Promoting Impactful Smallholder Action Partnerships at Davos

I had deeply mixed feelings about going. The World Economic Forum’s Annual Davos Summit is largely a gathering of elites without the voices of the poor. But last week, I participated in events on the side-lines. Why was I there and what came out of it?

The Davos week is a unique opportunity to get in front of Presidents. Whole groups of them come – from leading companies, public sector agencies, non-profits and even countries. It’s certainly easier to meet them there than individually around the world. And meeting them is particularly important to me because when it comes to climate-smart solutions for smallholders, leading institutions are still talking more than doing. But we need urgent action! Davos seemed an opportunity not to be missed to promote this with senior leaders. To do so, I joined events organized by Yara , AGRA , Bayer and Clim-EAT , Newsweek Vantage , Lombard Odier , WBCSD and FOLU , IDH . I even chaired one myself: the Farm to Market Alliance (FtMA) Steering Committee, together with the Food Collective.

The packed Davos programme doesn’t leave much time for extended debate. But here are the messages I was trying to get across….

• Low-income smallholders are among the people most vulnerable to weather extremes. Typically, they are also the least able to take advantage of carbon markets. (Most smallholders cause few emissions related to inputs and machinery and have limited opportunities to sequester carbon – so there’s little they can change). They risk getting ever more excluded, but desperately need climate-adaptation support to increase their yields and diversify. Unfortunately, financing for agriculture remains below 2% of the climate-adaptation total. Pathways for its deployment are often also obscure.
• There are proven examples of interventions that work. These improve smallholder productivity and incomes while also benefiting climate and nature. Let’s take rice production. Our Foundation supports farmers to grow rice with lower emissions. There are three main prongs to this: deep-rooting varieties, alternating wetting and drying practices and direct seeding to eliminate stubble-burning. Diversifying into more profitable crops alongside rice improves both diets and incomes: vegetables are a great example. We need to deliver such solutions rapidly to large numbers of smallholders through capable agri-entrepreneurs working in under-served communities. This can be achieved by supporting expansion of networks like the Agri-Entrepreneurs Growth Foundation in India, and FtMA in East Africa. Initiatives like the Food Action Alliance can help launch such networks in further countries.
• We also need new innovations to address key barriers. Soil amendments can promote plant and soil health, with lower use of nitrous oxide emitting fertilizers. But which amendments are best in which contexts? What are the smartest bundles for improving soil health in each locality? How do smallholders get access to affordable, farm-specific, usable soil and weather data?
• We need to deploy finance to support the scale-up of proven solutions, and to pay for research, testing, trialing and proving innovations, from the public and/or private sector. Many asset managers and investors are committing to ‘climate finance’. However, unless they change their perception of smallholder risk, the money will not be available to those who most need it. Large public agencies and philanthropists looking to incentivize, catalyze and de-risk the work of such actors will also fail to deploy their resources. We need to take much greater risks, using unconventional approaches to bundling solutions, innovations and financing with insurance, as well as a range of climate-finance incentives and smarter policies.

So… despite my mixed feelings in advance: Was Davos worth it? And what needs to come next??The assembled Presidents heard many calls to action.

I believe they came away with a renewed commitment to deepen their organizations’ work on climate-smart and regenerative agriculture, to strengthen food systems, address the cost-of-living crisis, and improve nutrition, climate and nature outcomes, now. I heard many calls for such work to be done through collective action and multi-stakeholder partnerships. BUT: As usual at Davos, this was talk, not doing. The follow-up will show whether it was all worth it. That follow-up needs to come very soon, as we look to scale up farmer-centric delivery, promote innovation and bundle financing solutions in individual countries, with local stakeholders.