TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 9 °C Saturday 18 May, 2013

Column: Dragging heels on climate change hurts the poor

The changing patterns of climate and other factors have caused chaos in the developing world, writes Concern’s CEO Tom Arnold. This week’s Earth Summit is a chance to prioritise solutions.

Tom Arnold

THE THREE-DAY United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development which starts in Rio de Janeiro on Wednesday presents world leaders with an excellent opportunity to adopt a new approach to climate change that reflects the priorities of the developing world.

Called Rio+20, it marks the 20th anniversary of the historic 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development attended by 179 countries which put sustainable development on the global agenda.

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. In the poorest countries where Concern works, the strains caused by climate change are increasingly evident. Erratic seasons, rising droughts and floods, uncertain planting dates and shorter growing periods for essential staples are all having an impact. For the world’s poor, who overwhelmingly depend on rain-fed agriculture for their survival, the changing patterns of climate, land availability and food production have caused chaos.

In the Sahel region of Africa, where a current food security crisis threatens more than 18 million people, rainfall has decreased by 25 percent in the last 30 years wreaking havoc on farming communities. Other factors like deforestation, overgrazing, continuous cropping, desertification and poor water management have also contributed to a deteriorating environment.

Today, over half of the working population of 28 million in the Sahel – an arid belt of land just south of the Sahara desert – are dependent on agriculture, yet The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that over 80 percent of the land there is degraded.

“We are way off course”

The global population has now crossed the seven billion mark and is projected to reach nine billion by mid-century. For the world’s population to be sustained in the future, a 70 percent increase in agricultural production is required. We are way off course.

The United Nations has stated that climate change, water scarcity and land degradation will cause a 25 per cent reduction in the world’s food production by 2050. Our failure to act now to address the changing landscape in the food system will cause severe shortages of food and water driving prices higher and plunging the poorest deeper into crisis.

Already developing countries are disproportionately affected by the effects of climate change despite contributing little to its causes. Africa accounts for less than 3 percent of the global emissions of carbon dioxide from fuel burning since 1900, yet its 840 million people bear the brunt of the effects of widespread drought and disrupted water supplies.

Concern’s engagement with the Mary Robinson Foundation for Climate Justice has prioritised the urgency of advocating for an equitable share of the burden between the world’s rich and poor. In sub-Saharan Africa, between 80 and 90 per cent of food produced is produced by women, yet they own less than 2 per cent of the land and have the least access to the resources required for climate adaptation.

The displacement and conflict exacerbated by climate change as people are forced to move long distances are intensifying global imbalances – with children most at risk. The International Food Policy Research Institute calculates the impacts of climate change on food security as representative of 24 million additional children at risk of hunger.

Two areas of focus have come to the fore in the context of addressing climate change and threats to food security: that of investing in community resilience to help people better prepare and react to disasters; and producing food in a way that is more resilient, sustainable and more equitable

“The benefits of conservation agriculture are indisputable”

The benefits of conservation agriculture – which is based on the concept that soil is best left undisturbed – are indisputable. Drought resistant seeds, terracing and irrigation techniques, reforestation and the construction of damns and embankments have all contributed to protecting communities from the effects of a weakening environment.

Concern’s livelihoods programmes in Malawi, Zimbabwe and Zambia have seen maize production more than double in areas where conservation agriculture techniques have been adopted. Similarly, crop and livestock micro insurance can be utilised to curb fluctuating prices and build farmers’ resilience, while providing incentives to increase production.

In the Bay of Bengal, where rising sea levels, erosion, prolonged droughts and cyclones have placed Bangladesh and India at the epicentre of weather disasters, Concern has pioneered a multi-country disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation programme in response to the emergence of new pockets of poverty where decreased paddy production, the destruction of crops and increased soil salinity have pushed people to the brink. Early warning systems and shelters are crucial in enabling communities to prepare for disasters, but measures that address the community’s ability to adapt to the changing environment are just as important.

Farming practices play a significant role in helping developing countries adapt and mitigate the effects of climate change, yet the agriculture sector remains substantially underfunded. As a percentage of total investment, agriculture has dropped from 22 per cent in 1980 to approximately six per cent today – a drop of roughly half of the funding allocated 30 years ago.

What is needed now is action at the international level for a new approach to agriculture and food security; one that fosters growth with resilience. Once climate change and food security policies better reflect the priorities of the developing world, we will be better equipped to build resilient programmes that unleash its extraordinary potential. Rio+20 presents us with that opportunity.

Read more about Rio +20 at Earthsummit2012.org. Tom Arnold is Chief Executive of Concern Worldwide.

Read next:

Comments (15 Comments)

  • mart_n 18/06/12 #

    “The global population has now crossed the seven billion mark and is projected to reach nine billion by mid-century. For the world’s population to be sustained in the future, a 70 percent increase in agricultural production is required. ”

    That’s not going to happen. For the world’s population to be sustained in the future, the world’s population needs to go into decline NOW. And flinging money at programs designed to stop that are utterly asinine and illogical. We’re way off course alright.. and too many people are trying to get us back on the wrong track.

    Reply
  • Would tend to agree. Ice ages have come and gone, tectonic plates shift. The world has never been the same, and the climate has always shifted. I would be of the opinion that we are certainly influencing the change, but change it will, regardless of what we do. When the ice age returns, and it will, there is no way in hell that we will be able to live in northern Europe, just as we can’t live well in the Arctic now. Humans must adapt, move and get on with it. Nature doesn’t respect our territorial boundaries.

