The Road to Copenhagen continued

Here's a link to the conference in the Hague about adaptation to global warming that I went to last month (the plenary session report is written by yours truly). At this moment I am hoping and praying that world leaders will come to realise that the common cause is greater than narrow sectarian interests (see Sarah's comment on my last blog entry for what could so easily be achieved).

Much of my work in the past year has been focused on climate change and, to a lesser extent policy and scientific input into Copenhagen, and so I feel a strong emotional attachment to the outcome of these negotiations. I don't think that a global conference has ever attracted so much attention and I also have an intuitive feeling that if these talks break down (and there is no commitment to producing a plan b) that the legitimacy of the whole system of global governance will lose its legitimacy. This could have major knock-on repercussions.

Today I read readers' comments on the Guardian about the negotiations and realised how few readers of this, one of the UK's most progressive mainstream newspaper, have any sense of optimism in the possibilities of global governance. So many readers believe that the world system can't be changed. I agree with them that there are huge inequalities in the world - but unless we are prepared to start addressing them through responding to this common threat, then we have no future on this planet. A society that does not believe that it has a future rapidly falls apart and, as the best placard I saw from Copenhagen says, there is no planet b.

Chance took me took another conference in the Hague this week, this time in the press rooms of the Dutch Government. This one was to celebrate 25 years of LEISA an organisation I have had the pleasure to work with, on and off, for more than seven years. LEISA has been documenting practices in Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture for twenty five years and advocating the use of approaches that are locally relevant (culturally, ecologically and economically). Such approaches are often more productive, and acceptable to small scale farmers, than high-tech intensive farming methods, which are often unaffordable to small farmers, harm ecosystem functioning and often fail under sub-optimal productive conditions. After the ballyhoo at Copenhagen about emission targets and adaptation funding dies down, the real work of adapting the world's food systems to the effects of climate change will begin. Hopefully there will be some money to help this process. Agriculture is responsible for something like 30% of global CO2 emissions (when one takes upstream and downstream effects, such as fertiliser production and distribution into account) and is the economic sector that will have to make the biggest changes to adapt to climate change. In Uganda the 'coffee line' (the altitude at which it is economically feasible / possible to grow coffee) is moving upwards in response to increased temperatures). In Nepal the same true is true for apple trees. Such changes will bring about local resource conflicts and endanger world food supplies (similar stories could be told about staples such as rice, maize and wheat- though these are more related to the lack of agricultural biodiversity bought about by reliance on just a few hybrid varieties). Our civilisation, and its values, rely on agriculture - to feed all the fashion and web designers, counsellors and even firemen and doctors who make up our societies today. LEISA and its followers are a good starting point for establishing a people and planet friendly agriculture.

Possibly more on this topic to follow but I have a pressing deadline ahead.