Excluding Food Systems From Climate Deal Is a Recipe for Disaster

Posted on by admin

Africa, Climate Change, Climate Change Justice, Conferences, COP30, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Systems, Global, Headlines, Latin America & the Caribbean, Population, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations | Analysis

Food Systems


Food solutions were on display everywhere around COP30—from the 80 tonnes of local and agroecological meals served to concrete proposals for tackling hunger—but none of this made it into the negotiating rooms or the final agreement. —Elisabetta Recine, IPES-Food panel expert

Agriculture is both a challenge and a solution for climate change. Busani Bafana/IPS

Agriculture is both a challenge and a solution for climate change. Busani Bafana/IPS

BULAWAYO, Jan 9 2026 (IPS) – As they ate catered meals, COP30 negotiators had no appetite for fixing broken food systems, a major source of climate pollution, experts warn.

Food systems are the complete journey food takes—from the farm to fork—which means its growing, processing, distribution, trade and consumption and even the waste.

The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) warns that the final COP30 agreement risks deepening climate and hunger crises.  It failed  to address global warming emissions from food systems and the escalating damages caused by fossil-fuel-dependent industrial agriculture.

Food appears only once in the negotiated text, as a narrow indicator on ‘climate resilient food production’ under the Global Goal on Adaptation, IPES-Food pointed out.

“There is no mention of food systems, no roadmap to tackle deforestation, and no recognition that industrial agriculture drives nearly 90 percent of forest loss worldwide,” noted the think tank, emphasizing that negotiators also weakened language in the Mitigation Work Programme from addressing the ‘drivers’ of deforestation to vague ‘challenges.’

IPES-Food argued that the omission of food systems in the COP30 agreement was in stark contrast to the summit itself, which was held in the heart of the Amazon. Thirty percent of all food served during COP30 came from agroecological family farmers and traditional communities, and concrete public policy proposals for a just transition of food systems were on full display, IPES-Food said.

By not supporting a transition to environmentally friendly and low-emission agriculture, the agreement has left the global food system—and the billions who depend on it—highly vulnerable to the very climate shocks it helps cause, experts said.

“Food solutions were on display everywhere around COP30—from the 80 tonnes of local and agroecological meals served to concrete proposals for tackling hunger—but none of this made it into the negotiating rooms or the final agreement,” said Elisabetta Recine, IPES-Food panel expert and president of the Brazilian National Food and Nutrition Security Council (Consea), in a statement.

“Despite all the talk, negotiators failed to act, and the lived realities of people most affected by hunger, poverty, and climate shocks went unheard.”

Big Oil and Big Ag, Bigger voice

More than 300 industrial agriculture lobbyists were registered as delegates to COP30. They  are blamed for influencing discussions and promoting false solutions to climate change.

“COP30 was supposed to be the Implementation COP—where words turned into action,” Danielle Nierenberg, an expert on sustainable agriculture and food issues and President of Food Tank, told IPS. “But once again, corporate interests won over people, nature, and the future of our food and agriculture systems as part of the solution to the climate crisis.”

Raj Patel, IPES-Food panel expert and professor at the University of Texas, argues that agribusiness lobbyists captured COP30 to influence outcomes favoring industrial agriculture and big oil interests.

“Food systems are second only to oil and gas as a driver of the climate crisis, and unlike oil wells, they are also the first victim of the chaos they create, Patel noted.

Obstacles and Opportunities

Scientists have warned that carbon emissions, including those from agriculture, must be cut considerably if the world is to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 2°C or less.

Even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target, scientists have said.

Selorm Kugbega, a Research Fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute, agrees that despite many promises made to tackle agriculture-linked emissions, COP30 turned out to be a damp squib for agrifood systems.

Initiatives such as RAIZ to restore 500 million hectares of degraded agricultural land by 2030 and TERRA to scale out climate solutions for smallholder farmers through blended finance, which were launched at COP30 omitted to highlight the effects of industrial food systems. Over 300 industrial agriculture lobbyists participated in discussions at COP30, leading to accusations of swaying the outcomes.

Analysts warn the final agreement at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, risks deepening climate and hunger crises. Credit: Raimundo Pacco/COP30

Analysts warn the final agreement at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, risks deepening climate and hunger crises. Credit: Raimundo Pacco/COP30

Kugbega observed that after several years of slow progress and momentum in integrating food systems in climate negotiations, COP30 should have been the opportunity to seal agriculture’s centrality in future COPs. However, it ended with no clear agreements on grant-based public finance for adaptation in agriculture or redirection of public funds that subsidize industrial systems.

