Once upon a time, 197 parties signed an agreement somewhere near the Eiffel Tower, to address our climate. They called it the Paris Agreement.
In the city of lights and with a light of hope, those 197 parties agreed, among others, to safeguard principles of human rights, including the rights of indigenous peoples, food security, just transition, ecosystem integrity and protection of biodiversity, intergenerational equity, gender equality and public participation.
But ECO is starting to feel a bit puzzled … we’ve heard that a Rulebook is being written to implement this Paris Agreement, but that the great eight principles are incomplete, and scarcely and shyly mentioned.
A few of those principles are mentioned (although heavily bracketed). But we’re sad to see food security has been left out.
Negotiators who have worked hard in the discussions under the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture to safeguard food security in a changing climate might feel that their efforts are being undermined by this APA oversight. After all, they might agree with ECO that there is a risk that Team Koronivia could end up developing excellent guidelines or outcomes on food security — only to see farms, lands and livelihoods threatened by misguided climate action.
That would leave a pretty bad taste in the mouth.
So, hey, Agriculture negotiators! Given the slow pace of Koronivia progress, why don’t you go talk to your APA/3 and 5 colleagues to let them know why food security and rights must be included in the Rulebook? It would be nice for us to say that when it comes to food security, at least the Paris Rulebook is moving in the “rights” direction. Right(s)?
