Summary report, 27–29 May 2020

Innovating Climate Change Adaptation through Agroecology

27-29 May 2020 | Online

Participants attending the virtual consultations on Innovating Climate Change Adaptation through Agroecology discussed and further developed a paper with key messages on agroecology as a systemic approach to adaptation for food security and rural livelihoods. Originally planned to take place face-to-face, the consultations, organized by the Berlin-based think tank on sustainability, TMG Research, were moved to an online format due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In panel discussions and breakout groups, participants presented on-the-ground case studies to inform the development of key messages. They reviewed a draft version of the paper, which built on a literature review of emerging evidence on the subject ahead of the consultations and will remain open for feedback until 10 June 2020.

The draft paper highlights, inter alia, that:

• climate change multiplies existing risks in the food system and creates additional risks for rural livelihoods and for world food security;
• agriculture is both a contributor to, as well as heavily influenced by, climate change;
• agroecological practices, including mixed crop-livestock systems, make agricultural production more resilient to droughts, erratic rainfall patterns, and increasing temperatures by managing soils, water resources, and biodiversity in a sustainable way;
• agroecology lowers upfront investments by decreasing the need for external farming inputs, reducing farmers’ economic vulnerability in case of harvest loss;
• agroecology supports economic diversification, an effective risk-reducing strategy for smallholder farmers to economically adapt to climate change;
• secure land tenure creates positive incentives for investments in adaptation measures; and
• the institutional and policy landscape for rural development in most countries must change for the upscaling of systemic approaches to climate change adaptation for food security and rural livelihoods to happen.

Approximately sixty representatives of national and local governments, research institutions, civil society and grassroots organizations, and the private sector participated in the consultations, which took place from 27-29 May 2020.

A Brief History of Global Climate
Change Adaptation Governance and Agriculture

The international political response to climate change began with the 1992 adoption of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which sets out the basic legal framework and principles for international climate change cooperation. It aims to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” It also stipulates that “such a level should be achieved within a timeframe sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.” The Convention, which entered into force on 21 March 1994, has 197 parties.

In the early days of the Convention, the primary focus was on mitigation. With the publication of the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in 2001, it became clear that mitigation alone would not be sufficient and that an increased focus on adaptation planning and action would be required. The IPCC’s fourth assessment report, published in 2007, further confirmed that adaptation is necessary to address the impacts resulting from the already unavoidable warming due to past emissions. In 2010, parties adopted the Cancun Adaptation Framework and affirmed that adaptation must be addressed with the same level of priority as mitigation.

In December 2015, parties to the UNFCCC adopted the Paris Agreement, which entered into force on 4 November 2016 and has, to date, 189 parties. Beyond its mitigation components, the Paris Agreement, inter alia, aims to strengthen the global climate change response by increasing the ability of all to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience. It defines as a global adaptation goal: enhancing adaptive capacity and resilience; reducing vulnerability, with a view to contributing to sustainable development; and ensuring an adequate adaptation response in the context of the goal of holding average global warming well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to hold it below 1.5°C. This goal elevates adaptation from a local undertaking to a global ambition embedded in sustainable development efforts.

In 2017, parties to the UNFCCC adopted a decision on the “Koronivia joint work on agriculture.” The joint work addresses issues related to agriculture, taking into consideration the vulnerabilities of agriculture to climate change and approaches to addressing food security. It focuses on topics related to soil, livestock, and nutrient and water management, as well as on the food security and socio-economic impacts of climate change across agricultural sectors.

The Koronivia process supports the objectives of a number of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), and SDG 15 (life on land).

A number of adaptation-focused initiatives have also emerged outside of the UNFCCC. One such example is the Global Commission on Adaptation (GCA), which was launched in October 2018 by then UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and is co-chaired by Bill Gates, Co-Founder of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. Following the September 2019 UN Climate Change Summit, convened by the current UN Secretary-General António Guterres, the GCA began its “Year of Action,” which aims to scale up climate adaptation solutions under eight action tracks. Activities under the “food security and rural livelihoods” track notably support expanded access to and use of adaptive technologies and agroecological practices that build the resilience of farms and ecosystems. The findings gathered in the context of the Year of Action are scheduled to be presented in January 2021 at the virtual Climate Adaptation Summit hosted by the Netherlands.

Recognizing that the adverse effects of climate change can pose serious threats to food security, the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) also is increasingly emphasizing adaptation as a major concern and objective for all farmers and food producers, especially small-scale producers. In 2019, it published a report which, among other points, examines the extent to which agroecological practices increase resilience in the face of climate change.