The climate negotiations demonstrated power inequality in climate negotiations with the implicit protection of industrial agriculture interests, which weakened the credibility of any global efforts at mitigating agriculture-based emissions, Kugbega observed, highlighting that smallholders bear a high burden of climate risks and have little adaptation financing.

Kugbega argued the most powerful countries, which are generally less dependent on agriculture, tend to prioritize sectors such as energy and transport in climate negotiations. However, many least developed countries, particularly in Africa, are highly dependent on agriculture for employment and economic stability and face urgent climate risks.

“Yet these countries often lack the political influence to elevate agriculture and food systems as central issues in COP negotiations,” he said. “COP30 in Brazil presented a major opportunity to shift this imbalance, making the failure to position food systems at the center of the climate agenda particularly troubling.”

Frugal Financing for Food and Farmers

According to the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) and the UN’s Standing Committee on Finance, agriculture receives a small and insufficient share of total global climate finance.

Of the available approximate total global climate finance of USD 1.3 trillion per year on average, agriculture gets around USD 35 billion per year. This is a huge shortfall given that food systems are estimated to be responsible for roughly one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions and are one of the sectors most vulnerable to climate impacts, according to the CPI. Worse still, smallholder farmers, who produce up to 80 percent of food in developing countries, only receive 0.3 percent—a striking imbalance, yet they feed the world and are more exposed to climate impacts.

Will COP31 Deliver?

While COP30 highlighted the need to tackle climate change impacts through the transformation of food systems, such as highlighted in the Belém Declaration on Hunger, Poverty and Human-Centered Climate Action, it remains to be seen if COP31 will deliver a positive outcome on food systems.

Waiting for COP31 to save the world is surrendering because agribusiness lobbyists do not take holidays, argues IPES-Food panel’s Raj Patel.

“The test is not whether diplomats can craft better language in Antalya, but whether farmers’ movements, indigenous movements, and climate movements can generate enough political pressure to make governments fear inaction more than they fear confronting corporate power,” he said.

COP31, to be  hosted by Turkey with Australia as negotiations president in 2026 , is expected to prioritize an action agenda centered on adaptation finance, fossil fuel phase-out, adaptation in Small Island Developing States, and oceans.

While this agenda aligns with broader climate justice goals, it means food systems risk becoming indirectly addressed rather than explicitly championed, Kugbega said.

Given the stalled negotiations on financing sustainable agriculture transitions and the postponement of the Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work on Agriculture, Kugbega said COP31 will likely focus more on developing new roadmaps and agreements than on full-scale implementation.

COP32 could be a greater opportunity for the implementation of the work program under Ethiopia’s COP32 presidency, given the country’s direct exposure to climate risks in agriculture, he noted.

“COP31 will likely shape whether the world arrives at COP32 ready to implement and operationalize sustainable food systems or once again be forced to renegotiate what is already known.”

This feature is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

‘Zambia Has Environmental Laws and Standards on Paper – the Problem Is Their Implementation’

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Africa, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Energy, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Headlines, Health, TerraViva United Nations

Dec 29 2025 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses environmental accountability in Zambia with Christian-Geraud Neema, Africa editor at the China Global South Project, an independent journalism initiative that covers and follows China’s activities in global south countries.

Zambia has environmental laws and standards on paper – the problem is their implementation’

Christian-Geraud Neema

A group of 176 Zambian farmers has filed a US$80 billion lawsuit against a Chinese state-owned mining company over a major toxic spill. In February, the collapse of a dam that was supposed to control mining waste released 50 million litres of toxic wastewater into the Kafue River system, killing fish, destroying crops and contaminating water sources for thousands of people. The compensation demand highlights broader questions about mining governance, environmental oversight and corporate accountability.

What’s this lawsuit about, and why are farmers seeking US$80 billion?

The farmers are suing Sino-Metals Leach Zambia, a subsidiary of the Chinese state-owned China Nonferrous Metal Mining Group, because on 18 February, the company’s tailings dam collapsed, releasing an estimated 50 million litres of acidic, toxic wastewater and up to 1.5 million tonnes of waste material into the Kafue River. This led to water pollution affecting communities in Chambishi and Kitwe, far beyond the immediate mining area.

