As highlighted by ActionAid Malawi, climate-smart agriculture (CSA) causes confusion and in an era of climate change, agroecology must lead the way. CSA is gaining attention among governments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), academics, corporations and researchers. With the impacts of climate change being felt on food systems around the world and the contribution of agriculture to global emissions also gaining attention, agriculture is one of the subjects at the heart of climate change.
But there is growing confusion and debate over what the term ‘climate-smart agriculture’ really means and whether it really can benefit food systems in the face of climate change. The concept of ‘climate-smart agriculture’ was originally developed by the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Bank, claiming that ‘triple wins’ in agriculture could be achieved in mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions), adaptation (supporting crops to grow in changing climate conditions), and increasing crop yields. But increasingly, civil society and farmer organisations express concerns that the term can be used to greenwash industrial agricultural practices that will harm future food production.
Some governments and NGOs also fear that pressure to adopt CSA will translate into obligations for developing countries’ food systems to take on an unfair mitigation burden. They point out that their agricultural systems have contributed the least to the problem, but that mitigation obligations could limit their ability to effectively adapt to the climate challenges ahead. Ultimately, there are no means to ensure that CSA is actually smart for the climate, for agriculture, or for farmers.
Read Full Article on Times Malawi
[paywall]
There are no meaningful criteria for what can or cannot be called ‘climate smart’. Practices or corporations that are destructive to the climate, the environment and farmers are free to use the term. Furthermore, there are no social safeguards to prevent so-called ‘climate smart’ activities from carrying out land grabbing, undermining farmers’ livelihoods, pulling farmers into debt or leading to farmers being sued for activities such as seed saving.
Critics point out that the same so-called ‘green revolution’ industries that have been widely criticised for their significant contribution to climate change and their negative environmental and social impacts on farmers and food systems have simply rebranded themselves as ‘climate smart’ and continued as before. Synthetic fertilisers, for example, contribute significantly to cl imate-changing greenhouse gases, while large-scale industrial livestock production has been shown to be a major contributor to climate change.
[/paywall]
