THE text of the global climate agreement adopted mid-December in Paris was conspicuous by lack of mention of two words: agriculture and trade.

IT became possible as the corporate giants having big stakes in these two sectors made it clear to the big powers that climate change must be kept separate from agriculture and trade. However, the absence of the word ‘agriculture’ does not mean that this sector was totally ignored by the negotiators; one can see its shadow in not only national-level climate plans but also in climate finance and new initiatives on soil.

But what is lacking so clearly is a roadmap for reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and support for more climate resilient agricultural systems. Tackling carbon emissions from farming systems was not even on the table in Paris.

The negotiators avoided any debate on reducing agriculture-related emissions from industrial systems which are dependent on synthetic fertiliser use. A climate-resilient focus for agriculture will ultimately have to be integrated within national farm programmes, and regional and global trade rules which often limit climate policy. The challenge climate change poses to farmers and agriculture — particularly in global south where recurring extreme weather events destroy crops, livestock and humans — cannot be overcome unless climate negotiators become bolder enough than they were in Paris.

Recent research shows that one-third of global emissions are associated with the world food system

Ben Lilliston of US-based Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) who attended the conference (Nov 30-Dec 11) says the decision to sidestep agriculture, at least temporarily, within the climate agreement was not surprising. This is so because much of the ‘intransigence’ around agriculture lies in the enormous political and economic power held by global agribusiness corporations, who have little interest in new rules that don’t fit with their current business model.

There is strong resistance to new regulations among these corporations, which are incidentally great greenhouse gas emitters, particularly the big fertiliser and meat companies. After the agreement was reached in Paris, the meat industry immediately started aggressively lobbying governments to protect their interests. Recent research shows that one-third of global emissions are associated with the global food system. At least three corporations — Tyson Foods, Cargill and Yara — have a larger climate footprint than many countries.

As expected, big agribusiness will again be at the table in the next climate conference to protect their interests in any future climate policy although globally there is a growing support for the more farmer-centred approach to tackle climate change issues in agriculture. The climate deal in Paris has, at least, set the stage for a positive debate about the way forward on agriculture.

The absence of the word ‘trade’ in the text was possible for similar reasons. A growing disconnect between trade and climate change was in evidence during the proceedings of the Paris conference. Not only that, the text of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) does not mention anywhere the words ‘climate change’. And the latest version of a US Customs bill moved in the House of Representatives forbids the president from considering climate impacts in future trade agreements.

Ben Lilliston says that a leaked internal European Union document on climate negotiation priorities in Paris made it clear that the final draft of the global climate deal would not mention trade. Besides, a group of business associations including that of biotech industry wrote a letter to US Secretary of State John Kerry while the conference was nearing conclusion, warning him not to agree to anything that could impact trade rules established to protect intellectual property rights. Such pressures of powerful interests, it is obvious, restrict UNFCCC’s ability to draw up a strong climate policy in the future. That there is a trade elephant in the climate room was how civil society groups in Paris raised their concern at an official side event .

Meanwhile, it was of much interest to note that the term ‘climate smart agriculture’ which came into currency in 2010 after the failed climate negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009 was being widely referred to in the Paris negotiations and official events. But what it actually means is anybody’s guess or depends on who’s talking. This ambiguity created room for corporations and some governments to use ‘climate smart agriculture’ as a marketing tool to serve their objectives.

The concept of ‘climate-smart agriculture’ was created by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) but civil society groups criticised the concept from its very birth. The FAO, World Bank, United States and some developed countries have since developed a more sophisticated approach to sell the concept, through a new initiative called the Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture (GACSA).

However, many climate justice organisations are of the view that the Paris Agreement can be described as a failure as it doesn’t bind countries to strong enough emission reductions; it doesn’t provide enough public money to countries that most need it; and it continues to promote a carbon market policy approach that has largely failed.

Published in Dawn, Business & Finance weekly, January 4th, 2016