It is within this context, that TMG Research, together with the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), organized these consultations to support the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) in its efforts to increase the prominence of agroecology to address climate change adaptation needs and food security.

Originally planned to take place face-to-face, the consultations were moved to an online format due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The consultations were, among other things, intended to provide input to the SDG2 Momentum event that the German government planned to convene from 5-10 June 2020 in Berlin. However, this event has been postponed due to the pandemic.

Report of the Consultations

Opening Session

On Wednesday, 27 May 2020, Anna Kramer, TMG Research, welcomed participants and noted the objective of the consultations was to discuss adaptation needs in the agricultural sector and responses required to meet the challenges posed by climate change to food security.

Björn Niere, BMZ, emphasized the need for the agriculture and food sectors to adapt to the dramatic effects of climate change and urged embracing multi-dimensional approaches, such as agroecology, to achieve this goal.

Rowena Buena, MASIPAG, shared insights from the work of her organization, which is a Filipino, farmer-led network working for sustainable use and management of biodiversity through farmers’ control of genetic and biological resources, agricultural production, and associated knowledge. She said the community-led identification of drought and salt-water tolerant maize varieties succeeded in increasing farmers’ resilience. She underscored the lack of land tenure among small-scale farmers as a key barrier to further developing and incentivizing investment into agroecological approaches.

Alexander Müller, Managing Director, TMG Research, thanked participants for taking part in the virtual meeting and said the COVID-19 pandemic cannot “be an excuse to not act on the climate crisis.” He argued for beginning from the perspective of the climate crisis when considering agroecology, viewing it as a multiplier of existing, as well as a creator of new, risks. Müller lauded agroecology as a systemic answer to complex problems.

In the ensuing discussion, Niere reflected on the need to bring agroecology “out of the bubble” it is currently in. He emphasized presenting scientific evidence to convince people of the value of agroecology and to better convey that it is “free of ideology.” Commenting on policy challenges relating to implementing agroecology in the Philippines, Buena said that government support for these measures is much lower than for conventional agriculture. While Müller acknowledged some consider agroecology to be complex, he emphasized the possibility of breaking down their principles to make them applicable in the field and easier to convey. He argued that adaptation strategies must go beyond technological solutions and foster social innovation, gender equality, and strengthened communities.

Panel Discussion on Agroecology for Adaptation

Jes Weigelt, TMG Research, moderated this panel discussion on Wednesday, 27 May. In introductory remarks, he pointed to the latest findings from the IPCC, which highlight decreasing crop yields due to climate change. He said adaptation solutions should support the achievement of multiple SDGs. Referring to adaptation needs, Weigelt emphasized “technological solutions alone won’t do the job.” He pointed to a growing body of evidence showing the positive impacts of agroecology on climate change adaptation and strengthened rural livelihoods, acknowledging challenges in tracing and attributing impacts to specific agroecological approaches.

Ronnie Brathwaite, Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN (FAO), highlighted positive impacts of agroecology for which considerable evidence exists. He pointed to, inter alia, multiple income streams benefiting livelihood stability, and quicker post-disaster recovery, both from a community perspective and with regard to soil heath. He suggested that reluctance to adopt agroecological approaches might not be the result of a lack of evidence, but rather due to vested interests favoring the status quo.

Fergus Sinclair, World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), emphasized the need for scale- and context-specific metrics, ranging from plot and landscape scales to the food systems scale, to show “precisely what works, for whom, where” and what return on investment can be expected in different settings. He noted power asymmetries and lack of agency impede consumer-driven food system transformations and called for reforming maladapted policies, such as subsidies, that disincentivize the adoption of agroecological practices.

In the ensuing discussion, Brathwaite said upscaling measures are context-dependent, as place-specific interventions are required. Sinclair noted the need for changing the ways in which agricultural practices are evaluated. He pointed out that conventional approaches look for the “mean effect” of different treatments, but said “there isn’t a mean farmer.”

Martin Herren, Biovision, presented the results of a study on the potential of agroecology to build sustainable livelihoods and climate resilient food systems, which was conducted by FAO, Biovision, and the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture. He highlighted climate change mitigation co-benefits of agroecological practices and noted a lack of research on the social and governance dimensions of agroecology.

Jocelyn Parot, URGENCI, speaking from the perspective of social movements, shared experiences on supporting local solidarity-based partnerships for agroecology. He described agroecology as “a set of agricultural practices, a science, and a social movement.” 