The lawsuit reflects real harm and frustration. From the farmers’ perspective, the company is clearly responsible. Their livelihoods have been destroyed, their land contaminated and their future made uncertain. In that context, seeking accountability through the courts is a rational response.

That said, the US$80 billion figure is likely exaggerated. It shows the absence of credible damage assessments rather than a precise calculation. When no one provides clear data on losses, communities respond by anchoring their claims in worst-case scenarios.

This case also highlights a broader accountability gap. Mining companies should be held responsible, but governments must also be questioned. These projects are approved, inspected and regulated by state authorities. If a dam was unsafe, why was it authorised? Why was oversight insufficient?

It should be noted that Zambia’s legal framework allows communities to bring such cases domestically, which is a significant step forward compared to earlier cases where affected communities had to sue foreign companies in courts abroad.

What caused the toxic spill?

There is no single, uncontested explanation. There were clear structural weaknesses in the tailings dam. Reports from civil society and media suggest the dam was not built to the required standards under Zambian regulations. But the company argues the dam complied with existing standards and that it was encroachment by surrounding communities that weakened the structure over time.

These two narratives are not mutually exclusive. Even if community interactions with the site occurred, the primary responsibility still lies with the company. Mining operations take place in complex social environments, and companies are expected to anticipate these realities and design infrastructure that is robust enough to withstand them. Ultimately, this incident reflects governance and regulatory failures. It was not an isolated accident.

What were the consequences of the spill?

The impacts have been severe and multidimensional. The spill polluted large sections of the Kafue River, reportedly extending over 100 kilometres. It killed large numbers of fish, contaminated riverbeds and disrupted ecosystems. Agriculturally, farmers using river water for irrigation saw their crops destroyed or rendered unsafe. Livestock and soil quality were also affected. Acidic and toxic substances entered water sources used daily for cooking, drinking and washing, and communities were exposed to serious health risks.

What makes the situation particularly troubling is the lack of reliable and independent data. There has been no transparent and comprehensive assessment released by the government, the company or an independent body. This absence has left communities uncertain about long-term environmental damage and health effects, and fuelled emotionally charged debates instead of evidence-based responses.

Was the disaster preventable?

Absolutely. At a technical level, stronger infrastructure, better-quality materials and stricter adherence to safety standards could have significantly reduced the risk. At an operational level, companies know mining sites are rarely isolated, and community proximity, informal access and social dynamics must be factored in when designing and securing tailings dams.

But prevention also depends heavily on governance. Mining companies are profit-driven entities, and in weak governance environments, the temptation to cut costs is high. This is not unique to Chinese firms. The main difference in how companies operate is not their origin but their context: the same companies often operate very differently in countries with weak or strong regulatory oversight. Where rules are enforced, behaviour improves; where oversight is weak, shortcuts become the norm.

The key issue here is enforcement. Zambia has good environmental laws and standards on paper. The problem is their implementation.

Could this case set a precedent?

This case has the potential to strengthen existing accountability mechanisms rather than create a new precedent. Zambia has seen similar cases before, including lawsuits involving western mining companies. What is different now is the increased legal space for communities to act locally.

If successful, the case could reinforce civil society advocacy for responsible mining, greater transparency and stronger enforcement of environmental regulations. It could also raise awareness among communities living near mining sites about their rights and the risks they face.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
TikTok
Twitter
YouTube
Christian-Geraud Neema/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
South Africa: ‘Environmental rights are enforceable and communities have the right to be consulted and taken seriously’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with The Green Connection 12.Dec.2025
DRC: ‘International demand for coltan is linked to violence in the DRC’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Claude Iguma 09.Jul.2025
Ghana: ‘We demand an immediate ban on illegal mining and strict enforcement of environmental laws’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Jeremiah Sam 29.Oct.2024

  Source

Kenyan Court Restores Seed Freedom: Landmark Ruling Boost for Food Security and Sovereignty

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Africa, Biodiversity, Civil Society, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Systems, Natural Resources, TerraViva United Nations, Trade & Investment

Food Systems

Farmers celebrate in Gilgil town in Kenya, after a court ruling that decriminalized the sharing of indigenous seeds. Credit: Jackson Okata/IPS

Farmers celebrate in Gilgil town in Kenya, after a court ruling that decriminalized the sharing of indigenous seeds. Credit: Jackson Okata/IPS

NAIROBI, Dec 18 2025 (IPS) – For years, smallholder farmers across Kenya have been engaged in a legal battle with the government over a law that criminalizes the practice of saving, sharing and exchanging indigenous seeds.

