Climate Deal: Why Excluding Food Systems is a Disaster
- BULAWAYO, January 9 (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 Lasting Food Systems (IPES-Food) warns that the final COP30 agreement risks deepening climate and hunger crises.
BULAWAYO, January 9 (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 Lasting 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 conventional communities, and concrete public policy proposals for a just transition of food systems where on full display, IPES-Food saeid.
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 chao
According to the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) and the UN’s Standing Commitee 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 chance for the implementation of the work programme 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
© Inter Press Service (20260109100149) – All Rights Reserved. Original source: Inter Press Service
Okay, I understand. I will perform an adversarial research check on the provided text, focusing on verifying the facts presented and assessing the overall freshness and potential for this to be breaking news. I will not rewrite, paraphrase, mirror, reuse structure/wording, or reproduce errors from the source. my goal is to independently assess the claims made within the snippet.
Here’s my approach, broken down into steps, and the results of my initial examination (as of today, November 2, 2023):
1. Identifying Key Factual Claims:
The snippet presents several factual claims, primarily revolving around news events dated January 9th and 8th, 2026. These include:
* US Withdrawal from Multilateral Institutions: The US is reportedly retreating from these.
* Impact of US Withdrawal: This withdrawal is causing global alarm and possibly impacting climate, trade, and development.
* Conflict in Ukraine: A massive overnight attack has left millions without power.
* Conflict in Sudan: The war has been ongoing for 1,000 days, with millions of civilians affected.
* repression in Uganda: Repression is occurring.
* Fighting in Syria: Fighting continues in Aleppo.
* Gaza/West Bank: Updates are available (but no specifics are given).
* South Sudan: Increase in abductions and sexual violence.
* Iran: UN human rights chief is disturbed by protest-related violence.
* Climate Deal: Food systems were excluded from a climate deal.
2. Freshness & Breaking News Check (Considering the Date – 2026):
The date of the news reports is January 8th & 9th, 2026. This is future information. Therefore, it cannot be verified as current breaking news. Any verification will be based on predicting likelihood and potential scenarios. The fact that the source is presenting information from the future is a significant red flag.
3. Independent Verification (as of November 2, 2023 – acknowledging the future date):
I will use a combination of reputable news sources, think tank reports, and UN/governmental websites to assess the plausibility of these claims, given the current geopolitical landscape. I will focus on trends and existing issues that could reasonably lead to these scenarios.
* US Withdrawal from Multilateral Institutions: This is plausible. There has been a trend in recent years (2016-2023) of the US questioning its involvement in and sometimes withdrawing from international organizations (e.g., UNESCO, WHO under the Trump governance, Paris Agreement). continued political shifts could easily lead to further withdrawals. Though,the extent of the retreat is unknown.
* Impact of US Withdrawal: Plausible.US withdrawal from key organizations frequently enough creates power vacuums and undermines international cooperation.The specific impacts on climate, trade, and development would depend on which organizations are targeted.
* Conflict in Ukraine: Plausible. The conflict is ongoing as of November 2023. It is highly likely to continue for years, and large-scale attacks and infrastructure damage are regrettably probable.
* Conflict in Sudan: Plausible. The conflict in Sudan began in April 2023 and is already a major humanitarian crisis. It is sadly likely to continue for a prolonged period, potentially reaching 1,000 days.
* Repression in Uganda: plausible. Uganda has a history of political repression and human rights concerns. Continued authoritarian tendencies make this a likely scenario.
* Fighting in Syria: plausible. The Syrian civil war has been ongoing for over a decade. While the situation has evolved, fighting and instability are likely to persist.
* Gaza/west Bank: Plausible. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ongoing and frequently escalates. Updates on violence and unrest are almost certain to continue.
* South Sudan: Plausible. South sudan has faced ongoing conflict and instability as its independence. Abductions and sexual violence are tragically common in conflict zones.
* Iran: Plausible. Iran has experienced protests and government crackdowns in recent years.Continued political tensions and human rights concerns make this a likely scenario.
* Climate Deal: Plausible. Excluding food systems from climate deals is a point of contention among activists and researchers. The agricultural sector is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and is also vulnerable to climate change impacts. Political compromises often lead to such exclusions.
4. Source Assessment (UNTRUSTED – as stated):
The prompt explicitly states the source is untrusted. This is critical. The fact that the