In a round of reflections, Cristina Rumbaitis del Rio, GCA, emphasized the need to overcome the perception by some that agroecology is “old school, difficult, labor intensive, and more incremental rather than transformative.” She also urged addressing knowledge gaps related to social dimensions as well as political economy issues and disincentives acting as barriers to the adoption of agroecological practices. She shared her impression that a window of opportunity is opening, with narratives shifting from “maximizing production” towards more comprehensive reflections on food system resilience and nutritious food. She emphasized that the GCA’s work on expanding access to climate-informed digital advisory services follows the principle of co-production. She further highlighted the importance of local and indigenous knowledge to identify which information to share and in what form to make it useable for farmers.

Vijay Kumar Thallam, Government of Andhra Pradesh, India, noted “agroecology is both simple and complex,” emphasizing that farmers tend to find its key principles very intuitive, while decision makers and researchers find it more complex. He underscored the need to address vested interests in sustaining chemical-intensive agricultural systems. He explained that agroecological knowledge is “in tune” with the traditional idiom of agriculture in India, making it easier for farmers to internalize its principles and positively contribute to reaching impact at scale.

Ingrid Prem, GIZ, supported calls for an increased focus on how to upscale successful initiatives, and noted the need for regional, climate-sensitive landscape planning, and the role of agroecology therein.

In closing statements, Niere expressed his relief that the first session of the consultations had not encountered technical issues given the virtual format of the event, and thanked participants for lively discussions. He urged developing a set of short, simple, understandable, and evidence-based key messages to make a case for agroecology among policymakers. Müller said agroecology is an innovation that can support the adaptation community in responding to the increasing pressure to deliver fast, large scale, context specific, and cost-effective solutions that are cognizant of trade-offs.

Breakout Group Discussions

A first round of discussions took place in two breakout groups on Thursday, 28 May, with another two breakout groups taking place on Friday, 29 May. 

Introducing the breakout groups, Alexander Müller recalled that the consultations aim to present results to a broader audience, specifically the climate change adaptation community. Recalling the opening day’s discussions, he invited participants to reflect on whether social capital and community orientation are preconditions for the successful implementation of agroecological practices and, if so, what this means for upscaling.

Noting some skeptics view agroecology as backwards-oriented and intended to “lock people into subsistence farming,” Jes Weigelt underscored that agroecology is, rather, an innovative and systemic response to the challenges posed by climate change. With regard to upscaling, he pointed to vested interests in the food industry and lack of enabling environments as external challenges, and the need for gathering more evidence on the impacts of community embeddedness as a key internal challenge. 

Breakout Group 1: Facilitated by Devaraj de Condappa, TMG Research, this session discussed examples of the ways in which agroecology and water management contribute to transformation at the landscape scale. Participants exchanged views on how experiences from the field can inform the further development of the key messages that will form the output of the consultations.

Madhav Gholkar, Watershed Organisation Trust, presented on integrated watershed management in India, sharing his view that it constitutes an agroecological and holistic approach to climate change adaptation. He highlighted water stewardship and, specifically, participatory water budgeting as tools for managing water resources efficiently, equitably, and sustainably through quantifying and sharing water in villages. To achieve impact at scale, he urged focusing on ecosystem- and watershed-based approaches, instead of “piecemeal projects.”

Randa Seyam, SEKEM, delineated the “economy of love” certification scheme and tracking tool developed by her organization, an Egyptian social enterprise focused on achieving positive social, economic, ecological, and cultural impacts from biodynamic agriculture. She explained that SEKEM’s work on agroecology achieved positive impacts in terms of improved carbon sequestration, reduced soil salinity, biodiversity conservation, and farmers’ uptake of biodynamic approaches.

Participants exchanged ideas for strengthening the key messages in the draft paper. They emphasized: better reflecting that agroecology is critical for future-proofing food systems and for ensuring it does not exceed planetary boundaries; agroecology’s benefits in terms of both climate change adaptation and mitigation; and the role of agroecology in promoting ecological resilience.

Discussions also pertained to the need to: focus on collective participatory management to adapt to climate change; involve local governments in agroecological projects; and reflect on the ways in which the quality of ecological infrastructure on farms is valued. In terms of broadening alliances, participants highlighted strengthening linkages with the ecosystem-based adaptation community and increasing the focus on the relationship between climate change and nutrition. To level the playing field for agroecology, participants emphasized the need to internalize negative externalities and consider the “true costs” of conventional farming.