In 2022, a group of 15 Kenyan smallholder farmers petitioned the country’s High Court, seeking to compel the government to review sections of a law that bans the sharing and exchange of uncertified and unregistered seeds.

Rural smallholder farmers in Kenya rely on informal farmer-managed systems to acquire seeds through seed saving and sharing, but the Seeds and Plant Varieties Act limited their access.

Kenya’s government enacted the law in 2012 to develop, promote, and regulate a modern and competitive seed industry, but farmers are calling for its review.

The informal farmer-managed seed system allows farmers to store a portion of their seeds after harvesting, which guarantees them seeds for the next planting season.

Victory for Farmers

In a decisive victory for food sovereignty and climate justice, the High Court on November 27, 2025, ruled in favor of smallholder farmers, declaring punitive sections of the Seed and Plant Varieties Act unconstitutional.

The judgment effectively decriminalizes the age-old practice of saving, sharing, and exchanging indigenous seeds, affirming that Farmer-Managed Seed Systems (FMSS) are a protected right, not a criminal activity.

Under the punitive law, farmers faced jail terms of up to two years and a fine of 1 million shillings (about 7,800 USD) for selling or exchanging unregistered seeds.

Farmer rights defenders had argued that the law gave control of the country’s food system to multinational corporations.

In her judgment, Justice Rhoda Rutto declared unconstitutional sections of the Act that gave seed inspectors sweeping powers to raid seed banks and seize seeds meant for the next harvest, made it illegal for farmers to process or sell seeds unless they were registered seed merchants, gave extensive proprietary rights to plant breeders and none to farmers, and made it illegal for farmers to save or share seeds from their harvest without prior knowledge of seed proprietors.

Samuel Wathome, a smallholder farmer who was a petitioner in the case, says that “just like his grandmother did, he can now freely save seeds for his grandchildren without fear of police or prison.”

According to Elizabeth Atieno, a Food Campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, the court ruling affirmed the long-known tradition of seed sovereignty.

“The court ruling removed shackles from Kenya’s farmers.  This is not just a legal win; it is a victory for our culture, our resilience, and our future,” Atieno told IPS.

She added, “By validating indigenous seeds, the court has struck a blow against the corporate capture of our food system. We can finally say that in Kenya, feeding your community with climate-resilient, locally adapted seeds is no longer a crime.”

Protecting Biodiversity

According to Gideon Muya, Programs Officer, Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya, the judgment is a shield for the country’s biodiversity.

“Indigenous seeds are the library of life because they hold the genetic diversity we need to withstand droughts, pests, and a changing climate. The court has recognized that you cannot patent nature’s heritage. We have reclaimed the right to choose what we plant and what we eat, free from the coercion of commercial seed monopolies,” Muya told IPS.

Claire Nasike, an agroecologist, noted that the judgment indicates that the seed is life, and it is sovereign, and whoever controls it influences the lifeline of a generation.

Nasike observes that the ruling is a big boost for biodiversity, climate resilience and food sovereignty since indigenous seeds tend to be well adapted to local conditions like soil types, rainfall patterns, pests and disease traits that are often lost in uniform, certified commercial seeds.

“By enabling farmers to save, exchange and diversify their seed stock, communities can preserve genetic diversity, a key buffer against climate shocks like droughts and pests, as well as a safeguard for long-term food security.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Farmers Earn While Reviving Native Forests Through a Blockchain-Powered App

Posted on by admin

Africa, Biodiversity, Civil Society, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Systems, Gender, Green Economy, Sustainable Development Goals, Trade & Investment, Women & Economy

Africa Climate Wire

Caroline Awuor tends to tree seedlings on her farm in Siaya County, Western Kenya. She is a beneficiary of the My Farm Trees Project. Credit: Jackson Okata/IPS

Caroline Awuor tends to tree seedlings on her farm in Siaya County, Western Kenya. She is a beneficiary of the My Farm Trees Project. Credit: Jackson Okata/IPS

SIAYA, Kenya , Dec 8 2025 (IPS) – For years, Morris Onyango had been trying to reforest his degraded land on the shores of River Nzoia, in Siaya county, 430 kilometers from Kenya’s Capital, Nairobi. But every time he planted trees on his farm, his efforts bore little fruit, as floodwaters would not only wash away his tree seedlings but also fertile topsoil on his land.

