Negotiations are wrapping up at this year’s annual United Nations climate conference, COP30. The two-week meeting — expected to run into a third — was held in Belem, a city in the Brazilian Amazon.
The choice of location put a laser focus on the link between deforestation, carbon emissions and agriculture. Agriculture, as a sector, is a major driver of climate change; taken to include traditional agriculture, aquaculture, livestock, forestry and land use change, it’s responsible for about a third of all global carbon emissions, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.
To understand how agriculture was being discussed at COP30, The World turned to Kaveh Zahedi, director of the FAO’s Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment. He spoke to Host Carolyn Beeler from Belem, Brazil.
Carolyn Beeler: [Agricultural] emissions come from deforestation to plant crops and allow grazing land, fertilizer use … what else?
Kaveh Zahedi: Actually, increasingly it’s forest fires. Unbelievably, last year about 127 million hectares of forest burned. We’re talking about land about the size of Mexico, so that’s becoming a considerable part of the emissions.
And that is included here because it’s thought of as agriculture and land use change, this whole [statistic of one-third of global carbon emissions].
[Yes], but also you’re looking at greenhouse gas emissions from production of food. The highest methane emissions come from rice production, from livestock. So, we have emissions from across agriculture and food systems.
And what we found actually this year with our numbers, it looks like slowly the on-farm emissions, there’s a sort of decoupling between production and emissions. But there’s major concern in terms of pre- and post-production. That’s where the emission increase seems to be.
And what we found actually this year with our numbers, it looks like slowly the on-farm emissions, there’s a sort of decoupling between production and emissions. But there’s major concern in terms of pre- and post-production. That’s where the emission increase seems to be.
Interesting. Can you tell me more about that?
Pre- and post-[production], it means that we have to look at the entire value chain, whether it’s the inputs that go into farming, including fertilizers, or the transport of agriculture or indeed the whole [system of] processing and packaging. All of that has emissions linked to it and all that has opportunities for reducing emissions linked to it.
The world, and all its people, we still need to eat. Is it clear how much of these emissions could realistically be cut?
I don’t know whether we can give you one single number of how much it could be cut. But we know that crop by crop, there are massive opportunities. We know, for example, that if you move from the traditional paddy rice to the wet-dry method of producing rice, you’re going to reduce emissions. But in addition to that, you reduce your reliance on water, which is becoming a much scarcer commodity. So, I think sector by sector, there are ways of improving.
So, here in Brazil, and at this COP, one of the big discussions is about the power of restoration of degraded lands. About a third to a fifth of global agricultural land is degraded.
So, here in Brazil, and at this COP, one of the big discussions is about the power of restoration of degraded lands. About a third to a fifth of global agricultural land is degraded.
By degraded you mean basically used up and unsuitable for agriculture any longer and bringing that back up … to be used so that other land doesn’t have to be deforested.
Exactly right.
And if we bring that land back into production, you have an enormous increase in your capacity to produce, of course, but also in doing so, if you do it in the right way, you can build resilience, you can increase soil carbon and therefore reduce emissions. So, it’s like a single shot with multiple benefits. And they have some big programs in Brazil that are doing just that.
And if we bring that land back into production, you have an enormous increase in your capacity to produce, of course, but also in doing so, if you do it in the right way, you can build resilience, you can increase soil carbon and therefore reduce emissions. So, it’s like a single shot with multiple benefits. And they have some big programs in Brazil that are doing just that.
One of the major topics at this COP has been whether countries are going to agree to some sort of roadmap to phase out or down the use of fossil fuels.
Agriculture is not a specific negotiating point. Are there things being negotiated that have to do with agricultural emissions?
Agriculture is not a specific negotiating point. Are there things being negotiated that have to do with agricultural emissions?
I would say everything that’s being negotiated has to do with agriculture and food systems.
How can you, for example, in the conversation on just transition, how can you talk about a just transition that doesn’t include agricultural workers and communities? How can we talk about loss and damage when you know that the majority of losses and damages are going on in agriculture and food systems. How can you talk about finance when you know that the finance is not flowing to the agri-food system solutions that are absolutely central to delivering both on adaptation and mitigation? So, I would argue that, actually, agriculture should be across all of the negotiations.
