Once upon a time, ECO thought Parties recognised the impact of climate change on food security and the importance of letting people know that they might starve if they don’t address warming. Unsurprisingly (given that the IPCC’s latest report speaks to this issue), 60% of the INDCs mention ‘food security’. So, it’s disappointing for ECO to learn that while food ‘production and distribution’ has popped up in the agreement 3 times, food ‘security’ is absent from the operative text. Perhaps Parties need a refresher on the difference between food security and food production?
World Bank and FAO reports clearly state that hunger is not a problem of food quantity, but of regular access to enough nutritious food. And access is different from distribution. It refers to having sufficient resources at all time to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet whereas distribution refers to being able to transport food from one place to another. Really, Parties: emphasising ‘food production and distribution’ is so old fashioned that it’s a throwback to the 1990s.
ECO has heard rumors that the Paris Agreement can’t reference food security because it is a sector–as in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. ECO is happy to state that this is not the case. As per the recently released SDGs, food security is now a global development goal: Goal 2 aims to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. On the other hand, food production is a sector.
Lastly, ECO is aware that ‘food production’ is mentioned in Article 2 of the UNFCCC. So, why repeat it? ECO has heard that some Parties are afraid to introduce a new concept in the Paris Agreement. Be assured that food security as a concept was agreed and defined at the World Food Summit in 1996 so it is UN agreed language that Parties can use.
ECO therefore calls on Parties to enter the 21st century and anchor food security in the Paris Agreement. It is time to recognise that ending hunger is not simply a matter of production and distribution – but a question of dignity.