Breakout Group 2: Session moderator Anna Kramer, TMG Research, underscored the importance of reflecting on the role of knowledge and learning in contributing to the success of agroecological initiatives.

Vijay Kumar Thallam, Government of Andhra Pradesh, recalled key principles of Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF), such as enhancing soil microbiomes and keeping the ground covered. He said this leads to reduced watering requirements and better drought proofing of plots. He emphasized that investments in rural women’s collectives in the context of poverty eradication programmes laid important foundations for the uptake of ZBNF and that this form of social capital is key for upscaling agoecological initiatives. He explained that farmers are increasingly “fed up” with the current agricultural system, especially with the heavy costs of nutrients and pesticides. Farmers who converted to ZBNF reported increases in net incomes, he said, and greatly contributed to championing such measures among conventional farmers.

Elirehema Swai, Chololo 2.0, shared experiences from his initiative’s efforts to support climate resiliency through ecological intensification in Tanzania. He emphasized the importance of using locally adapted and climate change resilient seeds to unlock the agricultural potential of semi-arid landscapes and improve food security. He suggested combining physical and biological measures for controlling soil erosion, for example installing terraces and fodder trees, noting this also provides animal feed and fuel wood. To foster informed decision making and strengthen livelihoods, he underscored facilitating farmers’ access to price and weather information as well as promoting market-oriented production.

Reflecting on her organization’s work in the Philippines, Rowena Buena, MASIPAG, emphasized the importance of inclusivity and shared leadership for effective planning of activities and monitoring of progress. She underscored that agroecological practices foster intergenerational justice, urging more prominence to this issue in the output of the consultations. Echoing the situation in Andhra Pradesh, she noted “farmers have grown tired of problems with conventional agriculture” and urged farmers to reclaim control over seeds.

In the ensuing discussion, participants reflected on whether existing social capital is a prerequisite for the successful implementation of agroecological initiatives. Recognizing that cohesive communities that already benefited from activities aimed at strengthening social capital provide fertile ground for the success of such initiatives, participants converged on the idea that, with well-designed programmes, building social capital can go hand in hand with agroecological training.

Breakout Group 3: Devaraj de Condappa, TMG Research, moderated these breakout discussions, which took place on Friday 29 May. Samuel Bonvoisin, Biovallée, presented on an agroecology initiative in Southern France. He highlighted agroecology practices that have been taught and transmitted for 40 years seem insufficient to meet the challenges associated with food dependency, water shortages, and climate change. To overcome these challenges, he pointed to the creation of a hierarchy of priorities for resilient agriculture, where the first priority goes from water, over to trees, soil, and seeds. On why the region had problems adapting to climate change, he said priorities have historically been in the opposite order, first choosing seeds and later dealing with water, which makes it difficult to adequately tackle the systemic problems associated with water.

Discussions revolved around, inter alia, social and solidarity economy as a lever to promote agroecology and generate systems change, and the role of local governments in agroecology projects. On whether upscaling is the right concept, one participant suggested to instead focus on the three dimensions of social capital, namely bridging, bonding, and linking, to better account for the context-specific nature of agroecology when implementing agroecology at broader scale. Bonvoisin argued that a better understanding of how humans function and why “we act in certain ways” is necessary for the wider global transitions movement. He said “perhaps we should forget a little about techniques” and instead learn to communicate and collaborate with people that disagree with the agroecological approach.

Kitasi Swaleh, ActionAid Kenya, presented on the ways in which his organization strengthened the resilience and livelihoods of smallholder farmers in a Kenyan county. He said the project, among other things, included training in agroecological practices, leadership and management, and the strengthening of farmer cooperatives. Positive results, he noted, included increased access by households to fresh organic vegetables from their kitchen gardens, reduced malnutrition and hunger, and the establishment of farmer cooperatives championing farmer priorities in policy and practices. He explained that the women involved in the project are not only aware of the problems they face, but also of the solutions they can contribute. He said this knowledge is summarized into “charters” and brought to local governments to influence policy development.

Among other things, discussions considered a Kenyan government policy that could prohibit the use of manure in farming, and the need to explore how agroecology performs with regard to income levels and employment opportunities compared to conventional agriculture.

Breakout Group 4: In this session, facilitated in Spanish and moderated by Lucia Benavides, TMG Research, participants discussed three examples of agroecological initiatives in Latin America.

