing for funds, as numerous projects in the pipelines are not able to be funded.
4. Much of what has been provided including from the MDBs are mainly loans, with only a small portion being grants. With more and more developing countries in debt distress, loans are not the right instrument. There is clearly a greater need for non-debt creating instruments.
5. Access to funds have not been easy to the limited funds available at the operating entities of the financial mechanism – the GCF and the GEF – with cumbersome procedures and slow disbursements. Intermediaries have largely been international entities as opposed to direct access entities from developing countries.
6. The much hype about private finance and investment flows into developing countries. According to the SCF technical report on the 100b mobilisation report, the expectation for private finance mobilization has been severely an underperformance. The World Bank’s own ‘Scaling Solar’ project to try and leverage private finance for renewable energy projects only managed to leverage 28c private finance for every 1$ of public finance, and only with the support of generous guarantees, tax breaks and subsidies.
7. Furthermore, access to low-cost finance is uneven as the cost of capital differs substantially between regions, with developing countries often paying an interest rate many times more to private creditors than other official creditors.[1]
8. From recent IEA report on energy, the high cost of capital and rising borrowing costs threaten to undercut the economic attractiveness for investments in clean energy in developing countries, and that most of the positive trends in clean energy investments are leaving developing countries behind
9. There are also studies which show that while international financial institutions (IFIs) have made progress, for example with increased climate financing and coordination from Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), a Special Drawing Rights (SDR) allocation in 2021, and a new Resilient and Sustainability Trust (RST) from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but IFIs have also been slow to release their financial firepower to meet the demonstrated need,[2] and continue to prioritise de-risking modalities which have little evidence of success. 
10. There are genuine concerns over use of Article 2.1c as a way to impose new conditionalities for accessing finance in the name of enabling environments and to shift the burden and responsibility onto developing countries, contrary to article 9 of the PA. Should not make it difficult for developing c to access finance for meeting their NDC implementation.

Technology gap –

1. In the area of climate technologies and their accessibility and transfer from developed to developing countries, progress has been insignificant and abysmal. This reality is clear. 
2. There is indeed a technology gap which needs to be addressed for climate technologies to developing countries. There is evidence that there are intellectual property rights concerns where developed countries dominate in climate technologies patent ownership, production and trade.
3. There are reports including from UNEP, UNCTAD and WIPO that show the dominance of developed countries in relation to low-carbon technological innovations. But these are missing in the assessment. Between 1990-2015, 80% of all low-carbon technological inventions were concentrated in developed countries. The fact that most patents for climate-relevant technologies are in developed countries has significant implications on technology transfer possibilities, as the design and use of such technologies may not be directly responsive to the needs of developing countries.
4. These implementation gaps in finance and technologies will be further   exacerbated by developed countries’ carbon border measures and unilateral trade measures including non-tariff barriers that grossly disadvantage developing countries.  The implications of CBMs is missing in relation to the response measures.
5. We are good in this process of setting up institutions but real delivery of the moi for delivering is not significant.

If the GST is to have meaning, it must address these gaps and challenges, not repeat the failures and mistakes and dramatically course correct. If there is political will, there will be a way. Need to see that will to realise the hopes and aspirations of esp. of the poor and the planet.

[1] Eurodad, 2021. Sleep now in the fire: Sovereign Bonds and the Covid-19 Debt Crisis. https://www.eurodad.org/sovereign_bonds_covid19;

[2] An Independent Review of Multilateral Development Banks’ Capital Adequacy Frameworks, 2022. Boosting MDBs’ investing capacity. https://g20.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/CAF-Review-Report.pdf

Dear Delegates,  I am speaking on behalf of World Animal Protection and Global Forest Coalition, members of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice. 

The interconnectivity of climate change, biodiversity loss, and food insecurity must be recognized. We must build a food system where smallholders and small-scale fishers live in dignity, one that nourishes communities, and  protects our environment for generations to come. Mainstreaming gender-transformative and responsive agriculture policies and approaches to promote  gender equity, and acknowledging women’s unique contribution and challenges in agriculture and food security is also critical. 

Given this, we are encouraging the new Joint Work to take a holistic food systems approach that considers the social and environmental impacts of both agricultural production and demand; and the co benefits of transitioning towards a humane, just and sustainable food system.

We also encourage the discussion of the new Joint Work to include a Transition Towards a Humane, and Sustainable Food system based on Agroecological Practices that would encompass soil health, biodiversity, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. 

To meet the Paris Agreement goals, we urge the exploration of alternatives to industrial farming due to its threat to our environment and climate. We would like to echo the other constituencies in their call for a definition of “sustainable agriculture” to be carefully examined. Solutions put forward under sustainable agriculture should be accessible to and agreed together with smallholders and small scale fishers, and not serve the interest of the big polluters in the agricultural sector.

We particularly urge adherence to a holistic approach to agriculture, and avoid references to Climate Smart Agriculture, Nature Based Solutions, Regenerative agriculture, and other approaches that are not properly defined or have proven to be controversial.

We welcome the recognition of smallholders and small scale fishers, as levers of change. Smallholders and small scale fishers should be at the centre of this work, finance should be redirected towards supporting them implementing Agroecological Practices that ensure gender and social justice, food security and sovereignty, whilst protecting nature. In this regard, we call on the new joint work to prioritise mitigation opportunities in the industrial agriculture sector given their social impacts and carbon footprint. 

As it stands, our food system is unsustainable, causing hunger, habitat destruction at a terrifying rate and contributing hugely to global emissions. Without seriously rethinking our food systems and prioritizing truly sustainable approaches, we will never achieve the Paris goals.