“The land became unproductive and bare. I tried reclaiming the land through reforestation, but the trees’ survival rate was too low,” Onyango said.

Siaya County has a 5.23 percent forest cover and is ranked 44th out of Kenya’s 47 counties. Judy Ogeche, a scientist from the Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), says that the compromised forest and tree cover in the county and the lack of any gazetted forests have discouraged the integration of tree and crop farming.

“Communities here do not see tree growing as a lucrative venture. Some myths and beliefs discourage tree growing. For example, some people believe that growing the Terminalia mentalis (often known as the Panga Uzazi) tree attracts death,” says Ogeche.

According to Ogeche, another challenge is gender inequality in land ownership, with men owning most available land and making decisions on what should be planted.

“We have many women interested in restoring tree cover, but their husbands would not allow it,” Ogeche said.

Across Africa, reforestation projects struggle to survive beyond the seedling stage. However, in parts of Kenya, a groundbreaking digital innovation is transforming the landscape by empowering rural farmers to earn a living while restoring degraded lands with native trees.

Tech and Reforestation

In a bid to restore lost biodiversity and enhance tree cover in Kenya, Alliance Bioversity International and CIAT, in partnership with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), launched the My Farm Trees project, a blockchain-based platform that offers guidance to subsistence farmers on seed selection, planting, and post-plant care, ensuring that seedlings survive and thrive in harsh conditions.

Implemented in the counties of Siaya, Turkana and Laikipia, MFT emphasizes genetically robust native species that support biodiversity, improve soil health, and provide long-term ecological and economic benefits.

Ogeche observes that the My Farm Trees project has motivated communities in Siaya to grow trees.

“They are given free seedlings and taught how to plant and take care of them, and when the trees grow, they are paid,” she said.

To provide the right seedlings, the project is partnering with the Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), the Kenya Forest Services (KFS) and private tree nursery operators in the respective counties.

For farmers like Onyango, the My Farm Trees Project gave them the much-needed solution to their degraded lands and soils

“The project gifted me 175 seedlings of various trees, which I planted along the riverbank. The trees have helped me reclaim my land, prevent erosion and get paid for taking care of my own trees,” Onyango says.

How it Works

In the My Farm Trees project, participating farmers are registered on the MyGeo Farm App, which allows them to monitor seedlings from planting to growing. Through the app, farmers can track and report progress.

Francis Oduor, the National Project Coordinator, says since its rollout, the project has seen over 1,300 farmers registered on the MyGeo Tree App, and over 100,000 seedlings have been planted across the three counties.

“The project is especially interested in using indigenous trees for landscape restoration, which are native to specific areas, and to enhance genetic diversity,” says Oduor.

Oduor explains that My Farm Trees uses monitoring, verification, and incentives to empower local communities to become leaders and stewards of tree-planting projects that provide immediate short-term benefits.

“The project does not just focus on payment to farmers but the long-term benefits of restored landscapes for improved agricultural productivity, water regulation, and climate resilience,” said Oduor.

To ensure the use of native varieties and guarantee the production of quality tree seedlings, the project team collaborates with KEFRI to provide technical assistance to local tree nursery operators.

Lawrence Ogoda, a tree nursery operator, is among the project beneficiaries. He has been trained on seed collection, raising seedlings and record keeping.

“Through the MyGeo Tree and MyGeo Nursery Apps, I can collect data and track progress on seed collection, propagation and development at the nurseries.”

Before joining the My Farm Trees project, Caroline Awuor had not given much attention to growing trees. She received 110 seedlings, 104 of which have successfully survived and are earning her cash incentives.

“Most of them are fruit trees, including mangoes, avocado and jackfruit, while there are also some timber trees. In addition to the incentives from the project, I also earn money by selling the fruit,” she says.

Caroline intends to plant an additional 1,000 tree seedlings on her land, strategically located near the River Nzoia.

According to Joshua Schneck, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) Portfolio Manager for Global Programs at IUCN, My Farm Trees is an innovative project driven towards sustainable transformation.

The Impact

In Kenya, My Farm Tree has supported 3,404 farmers, 56 percent of whom are women. A total of 210,520 trees have been planted, with a survival rate of over 60 percent beyond the first year, with 1,250 hectares of land being restored across Siaya, Turkana, and Laikipia counties.

