By Charles Dhewa
That Climate Change and Food Sovereignty are defining issues of our time is no longer debatable. It follows wherever elections are done across the world, from local councilor to President, leaders should be voted on the basis of their plans to tackle climate change and food sovereignty. It is good that climate change and food sovereignty are also finding their way into corporate boardrooms.
This implies corporate leaders should be promoted on the basis of their understanding of climate change and food sovereignty. You cannot just be a board chairperson or CEO without clear strategies on how your role will address food climate change and food sovereignty. Even in traditional leadership systems, aspiring chiefs should be conversant with climate change and food sovereignty so that they do not sacrifice natural resources like forests and minerals for personal gain.
Unfortunate reluctance to recognize agroecology
One of the enduring challenges is reluctance by most governments to fully embrace agroecology as a solution to biodiversity loss, food security, nutrition security and climate change mitigation, among other benefits. More than 40 countries and a few big international organizations like the European Union have recognized agroecology but more need to come on board so that agroecology has the much needed critical mass. Several countries are still torn between industrial agriculture and agroecology with no clear national strategy on food sovereignty. There is also a tendency to promote a narrow definition of food sovereignty where some countries think producing enough maize and wheat is tantamount to food sovereignty. Yet as long as these commodities are controlled by a few corporates from seed to plate, that cannot be food sovereignty. Food sovereignty starts from the control of seed and other natural resources as well as food diversity from local to national levels.
Building pathways between local and global communities
As currently framed, global climate conferences like the recent COP27 are not connected with the grassroots. Local communities have no idea what is discussed at such gatherings which draw a lot of media attention. There are also no pathways for national representatives who participate in those conferences to provide useful feedback to communities after returning from those big events. On the other hand, several NGOs have grabbed climate change as a theme for their interventions but with very little involvement of communities and government policy makers.
Some of the issues that NGOs are grappling with include how to build advocacy strategies around climate change and food systems. What is the entry point when developing such strategies given that causes of climate change may be coming from distant industrial countries outside the control of local communities? What are the socio-economic indicators of how climate change is impacting women and youth, for instance? How is climate change impacting food systems in different communities? If industrialization is the main culprit in causing climate change, how can policy makers balance climate change mitigation measures with employment creation and industrial development?
Absence of political will
With sufficient political will, governments and development agencies can develop and promote climate friendly technologies related to agroecology. Unfortunately, government extension services that are supposed to be promoting agroecology and other climate-friendly approaches in favor of food sovereignty are promoting industrially produced chemicals and hybrids owned by private seed companies at the expense of community-owned seed varieties. In some cases, farmers get confused when an extension officer who preaches the gospel of hybrids starts talking about local seed varieties. That contradiction is undermining food sovereignty in most African countries.
An integrated approach to addressing climate change and food sovereignty is missing in most countries. When climate change advocates treat climate change as a stand-alone issue in ways that exclude government departments like those responsible for environmental management and forestry, there is often no traction. While at the community level, communities are invited to participate in reclaiming gulley and other disaster risk reduction initiatives, specific government departments responsible for women affairs, youth, ICTs, and food markets are often excluded. Yet it is critical to show how climate change is impacting market actors like women vendors and youth in terms of exacerbating unemployment and loss of business opportunities.
Climate change-related shocks like drought and floods do not affect farming communities only but entire value chains including traders, transporters, food vendors, and others. In the African contexts, where income is low and people have no capacity to survive on imported commodities – women vendors, traders and farmers, and low-income consumers are more affected by climate change in the form of drought, among other shocks.
Need for better consolidation of strategies
Consolidated systems for taking these voices to the policy level are missing in developing countries while global events like COP27 and World Food Day are not the right platforms for ordinary people. In most countries, World Food Day happens in cities with people marching for media attention, not farming communities that bear the brunt of climate change-related shocks like floods, dry spells and loss of biodiversity. It is sad that climate change mitigation and food systems policies are detached from the reality of the majority. To what extent are the most impacted populations involved in informing policies on issues that are impacting them most of which they cannot control? How can we integrate climate change with livelihoods and socio-economic solutions for affected communities?
Platforms that focus on climate change mitigation and food sovereignty should be supported at fiscus level. Instead of NGOs driving climate change mitigation in silos through their own networks and funders, the government should take the lead in both resourcing and guiding interventions. Participatory systems for policy influencing are needed as well as strong pathways for communicating issues from grassroots to policy. This is different from the tendency of development organizations to only produce climate change reports just for pleasing funders. There should be broader accountability and engagement that ensures policy engagements start with reviving local platforms like
Zunde raMambo/
Isiphala seNkosi.
Building synergies between government departments, traditional leaders, development agencies, and political leaders can be the best way of driving climate change mitigation and achieving food sovereignty. Why should politicians be interested in elections while out-sourcing fundamental issues like climate change and food sovereignty to development organizations? With sufficient coordination, a fund for climate change and food sovereignty can be set up and managed from the national all the way to community levels. This can be implemented through supply chains and economic drivers, for instance, climate change and indigenous fruits, climate change and indigenous livestock, climate change and small grains, climate change, and mass food markets, and so on.
Building dams is not enough
Climate-proofing food systems is not just about building dams. In fact, most African countries are not getting a return on investing in large water bodies as seen through most of the big dams either being under-utilized or water being diverted to unintended purposes. Why should a dam built among local communities be used to irrigate sugar cane plantations many kilometers away when reviving local food systems like small grains, indigenous rice, small livestock, indigenous fruits, and indigenous vegetables solve more challenges? Supporting local food systems is authentic food sovereignty unlike directing most of the water and resources to individual crops like sugar and wheat.
Local communities should benefit directly from large water bodies rather than allowing food systems to be captured by corporates. The fight for food sovereignty should start with political will and ensuring the relationship between natural resources is properly streamlined. For instance, income from mining should compensate the use of land that could have been used for food systems but ended up being sacrificed for mining. Proceeds from mining should reclaim degraded land to ensure food sovereignty rather than tokenistic corporate social responsibility gestures. Countries that are producing tobacco for export like Malawi and Zimbabwe should ensure income from tobacco enhances food sovereignty. Money from exporting flowers to Europe should be used to promote local food systems as part of compensating the opportunity cost of putting the best land to export.
AUTHOR’S CONTACT DETAILS
charles@knowledgetransafrica.com / charles@emkambo.co.zw /
info@knowledgetransafrica.com
Website: www.emkambo.co.zw / www.knowledgetransafrica.com
Mobile: 0772 137 717/ 0774 430 309/ 0712 737 430
