Newsletter
Don't miss a thing!
We regularly provide you with the most important news, articles, topics, projects and ideas for One World – No Hunger.
Newsletter
Don't miss a thing!
We regularly provide you with the most important news, articles, topics, projects and ideas for One World – No Hunger.
Please also refer to our data protection declaration.
'We got to manage risks, not disasters.' Development cooperation in times of climate change: Focus on mitigation, on adaptation and food systems is needed. Martin Frick, chief of the World Food Programme (WFP) Bureau in Berlin, on the future of the global fight against hunger.
How does the WFP assess COP26?
Gradual progress: not the big breakthrough the world really needs to stay below 1.5 degrees, but a step in the right direction. One of our criticisms at the WFP is the continuing lack of focus on adaptation, and that there’s not enough discussion of food systems on the whole. Nor did it really emerge what the OECD countries have to implement in relation to climate-positive agriculture, for example through better soil management.
What did the countries of the Global South get out of it?
A very sobering result: the promised compensation for losses suffered from climate change is still up in the air. In Madagascar, for example, 1.4 million people are on the verge of famine – not because of any conflicts, which are the usual cause of starvation, but mainly because of climate change.
We are already paying for climate damage in the form of humanitarian aid.
I hope that we will consider the whole thing in a more integrated way. Any great efforts we make today will alleviate the problem we will have to face in the future, anyway.
You speak of the gradual progress made at COP26: that won't be enough for Madagascar and other countries, will it?
Absolutely not. That's the short response. The long response is: we are faced with an environmental problem that we can’t solve quickly, like we did with the acid rain we had in the past. We have been accumulating CO2 emissions in the atmosphere over decades, and this has the property of staying there for a very long time. Even if we step on the climate brakes now, the climate will continue to heat up. So, if we are now making a great effort to stay below global warming of 1.5 degrees, then that’s a limit that we must not exceed. Otherwise, we risk the collapse of entire ecosystems.
If we allow global warming of 2.0 degrees, that will mean 189 million more starving people.
And that in a situation in which a tenth of the entire world's population is already affected by hunger.
With intelligent politics and anticipation, we can prevent climate shocks from turning into climate catastrophes.
The point is to prevent them from becoming accelerants. We have to manage risks, not disasters.
How might that happen?
For example, in July 2020, four days before the severe flooding that had been forecast, we gave cash to 120,000 people in Bangladesh. This enabled them to bring property and cattle to safety. This kind of joined-up thinking, long-term development and the ability to act quickly and in the short term help immensely. It creates crisis resilience.
You have extensive experience as a diplomat. Once a military conflict takes hold as a starvation driver, it is difficult to resolve. It’s much easier to be proactive when it comes to climate change: you know what’s to be done. So, why are we still playing catch-up?
On the one hand, there are very strong interests at play, for example the argument of historical emissions, which developing countries bring in. I think it will be very important to create perspectives that are not based on realising the same development model, but on using new technologies directly. Let me give you an example: The almost comprehensive network coverage for mobile phones on the African continent – without a significant number of households ever having had a landline connection. These possibilities are huge; photovoltaics, for example, will play an incredibly important role.
The WFP wants to work increasingly with early warning systems in the fight against hunger in the shadow of climate change. What role will they play?
We now have very detailed knowledge of the climate. We have built incredible capacities, for example satellite observation, sensor technology and communication channels, so that we can predict exactly how situations will develop. We are also seeing long-term trends – in Afghanistan, for example, periods of drought occur more and more frequently and last longer. There’s an opportunity to combine the new technologies with traditional techniques, such as in the Sahel: there, old planting practices are being revived and crescent-like depressions are being created in the ground – they are better at absorbing the often very sudden heavy rainfalls and offer a good basis for planting trees; this is monitored by drones and satellites.
It all costs money. It cannot be ruled out that international funds for the fight against hunger will not increase. If they now also have to support measures to respond to climate change, could this risk devaluing other areas of hunger control?
There will always be classic humanitarian aid, just as there will always be situations in which people need food quickly and their lives must be saved.
On the other hand, we realise that we cannot save the same people every year.
That is why we and our donors are investing in prevention, in models that create resilience.
You just touched on Afghanistan. Since the Taliban came to power, the WFP has been one of the few organisations that has stayed in the country to support the growing number of starving people. What are the staff on the ground reporting? How do you assess the development of the situation?
It is a very worrying development at the moment. The number of starving people has skyrocketed across the country, across all segments of the population. The federal government has helped us to increase aid significantly, and we’ve already reached 13.7 million people this year. That’s four million more than in 2020. We’re currently expanding our logistics so we can help almost 23 million people in the coming year. The need is enormous.
Because of the political situation?
Not only: it’s also because of the droughts and the economic impact of the pandemic. The logistical aspect will become even harder when the winter sets in.
The number of people in need in Afghanistan is the highest we have ever seen.
Half of all children under five, i.e., 3.2 million children, are at risk of acute malnutrition.
How is dealing with the Taliban government going?
So far, humanitarian access has been secured in all 34 provinces. Our Executive Director personally campaigned for this in Kabul. Fortunately, we have been able to reach people.
Have there been any restrictions since they came to power?
Not for humanitarian aid. However, access was not equally rapid in all provinces.
Do you also see an opportunity for development cooperation in Afghanistan?
That is also a political question, which is currently on pause.
We are currently trying specifically to alleviate the suffering of the people by supporting them with nutritional aid that is essential for survival.
Is Afghanistan a paradigm for the fact that humanitarian aid will be needed more and more and that this will replace development cooperation more and more often in the future?
I wouldn't see that in black and white terms. But the fact is: if we don’t provide intelligent, forward-looking and climate-sensitive development cooperation, humanitarian needs will continue to grow. That’s the problem we need to solve. It speaks in favour of a very strong network of different communities, including different funding circuits, from emergency aid to crisis prevention and development cooperation, including all the transitions in between – we have to think together and shape it dynamically.
The WFP is mostly active in the Global South. What does the North have to do to address climate change?
Up to now, in the climate debate, we have often had to consider whether to reduce more or to adapt more. Aggressive mitigation is an absolute imperative.
Each tenth of a degree of atmospheric warming translates into human suffering.
We have to change our societies now, and we have to act quickly. It is making its way into politics, but slowly. If we get below a limit of 1.5 degrees, we will still be able to manage these crises; beyond that, no more. The peaceful, rules-based coexistence of humanity is also at stake. At the same time, climate change is already affecting millions of people – and we are called upon to rapidly reduce this suffering. A hundred billion dollars in annual funds were promised at the 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen, half of which was for adaptation measures. We still don't have that.
You spoke of aggressive mitigation: in your opinion, was it a good idea for the new federal government to integrate climate protection into a strengthened Federal Ministry of Economics under the Green Robert Habeck?
I don't want to comment on politics. However, this federal election has also been described as the climate election. Naturally, it’s very promising that climate issues are moving up the political agenda in the new federal government. Together with the new federal government, we hope to be able to use our expertise against hunger and climate change.