Once upon a time at COP21, ECO fought for guiding principles in the Paris Agreement. One of them was food security. At that time, many countries were skeptical and asked, “what is this strange thing, food security? We only know food production.” So ECO worked really hard to socialize among Parties the internationally agreed FAO definition with the four pillars of food security. At COP23, ECO was thrilled to see the creation of the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA) with a clear purpose that includes consideration of food security.
When negotiations on the KJWA roadmap began, ECO suggested Parties acknowledge FAO’s definition to operationalize this part of the COP23 decision. FAO is a UN body, after all. But no! ECO could not find any reference to this definition in the draft conclusions discussed this week.
Must we assume ECO’s hard work paid off and that this definition is now crystal-clear for all the parties leaving no need for a reminder of the FAO definition and its four pillars? What a steep learning curve this would be!
ECO is truly confident negotiators fully grasp the fundamental difference between the UNFCCC reference to food production and the KJWA’s focus on food security. ECO looks forward to your work to address food security and all four of its pillars in submissions and workshops.
And if you forget, don’t worry: ECO is reassured that Parties agreed on broad participation, so the food security family (indigenous peoples, small-scale farmers, youth, women and environmental NGOs) will always be there to refresh Parties’ memory.
And finally, now that these negotiators understand food security so perfectly, ECO hopes that they will talk to their APA colleagues so they can understand it as well.