The program has released KES 26 million (approximately USD 200,000) in digital payments, directly benefiting 1,517 farmers. Additionally, 13 local nurseries have been strengthened in partnership with the Kenya Forestry Research Institute.

Also implemented in Cameroon, the project has seen the restoration of 1,403 hectares of forest land with over 145,000 seedlings being planted and 2,200 farmers registered on the platform. The project has also seen the restoration of 423 community lands and 315 sacred forests, with USD 130,000 in incentives distributed to farmers.

Oduor noted that the My Farm Trees project offers a scalable blueprint for  forest restoration by combining science and Blockchain technology in tree selection, post-planting support, and farmer incentives, which gives it  global relevance.

“MFT is a scalable model that aligns with climate action, poverty reduction, and ecosystem recovery. This approach supports the goals of the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, and the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration,” Oduor said.
IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Evaluation Finds Food Systems Programs Deliver Results but Warns of Missed Transformation Chances

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Climate Change, Conferences, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Systems, Global, Headlines, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Food Systems

The Global Environment Facility’s food systems program found that its programs are highly relevant to global efforts to curb deforestation, land degradation, biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, fisheries, and commodity supply chains. Pictured here is a farmer in Kashmir's frontier hamlet of RS Pura bordering Pakistan, farmers in this region have been affected by both climate change and conflict. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

The Global Environment Facility’s food systems program found that its programs are highly relevant to global efforts to curb deforestation, land degradation, biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, fisheries, and commodity supply chains. Pictured here is a farmer in Kashmir’s frontier hamlet of RS Pura bordering Pakistan, farmers in this region have been affected by both climate change and conflict. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

WASHINGTON, D.C & SRINAGAR, Nov 21 2025 (IPS) – A new independent evaluation of the Global Environment Facility’s food systems programs says they are delivering strong environmental and livelihood gains in many countries but warns that a narrow focus on farm production, weak political analysis, and shrinking coordination budgets are holding back deeper transformation.

The Evaluation of GEF Food Systems Programs, prepared by the GEF Independent Evaluation Office for the 70th GEF Council in December 2025, reviews five major programs from GEF 6 to GEF 8. Together they cover 84 projects in 32 countries, backed by about USD 822 million in GEF finance and more than USD 6 billion in co-financing.

The report finds that the programs are highly relevant to global efforts to curb deforestation, land degradation, biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, fisheries and commodity supply chains. They also respond to growing pressure on food systems as the world’s population rises and millions still lack access to healthy diets.

“Food systems are major drivers of global forest and biodiversity loss, land degradation, water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions,” the report notes. It says GEF funding has helped countries design more integrated approaches that connect environmental goals with farming, fisheries and rural development.

Results Most Visible at Community Level

During a webinar to launch the report, Fabrizio Mario Dante Felloni, Deputy Director of the Independent Evaluation Office, said the team had used a systemic lens, looking at the whole food system rather than isolated projects. The evaluation drew on document reviews, geospatial analyses, surveys, interviews, and case studies in Ghana, Indonesia, Peru, and Tanzania.

Felloni said the programs mark a clear shift from earlier, more fragmented efforts. They try to connect ministries and sectors that often work in isolation. “Because it was a food system, looking at the different sectors involved” was central to the design, he explained during the presentation.

The evaluation confirms that GEF food systems projects address several environmental pressures at once. Most initiatives target land and soil degradation, deforestation and biodiversity loss, often through better land use planning, sustainable farming practices, and stronger governance of coastal fisheries. Many projects also seek to link environmental gains with better incomes, skills for women and youth, and improved food security.

Results are most visible at the community level. The report highlights gains in biodiversity, improved land management and reduced emissions when farmers have adopted climate-smart or ecosystem-friendly practices. Socioeconomic benefits include higher yields and incomes, new skills for women, and greater youth engagement in agriculture.

At a meso level, some projects are improving value chains through better market access, traceability and basic processing support. At the macro level, the evaluation records progress on policies and governance, including multi-stakeholder platforms, land use and marine planning, and early steps toward aligning national and local policies.

Yet the evaluation also finds clear gaps. While more than 90 percent of projects focus on the production stage, only about 40 percent look seriously at postharvest issues such as storage, processing, transport and markets. Very few tackle food loss, waste or dietary change, even though these are critical for shifting entire food systems.