    Reply
  • The summit of bullshit

    Reply
  • an article disputing climate change.are you insane? the climate is changing thats a fact.what I think you are trying to make reference to is the dispute as to who is responsible. throw away comments in the name of political correctness benefit no one. just look at where the moronic creationist arguments got us.

    Reply
    • Fae Jitt 19/06/12 #

      The Holy Climate change poohbahs say there is climate change, yes there is climate change. There always will be climate change. There will be climate change long after the human race has dissappeared up its own arse. Humans are not the centre of the universe – hell we’ve only been here for a blip in the earths history let alone the universe. We are overunning the planet a wee bit with our overpopulation – but the earth will sort that out itself too – although we may not like it so much. Unless you have direct control over 7 billion people you wont be able to change anything – whats going to happen is going to happen. Its the arseholes who profit from this by telling us if only we throw shed loads of cash at them the mighty oceans will decide not to warm up a bit and we’ll all be happy, they need grinding into recyclable materials because thats the only way theyll really help things.
      Politicians love it because all they have to do is agree with a few whack job scientist and they can impose huge taxes on the public and corporations and point at it and say ‘ look at what a good feckin politician I am all concerned about the enviroment and all – ooh look at all that cash.
      Less intelligent hippy types think they can make themselves all seem interesting and caring while raving on about pseudo science theyve cherry picked to suit their own self serving ideology.
      Meanwhile the world keeps turning

      Reply
  • Dragging heels on Climate Change Hurts the Poor.
    But it helps the rich. And who does God favor?
    Hint:
    It ain’t the poor.
    I hate to say it, but we’re going to have to address the real issue that drives all the other issues:
    Population control. Do you want to break it to the pope, or should I?

    Reply
  • The problem with climate change is that for some people they need to see the 100% true and proven scientific evidence that this is occurring and that their behaviour is accelerating the process. Only then will they really give it any consideration.

    While I am neither a sceptic nor a believer of human caused climate change. I think that anything we do to reduce pollution and carbon emissions is good anyway. So I generally side with the climate change crowd. I use my electric bike to get to work, and use the car on the weekends. That is the way of the future I think. The fossil fueled car will go the way of the horse, and become a hobby for enthusiasts.

    I order to deal with “climate change”, you need everyone to work together on it in. Its either everyone does their own thing or everyone works together with a common goal. This is fairly easy to implement in the west or westernised countries….(I know America is still one of the worst polluters, but there is a growing movement amongst its citizens to go green)….the real problem is in developing nations….they want to live the way the west did in the 80s…with complete disregard for the environment. Using China as a example, anything to do with cutting carbon emissions, is usually met with ” well you guys got to use fossil fuels years ago, so why shouldn’t we”….the larger developing nations do not want to learn from the mistakes we made.

    Even in developing nations, where current city planning and road infrastructure is terrible for fossil fueled vehicles, they insist on trying to build (poorly) motorways and such for them. This is when they should be planning for the future with electric vehicles in mind.

    In response to the article, the only way we will be able to deal with future climate change related problems is for our populations to drop. There is no other solution. The planet can only sustain a certain amount of each species. I just hope that with the developing nations, they will cop on pretty quickly and their populations fall. Currently its only the developed world (+China) that is doing anything about population control. We can’t keep it up on our own much longer, I read recently that Japan in another few decades will actually have more deaths than births per day.

    Reply
  • Damocles 19/06/12 #

    Introduce high yield GM crops. That’ll do the trick.

    And irrigate the Sahara.

    Reply
  • This is the second article on climate change in a few weeks…. Can the journal do an article disputing climate change just to give information on both sides of the coin. Thanks

    Reply
    • You want to suckle at the teat of fossil fuels, why complain about the color of the milk?

      Reply
    • Even if climate change could be scientifically disputed, the measures to tackle it are of benefit to humanity. This cartoon says it all: http://greenmonk.net/2010/01/07/what-if-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing/

      Reply
    • Stephen, have a look at Nick Davies’ “Flat Earth News”. It’s an excellent book, published a few years ago, that criticises modern journalism.
      One of the things he decries is the notion that news journalism should be balanced. In some areas this makes sense; for example in legal and personal disputes there indeed often are two sides to the story.
      But journalists can go astray when they attempt to provide “balanced” coverage of science. He takes climate change as an example, saying that media often feel the need to provide a forum for both sides. So a climate change sceptic will be granted equal airtime to an environmental group calling for urgent action. All very balanced, but overlooking the fact that the number of studies indicating the reality of climate change far outnumbers the number that seem to disprove it.

      Imagine if Galileo or Copernicus was working today. What would balanced news look like? Well, you’d have the boffin with his telescope and weird theory that goes beyond all common sense. And on the other hand, to provide balance, you’d have a spokesman for that respected institution, the Catholic Church, saying we should take such theories (such as the solar system and the roundness of the Earth) with a pinch of salt and that these fringe scientists often have sinistir agendas. Perhaps the media would adopt a wait and see approach, maybe future research will prove more conclusive.

      In this scenario the public would certainly be getting a balanced view. But would the truth be presented meaningfully?
      In this hypothetical case

      Reply

Add New Comment