by Leanne Zeppenfeldt, Collaboration and Learning Architect at Clim-Eat
COP25 in Madrid was my first UNFCCC COP. Since then, my understanding of the process and purpose of this multilateral climate diplomacy grew—although I still find it hard to explain to friends and family why people on their way to an inf-inf (informal-informal) wear full suits.
In those five years, I have seen those representing food issues fight for an invitation to the big tables at COP—in other words, to be taken seriously. One might argue that was achieved with last year’s UAE Declaration on food systems.
It was a hard-fought seat, with the groundwork being done way before I knew what a COP was. But I am concerned that the fight for the seat at the table has spiraled into diluted and bland commitments.
Since my first COP, I’ve seen four ‘High-level’ COP initiatives and declarations being launched —and I have worked on several of them. All were applauded as big wins and turning points. Yet, those turning points haven’t really turned the tables. Food and agriculture remain shockingly underfunded when it comes to transitioning to a 1.5-degree C-aligned pathway, while the hidden costs of agrifood systems total around 10% of global GDP.
This touches on a wider concern about progress in tackling climate change via the UNFCCC process. In the past weeks, some very fair concerns have been raised about how the annual COP summits fail to deliver climate action. The increased participation of lobby delegates (from oil and, yes, big ag and livestock as well) certainly doesn’t help. The question of whether these COPs serve their purpose is a valid one. At least the bottom line is that they’re not delivering for the farmers addressing and adapting to climate change.
What’s been on the table?
Back to Baku. In the official agriculture negotiations, the agricultural negotiators of nearly 200 countries discussed an online portal. Some of the “hot potatoes” on the table included how to categorize submissions and whether and what social media links should be included on the platform. That took a solid four consultation rounds. With that, it’s hard to see what that celebrated seat at the UNFCCC table will actually deliver in terms of concrete action in food and agriculture.
In a recent scientific paper in Outlook on Agriculture, we looked at progress under the UNFCCC when it comes to climate action in food. Now without any claims of causation per se, the graph below illustrates that since the start of negotiations under the UNFCCC, temperature and emissions have kept rising. The bar chart showing the rise in COP delegates over the years underscores that more isn’t always better.
(Agrifood systems emissions, estimated temperature change on land, and COP delegates since 1992. Adapted from Dinesh et al. (2024))
We also looked at where food has been on the table within the UNFCCC. The following timeline shows both the negotiation and Presidency agenda since the 2015 Paris Agreement.
When we get to the end of the Sharm el-Sheikh joint work on implementation of climate action on agriculture and food security (SJWA) in 2026, we’ll have had 14+ workshops on agriculture, several reports, and an online portal since Paris. I don’t need to explain to anyone that’s not what will unlock the action in food systems we need.
(Food and agriculture outcomes under the UNFCCC since Paris.)
We also see, especially since COP26, that agriculture appears in Presidency agendas with the launch of the Agriculture Breakthrough (2021), the FAST initiative (2022), the UAE Declaration (2023), and now Harmoniya (2024), together with several supporting mechanisms. Some might say that’s progress.
Coordination overload
The flipside is that a lot of human, political, and capital resources go into the launch of these initiatives. And they contain a lot of duplication: all four of the latest initiatives have worked or will be working on plans to “coordinate efforts.” On top of that, we also see the emergence of so-called convergence initiatives outside the UNFCCC. If that’s highlighting anything, it’s a call for better-coordinated efforts.
And that’s fair: my point is not that coordination, knowledge sharing and facilitating dialogue on this multilateral level is not important. These things can signal direction and create political space for more concrete projects. But at the moment, we’re seeing coordination through even more initiatives that then need to be funded and, in turn, coordinated.
Can’t we do better? Of course, we need “FAST, harmonious action to enable breakthroughs for Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action”—which is basically what all these latest initiatives and declarations call for. Very few would disagree—so do we really need a new initiative launched every year to remind us? Is that the top priority for action on food?
There are two common answers I get to that question:
1. “It’s just how the system works. Multilateralism and consensus take time.”
2. “We don’t have alternatives.”
Now, both might hold some truth—but that doesn’t mean we can’t do better. Of course, we need to be realistic about what a consensus-based process is going to deliver, and yes, sometimes, in diplomacy, any inch of a win is worth celebrating. But if the most celebrated are high-level generic initiatives—while the implementation gap keeps growing—we have a problem.
This second response is quite interesting when it comes to food and agriculture in particular. The UNFCCC is, undeniably, the platform for climate diplomacy. But we, as the food and ag community, are selling ourselves short if we say there are no alternatives to build on.
Compared to other sectors, the food and agriculture “international architecture”—the bodies and institutions that comprise it—is extremely diverse. It includes Rome-based agencies like the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), CGIAR and many national and international actors and processes.
Many of these are not bound by extremely negotiated mandates like the UNFCCC and its bodies are—everything that gets undertaken under the UNFCCC is subject to the need for consensus. Those other institutions are also tied by mandates and (multilateral) governance, but there is more institutional space for ambition and leadership.
Finding room for ambition
So perhaps we have been looking for big food ambition at the wrong table. Of course, the need to connect the dots with overarching UNFCCC negotiations will remain to ensure, for example, that climate funds stream into agriculture and that the Global Goal on Adaptation considers food issues. But there is much more room for progress if we strengthen the food and agriculture institutions to be up for the task. There, climate action on food could be the main course, not the side dish it often is within the UNFCCC process, where it competes for attention with other sectors like energy.
There are also wins to be made in improving accountability and ensuring high-level commitments turn into real-world action. This could include stronger processes for tracking commitments and assessing the costs and impacts of initiatives and the COPs themselves. But it also takes an honest conversation about what needs to be phased out, reoriented and created in the international architecture. Those conversations can be uncomfortable, but we need people from throughout the food, agriculture, and climate community to take part.
I’m extremely grateful to the government of the Netherlands, the Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock of Brazil, the Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU), AgriCord, and Wageningen University & Research that they were open to co-organizing that initial conversation right at COP29. We, at Clim-Eat, will be sharing more on that in the weeks to come. For now, take this as your invitation to join the conversation on how we can do better as everyone turns towards COP30, so we can make sure that when food is at the table, we don’t serve a plate of empty words.