“Despite having an ambition to look at the food system and value chains, there was still a production-focused type of approach,” Felloni said. Environmental drivers and biophysical issues receive strong attention in design, but only 40 percent of projects examine the political context, and around 30 percent look closely at socioeconomic drivers.

That limited attention to political economy and social dynamics restricts transformational potential, the report argues. It notes that many designs assume that coordination and platforms will naturally lead to policy alignment, without fully analyzing power relations, trade offs or vested interests.

‘Coordination Budgets Are Shrinking’

Jessica Kyle of ICF, who led parts of the evaluation, told the webinar that private sector engagement has been a “key feature” of the food systems programs. Around two-thirds of country projects include some engagement with businesses, from public private partnerships and capacity building to support for national commodity platforms. At the global level, partners such as the International Finance Corporation have mobilized significant private finance for sustainable commodities.

However, she said scaling these efforts remains difficult. Fragmented supply chains, often weak regulatory incentives for sustainability, and unclear business cases are some of the challenges. Programs have also struggled to link global work on standards and finance with activities in country projects.

On the program approach itself, Kyle said the evaluation found real added value. Stronger program governance, shared design frameworks and knowledge pathways have improved the coherence of activities and allowed influence to extend beyond individual project boundaries. The programs have generated many knowledge products, trainings and learning events and have increasingly shifted from broad global exchanges to more targeted regional and commodity-focused dialogues.

Even so, the report finds “relatively limited evidence” that countries are applying this knowledge in a systematic way. Timing is one reason. In some cases, guidance arrived before projects were ready to use it. In others, knowledge products were not tailored to local needs, or project teams were reluctant to adjust activities mid-course.

To address this, the evaluation calls for stronger “country docking” so that global coordination projects can provide support when countries actually need it and in forms they can absorb. It also urges more participatory processes to identify country demands for technical assistance and learning.

A recurring concern is that coordination budgets are shrinking, even as the scope of programs widens. Coordination funding fell from about 10 percent of total program cost in GEF 6 food systems programs to around 7 percent in GEF 8, even though the number of countries and commodities grew. The report warns that this gap risks undermining the entire programmatic promise, since meaningful integration and tailored support require time, travel and staff.

The Catalytic Capital

Speaking for the GEF Secretariat, Peter Mbanda Umunay, thematic lead for food systems and land use, welcomed the evaluation and said many of its findings were already shaping the design of GEF 8 and early thinking on GEF 9. He described it as “one of the less contentious evaluations,” noting that the Secretariat agreed with most points.

Umunay traced the evolution from the first Integrated Approach Pilots in 2015, focused on resilient food systems in sub-Saharan Africa and commodity supply chains, to the FOLUR Impact Program in GEF 7 and the Food Systems Integrated Program in GEF 8. Over time, he said, the Secretariat has tried to tighten links between global coordination platforms and country projects and to use limited GEF funds more strategically as catalytic capital.

He highlighted efforts to promote “country docking” so that information and technical support flow more clearly between global hubs and national projects. The aim is to empower coordination platforms with enough resources and authority to structure strong connections with governments.

On private finance, Umunay said the evaluation had reinforced the case for using GEF resources to unlock much larger flows. By using GEF grants to de-risk investments or support blended finance, he argued, programs can shift perceptions that agriculture and land use are too risky for private investors and bring in both large companies and small and medium enterprises.

He also accepted the criticism that programs focus too much on production and not enough on postharvest value chains. This, he said, is now being addressed in GEF 8 and in plans for GEF 9, including through work on processing, storage, school meal schemes and nutrition outcomes, which can also bring in more ministries and strengthen policy coherence.

The evaluation ends with four main recommendations. It calls on the GEF to sharpen the focus of food systems programs and consider phasing them across replenishment periods so that countries can move from readiness and pilots to larger-scale investments over longer time frames. It urges a broader focus beyond production, especially on value chain integration and demand-side measures, where this can secure environmental and social gains.

The report also recommends deeper analysis of political economy and behavior change at design and during implementation and stronger country docking to turn knowledge and global services into real changes on the ground.

Umunay said the Secretariat had already prepared a management response and would use the findings to strengthen current and future programs. He stressed that the GEF remains country-driven. Governments must see these programs as supporting their priorities, from climate plans and food security strategies to rural development.

