by Filip Kotowski
The leaders of the world’s 20 biggest economies will meet in Johannesburg this year to discuss the ‘polycrysis confronting the world’ under the theme of ‘Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability’. Many developing nations affected by the fragility of food chains hope for an outcome that will address their concerns. With food security being an agenda priority #2, the hopes are high; but the ambiguity of the wording and the disappointing ending of COP29 points to yet another letdown and raises a question: what actual steps need to be taken by the developed world towards food resilience?
A Political Buffet with Some Questionable Dishes
This year’s G20 is unlike any other. Trump’s administration is making overtures with Russia amidst the War in Ukraine; China’s steam train of growth is slowing down, whilst the EU arms up its defence budget. But what is the food’s role in this maelstrom of political changes?
It is no secret that food plays a bigger role than just sustenance – it is power, diplomacy, and leverage in the ever-shifting landscape of global politics. But it is also a symbol of inequality. Land grabs, debt-driven trade agreements, and the monopolisation of seeds and fertilizers further tighten the grip of wealthy nations on the world’s food supply. While slogans of “sustainability” and “aid” are frequently touted in global forums, the reality remains that food is not just a necessity – it is a tool of dominance.
COP29 could not have been a better example of the monopoly that the developed nations hold over the developing world. By many, the conference in Baku was considered a betrayal of the most vulnerable, with the closing statement of the Just Transition Work Programme being met with widespread disappointment. Developed countries pledged to mobilise $300 billion annually by 2035 to assist developing nations in combating climate change. However, this commitment falls significantly short of the over $1 trillion per year that many experts deem necessary. Critics argue that this insufficient funding leaves vulnerable nations at risk of escalating debt and inadequate resources to address climate challenges.
The absence of a concrete decision on the Just Transition Work Programme has been deeply disappointing for workers and communities on the frontlines of climate impacts. This neglect undermines efforts to protect jobs and livelihoods during the transition to a low-carbon economy. According to the UN’s State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023 report, over 735 million people faced chronic hunger last year, a sharp rise from pre-pandemic levels. Albeit a pressing global issue, it has so far not found support from the developed world.
The reality is that developed nations have little interest in genuine food resilience for the Global South; their commitments are often riddled with loopholes, ambiguity in wording and aid packages that prioritize corporate profit over actual solutions. ‘I had hoped for a more ambitious outcome’ – stated Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary-General at the recent COP29 conference.
All Talk, No Harvest
This message rings hollow in the G20’s repeated failure to provide clear, actionable commitments on food security. While official statements frequently highlight “solidarity” and “sustainability,” the lack of concrete targets and enforceable mechanisms renders these pledges meaningless. Vague phrases such as “enhancing resilience in food systems” and “exploring innovative financing solutions” allow developed nations to appear engaged while avoiding real accountability.
This repeated obscurity ensures that structural inequalities in the global food system remain unchallenged, leaving the Global South dependent on external aid rather than achieving true food sovereignty.
What needs to change then?
One of the recent ideas promoted by the agricultural environments is the Loss and Damage Fund. Initially promised at COP27 and formalized at COP28, it was meant to provide financial relief to nations suffering the most from climate change’s impacts. Yet, despite the celebratory announcements, the fund continues to lack adequate financial resources. By the end of COP29, pledges barely exceeded $700 million—less than 0.2% of the estimated $400 billion needed annually by vulnerable countries. Worse yet, much of this financing comes in the form of loans rather than grants, effectively forcing developing nations to pay for their own climate disasters. Without immediate and substantial contributions from the G20 nations, the fund risks becoming yet another empty promise.
The global approach to agricultural emissions must change too. The Agricultural Emissions Trading Scheme (Agri-ETS) was designed to reduce farming-related emissions by allowing businesses to trade carbon credits. However, in practice, it tends to benefit large agribusinesses while small farmers, especially in the Global South, struggle with rigid compliance requirements. Carbon offset schemes let corporations continue polluting, while small-scale farmers—many already practicing sustainable agriculture – receive little support. For these reasons countries are reluctant to implement it; however, a reformed version has found full dedication from New Zealand, with plans to introduce agriculture in its emissions trading scheme by 2025. Developed countries should follow suit and adopt a more equitable Agri-ETS that focuses on rewarding genuine sustainability efforts.
A Rigged Game Where the Global South Loses
In the end, the G20’s failure to take meaningful action on food security isn’t just a missed opportunity – it’s a direct reflection of the power dynamics that rule the global food system. As the world’s largest economies gather in Johannesburg, their words must be matched by real commitments, or else the global food crisis will continue to resemble The Hunger Games, where the most vulnerable are left to fight for scraps – except the odds are rarely in the Global South’s favor.
Want to read more?