How can you, for example, in the conversation on just transition, how can you talk about a just transition that doesn’t include agricultural workers and communities? How can we talk about loss and damage when you know that the majority of losses and damages are going on in agriculture and food systems. How can you talk about finance when you know that the finance is not flowing to the agri-food system solutions that are absolutely central to delivering both on adaptation and mitigation? So, I would argue that, actually, agriculture should be across all of the negotiations.
This year’s climate summit was a deadline for countries to submit their next round of national plans to bring down their carbon emissions. One criticism I’ve seen is that these plans have not sufficiently addressed agricultural emissions specifically. Has there been any movement on that front?
So, when it comes to agriculture, almost 100% of NDCs mention agriculture.
NDCs are Nationally Determined Contributions, the shorthand for those plans.
Exactly … so, these national climate plans almost 100% mention agriculture and food systems in terms of how they’re being impacted and in terms of some of the opportunities. But what we’re seeing is not enough of them translated into tangible interventions for adaptation, for mitigation.
I think that’s where part of the ambition gap lies. I mean, in the latest of these climate plans, among the top 15 agri-food emitters, only 8% of the emission reductions pledged for agri-food systems are supported by actual concrete mitigation measures.
I think that’s where part of the ambition gap lies. I mean, in the latest of these climate plans, among the top 15 agri-food emitters, only 8% of the emission reductions pledged for agri-food systems are supported by actual concrete mitigation measures.
There’s been reporting that there are more agriculture industry lobbyists at this year’s climate summit than usual. Has that changed the conversation around this topic?
I’m not sure. It’s hard to tell. These are big events, big meetings. I think what we see is an increased visibility of agriculture and food systems, especially in what’s called the presidency’s Action Agenda.
At a COP like this, you have, of course, the core negotiations and you see the negotiated text that comes out. The Paris Agreement [was] the pinnacle of that. But parallel to the official process is the presidency’s Action Agenda. What we’ve seen over the past four or five years [in this agenda] is an increased focus on agriculture and food systems. And we’ve see that very much here as well; the COP30 presidency of Brazil has launched some fundamental initiatives [for] climate and agriculture. For example, an initiative called RAIZ [for the] restoration of degraded land, [and the ]Tropical Forest Forever Facility [to find] a way to pay for standing forests.
So yes, there are many, many players.
At a COP like this, you have, of course, the core negotiations and you see the negotiated text that comes out. The Paris Agreement [was] the pinnacle of that. But parallel to the official process is the presidency’s Action Agenda. What we’ve seen over the past four or five years [in this agenda] is an increased focus on agriculture and food systems. And we’ve see that very much here as well; the COP30 presidency of Brazil has launched some fundamental initiatives [for] climate and agriculture. For example, an initiative called RAIZ [for the] restoration of degraded land, [and the ]Tropical Forest Forever Facility [to find] a way to pay for standing forests.
So yes, there are many, many players.
And I’ll just note that that presidency track is not legally binding. There are no repercussions if people make promises they don’t deliver, unlike the Paris Agreement, which does have parts that are legally binding.
Exactly. And that’s why the action agenda is so important. We’ve seen [that] to get to where we need to go, we need systems change. And that’s a big ask. And to be able to get there, you need everybody, right? You need public, private, you need the partnerships, you needs governments to lead [and] you need businesses to come in right behind.
The final hours of the negotiations are happening right now. How do things look there?
I’m very, very encouraged by the outcomes of basically trying to get into implementation. We’re seeing real movement there.
I’m less encouraged by what we see in the negotiation text. [There’s] not much reference to the central role of agriculture and food systems in being able to help us adapt to a changing climate and of course, mitigate our emissions.
I’m less encouraged by what we see in the negotiation text. [There’s] not much reference to the central role of agriculture and food systems in being able to help us adapt to a changing climate and of course, mitigate our emissions.
This interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.
Will you support The World?
The story you just read is not locked behind a paywall because listeners and readers like you generously support our nonprofit newsroom. Now more than ever, we need your help to support our global reporting work and power the future of The World. Can we count on you?