Carlos Magno, Centro De Desenvolvimento Agroecológico Sabiá, reported on his organization’s work in a semi-arid dryland region of Brazil that is characterized by high poverty levels. He underscored the need to support farmers “to become the protagonists of their own transformation” and emphasized fostering women’s economic autonomy as critical. He described agroecology as a multi-epistemological approach that not only has an ecological dimension, but also requires the consideration of socio-economic and political factors.

Sharing experiences from the coffee sector in Costa Rica, Gisela Illescas Palma, Vida Café, pointed to diversified production and income streams as positive effects of agroecology, and especially emphasized its contribution to the nutrition of households. She noted her organization increasingly addresses health issues, including mental health. As examples of such work, she cited, inter alia: reviving the production of medicinal plants; providing training on sexual health and reproductive rights; and youth work on the question of masculinity.

Noting “you don’t have to be an angel or a saint to support agroecology,” Jens Gehl, HiPP, spoke about how, as a leading German family-owned business in the infant food sector, HiPP works with small-scale, mostly indigenous, farmers in Costa Rica. He stated that this collaboration succeeds in being both profitable for the company and guaranteeing the farmers a stable income source at high market value for a product that would otherwise fail to comply with rigid export standards. While the other crops planted in these agroecological systems are key for household nutrition, he emphasized the importance of the revenue generated from the sale of bananas to pay for expenses, such as medical care and school fees. He emphasized the need to identify appropriate metrics to monitor the productivity of diversified forms of farming, especially in the context of small-scale farming.

Participants had a fruitful exchange addressing, inter alia: the importance of “technologically simple” and patent-free solutions, such as water tanks; improving market access to reduce migration away from rural areas; and resisting the trend towards “a global unified diet,” and instead supporting regional specificities, seasonal variation, and less standardized crops. They highlighted the crucial role of women, emphasizing the need to strengthen women’s access to land and to overcome patriarchal decision-making structures, and urged recognizing and valuing campesina identities.

Closing Remarks

In closing, Anna Kramer recalled the invitation to participants to provide further feedback on the draft key messages after the conclusion of the online consultations. She noted the need to strike a balance between reflecting the complexity of the challenges at hand and formulating concise messages to reach a broader audience.

Jes Weigelt highlighted the importance of broadening alliances between the agroecology and ecosystem-based adaptation communities, as well as exploring climate-nutrition linkages. He underscored enabling environments as critical and local governments’ capacity constraints as a key challenge to overcome. Weigelt recalled the intention to refine the key messages to emphasize the link between agroecology and adaptation in a way that is “more easily digestible” for people who are unfamiliar with agroecology. He thanked participants for their contribution to this endeavor.

Lauren Baker, Global Alliance for the Future of Food, reflected on possible alliances to further promote the objectives of the consultations and noted the importance of considering how evidence of adaptation to climate change through agroecology is mobilized, and to what end. She commended the breakout group format of the consultations, noting the way it enabled key messages to be informed by on-the-ground evidence “was fantastic.”

Alexander Müller said that discussions shed light on significant commonalities between initiatives implemented in different agroecological zones around the world, especially regarding the importance of strengthening social capital and adapting technologies to local needs. He underlined the importance of supporting community learning and ensuring technologies are adapted to fit different contexts. On creating enabling environments, he highlighted the need to further reflect on how different actors, such as local governments as well as development and research organizations, can contribute. Müller warned against the concept of agroecology being “stolen and turned into something meaningless,” for example by those equating it to sustainable intensification. He expressed hope that participants could soon gather face-to-face and foster their alliance to promote agroecology as a solution to climate change adaptation. He then raised a glass of biodynamic wine in front of his webcam, celebrating the online consultations as a step in this direction.

The meeting closed at 19:01 CEST.

Upcoming Meetings

June Momentum for Climate Change: The June Momentum for Climate Change is a series of online events to give UNFCCC parties and other stakeholders the opportunity to continue exchanging views and sharing information to maintain momentum in the UNFCCC process and to showcase the ways in which climate action is progressing under the special circumstances caused by COVID-19.  dates:1-10 June 2020 location: virtual  www:  https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/conferences/june-momentum-for-climate-change

