Agriculture and Forest Days were held over the weekend. With a total of 2000 participants, these events are among the most significant in Cancun, raising the profile of the land-based sectors, and providing a fantastic networking opportunity. FAO has had a key role in each of the Days, and FAO delegation members made presentations and led panels.
On Monday, an official COP side event brought the two days together. Reports from the two Days were presented and a panel provided some additional perspectives. I was on the panel and made comments along the following:
First, key linkages are made much stronger than before. We are combining finance and action on climate change with finance and action on development. We acknowledge that REDD+ success depends on action in agriculture, as also stated by Nicholas Stern in Forest Day.
So there is a case to have one two-day event on agriculture and forests, rather than two separate one-day events.
And yet, despite the strong recognition of linkages and interdependencies between the land based sectors, I note that the press release reporting on Forest Day 4 does not mention agriculture. Clearly, sector silos are still strong.
Secondly, there is a stronger focus on implementation. Perhaps this follows that the negotiations are moving towards decisions, for example on REDD+, and that focus is now on action rather than positions. The role of the Days seem to be evolving to be less of an attempt to influence the negotiations, and more to join forces to get the job done.
Finally, the reports from the Days take the shape of statements and positions. Let us remember that the topics covered are very complex. They are also dealt with in a multitude of ways, including intergovernmental processes beyond UNFCCC. One-day conferences can be very effective for communicating condensed results and views from these wider perspectives. The reports should therefore perhaps be more of a summary than a position.
So, let’s test the “belief” expressed in the briefing for Forest Day http://www.forestsclimatechange.org/fd4_media_release_402.html and get hold of some scientific basis for these concerns in order to construct meaningful policies that address them”Generally, food production is *viewed* as being in direct conflict with efforts to reduce deforestation. Agriculture is a primary driver of deforestation. If farmers succeed in producing more food on less land, some believe that it could encourage more farmers to clear even more forested land for cultivation…”
It would be good to see a great deal more scientific *analysis* and synthesis generally – not just reports of individual initiatives, not because these are not importatn – they are – but because it is difficult to learn broad lessons from single studies or even single programs, which are by necessity rather limited.