“We have been very successful in some countries that have continuously applied this program all across,” he told participants. “We will continue to do that, and this evaluation is eye-opening for the next steps.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Beyond Buzzwords: COP30’s Opportunity to Deliver on Sustainable Food Systems

Posted on by admin

Climate Action, Climate Change, Conferences, COP30, Economy & Trade, Environment, Food and Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition, Food Sustainability, Food Systems, Global, Green Economy, Headlines, Natural Resources, Sustainability, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion


In the midst of the COP30 climate talks, consensus will depend on recognizing that climate action and protecting livelihoods must advance together.

Delegates met at the Global Climate-Smart Agriculture Conference in Brasília before the COP30 climate talks. Credit: 2025Clim-Eat/Flickr

BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 20 2025 (IPS) – The language of agricultural sustainability changes like the seasons—from “climate-smart” to “regenerative,” “agroecological,” and “nature-positive.” Each term reflects good intentions, but the growing list risks duplication, confusion and delays.

The recent CSA Conference in Brasília gathered leaders from policy, science and finance ahead of COP30 to focus not on buzzwords but on the shared foundations of sustainable food systems, which is all the more important in the Grave New World. For all the various theories of change, many share the same principles of soil health, crop innovation, inclusive finance and resilient livestock production.

In the midst of the COP30 climate talks, consensus will depend on recognizing that climate action and protecting livelihoods must advance together. Leaders must challenge themselves to measure success not only in emissions reduced, but also in the quality of life sustained by a thriving and resilient rural economy. With Brazil’s COP presidency determined to accelerate agreements into action, the challenge now is to accept and advance context-specific approaches in pursuit of a shared goal.

At present, fragmentation continues to divide institutions, donors, NGOs and producers, with competing ideologies slowing progress toward sustainability at the speed and scale required. For example, while a vast number of organizations are currently backing the concept of regenerative agriculture, others tread the paths of sustainable intensification or climate-smart agriculture. But some of the practices, such as agroforestry, could fall under each of these concepts.

And the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA), established prior to COP26, has been succeeded by Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work on the Implementation of Climate Action on Agriculture and Food Security and yet farmers are still waiting for clear national strategies to emerge from years of workshops and working papers. While the principles underpinning these joint work programs are sound, they have not generated action at the speed needed.

On the other hand, the six CSA Conference themes—from soil health and crop innovation to finance and policy—offer a fundamental framework around which there is already much agreement and can deliver results under whichever buzzword it is categorized. The themes also reflect the priorities of Brazil’s Action Agenda and ABC+ Plan, highlighting practical areas of consensus.

Brazil’s experience offers tangible examples of how shared priorities can move from discussion to delivery. The ABC+ Plan (2020–2030) forms the backbone of the country’s low-carbon agriculture strategy, integrating sustainable practices like no-till farming, pasture recovery and biological nitrogen fixation into a coherent national framework. It represents a direct contribution to the COP30’s Action Agenda’s agricultural pillar, transforming abstract goals on soil health and productivity into measurable outcomes.

Building on this, Brazil’s RENOVAGRO is the financing arm that enables the implementation of the ABC+ Plan, demonstrating how public policy can activate private investment to move all Action Agenda ambitions forward together. By tying credit eligibility to verified adoption of low-carbon practices, the program allows farmers to commit to transitions that would otherwise be out of reach. This realizes the ABC+ Plan’s policy objectives and shows that progress depends not necessarily on new ideas, but on acting decisively on the systems that already work.

At COP30, the challenge is not to settle on the right language but to sustain the right actions—whatever this might look like according to local circumstances and resources. Progress depends on scaling what we already agree on: sound policies, accessible finance that doesn’t exclude vulnerable populations and resilient food systems that keep production within environmental limits. The next phase must prioritize implementation over invention.

Leaders have an opportunity to move from promises to performance. The task ahead is to scale what already works—not to define new concepts, but to deliver proven solutions faster.

Brazil’s example shows that integration works better than focusing on the continued search for a universal solution. There is no single path forward, only a combination of context-specific approaches bound by diplomatic agreement and sustainable financing.

By focusing on fundamentals, we can avoid the paralysis of competing definitions and begin to act collectively by applying the policies and practices we know work in ways that fit local realities.

Ana Maria Loboguerrero, Director, Adaptive and Equitable Food Systems at Gates Foundation
Dhanush Dinesh, Chief Climate Catalyst at Clim-Eat

IPS UN Bureau