Global Landscapes Forum (GLF) Bonn Digital Conference 2020: Recognizing that food systems are one of the largest sources of GHG emissions, a main driver of deforestation, and the greatest threat to biodiversity, the 2020 theme of the GLF is “Food and Livelihoods.” The three-day online event will provide a platform for stakeholders to exchange views on a range of topics, including on soils as key for food security and ecosystem restoration.  dates: 3-5 June 2020  location: virtual www:  https://events.globallandscapesforum.org/bonn-2020/; http://events.globallandscapesforum.org/agenda/bonn-2020/3-june-2020/soils-as-keystone-for-food-security-and-ecosystem-restoration/

Adaptation Futures 2020: The sixth International Climate Change Adaptation Conference – Adaptation Futures 2020 – will convene on the theme “Accelerating Adaptation Action and Knowledge to Support Action,” with a particular focus on Asia. The event was originally scheduled to take place from 27-30 April. However, the dates were changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  dates: 29 September - 1 October 2020 location: New Delhi, India www: http://adaptationfutures2020.in/

53rd Session of the IPCC: The IPCC is currently in its sixth assessment cycle, during which it will produce the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) expected to be finalized in 2022. As partof the sixth assessment cycle, the Panel already produced a Methodology Report to refine the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National  (GHG) Inventories, and three special reports: the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15); the Special Report on limate Change and Land (SRCCL); and the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC).  dates: TBC location: TBC www: https://www.ipcc.ch/calendar/

47th Session of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS 47): The proposed theme for CFS 47 is: “Transforming Food Systems to End All Forms of Malnutrition” in recognition of the upcoming Food Systems Summit in 2021. The meeting is expected to, among other things, take decisions on Agroecological and Other Innovative Approaches and on the adoption and uptake of the Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition. A global thematic event will convene on  a Framework for Action on Food Security and Nutrition in Protracted Crises.  dates: 12-16 October 2020 (TBC)  venue: FAO Headquarters  location: Rome  contact: CFS Secretariat  e-mail: cfs@fao.org  www: http://www.fao.org/cfs/en/; http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1920/BurAG/2020_01_28/CFS_BurAG_2020_01_28_01a_CFS_47_Agendas_Timetable_Theme.pdf

4th International Conference on Global Food Security: This conference will address food security at all spatial levels from local to global, and from an interdisciplinary and systemic food systems perspective. The objective is to better understand environmental, nutritional, agricultural, demographic, socio-economic, political, technological and institutional drivers, costs and outcomes of current and future food security.  dates: 6-9 December 2020 (TBC)  location: Montpellier, France  www: http://www.globalfoodsecurityconference.com/

IUCN World Conservation Congress: On 3 April 2020, IUCN announced that, in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the IUCN World Conservation Congress 2020 would now take place from 7-15 January 2021. The event was originally scheduled for 11-19 June 2020. dates: 7-15 January 2021  location: Marseille, Provence-Alpes-Cote D’Azur, France  www: https://www.iucncongress2020.org/

Climate Adaptation Summit 2021: The online Climate Adaptation Summit, hosted by the Netherlands, will be a state of the art, climate-neutral virtual conference, streamed worldwide over 24 hours with online anchoring events from cities around the world. It will build on the work of the GCA, delivering enhanced ambition, accelerated actions, and tangible solutions to the climate crisis.  date: 25 January 2021 location: worldwide www:  https://climateadaptationsummit.gca.org/

Global Symposium on Soil Biodiversity: This Symposium will review the state of knowledge on soil biodiversity and ecosystem services, the sustainable use and conservation of soil biodiversity, and the contributions of soil organisms to the SDGs. The Global Soil Biodiversity Symposium was originally scheduled to take place from 10-12 March 2020. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was postponed until 2-4 February 2021.  dates: 2-4 February 2021  location: Rome  www: http://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/resources/highlights/detail/en/c/1183872/

2021 UN Food Systems Summit: In 2021, the UN Secretary-General will host a Food Systems Summit with the aim of maximizing the co-benefits of a food systems approach across the entire 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and meet the challenges of climate change. As a key contribution to the Decade of Action to deliver the SDGs, the objectives of the Food Systems Summit are to generate momentum, expand the knowledge and share experiences and approaches worldwide to help countries and stakeholders tap the benefits of food systems for all people. date: TBD location: TBD www: http://www.fao.org/3/nc131en/nc131en.pdf
 

GLOSSARY

BMZ German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development’s 

CFS Committee on World Food Security 

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN

GCA Global Commission on Adaptation 

GHGs Greenhouse gases 

GIZ German Agency for International Cooperation 

ICRAF World Agroforestry Center 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals 

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

ZBNF Zero Budget Natural Farming