Does climate finance work for young farmers? A deep-dive with Mawejje Harbert

ClimaTalk COP29 Tracker Giorgia spoke to Mawejje Harbert from the Young Farmers Federation of Uganda and to understand how international climate finance impacts young farmers. In this article, she summarises their conversation from the virtual interview at the end of COP29. 

by Giorgia Ieraci Assumma

At COP29, developed countries collectively agreed to increase climate finance to “at least” $300bn per year [1]. Developing countries were left disappointed, as they had hoped for $1.3tn, and continue to feel sidelined in the negotiations [1]. Despite the fact that this was meant to be the “finance COP”, there was little agreement between developed and developing countries on the basic underpinnings  of climate finance [2]. Specifically, there was tension around the original  $100bn annual goal, with developing countries arguing that it was never met and that its modalities perpetuated debt, as the funds primarily came in the form of loans [3]. The conflicting narratives around climate finance have concerning implications for the futures of those who need it most, such as young farmers.

To understand how climate finance impacts young farmers, I reached out to Mawejje Harbert, a farmer from Uganda who represented the Young Farmers Federation of Uganda and the World Farmers Organization at the COP29 presidency event ‘Making climate work for farmers’, held on the 19th of November [4]. Mawejje was not born into a family farm. Rather, he trained as an agronomist at university, and then became a farmer himself because he wanted to provide the best technical advice to others. He is passionate about helping farmers transform their farms into resilient and sustainable businesses that can withstand  the adverse effects of the climate crisis. 

During our conversation, Mawejje clarified that young farmers are financially disadvantaged compared to older ones. He told me that “what makes [young farmers] most disadvantaged is the area of operation”. They do not have the financial means to buy land – and large pieces of land at that –  and so are stuck leasing smaller pieces of land. If they are hit by drought on a small plot of land, they are likely to lose absolutely everything. By contrast, older farmers with 10 or 20 hectares of land can salvage at least parts of their crops when affected by drought. Thus, young farmers face two financial disadvantages: 

  • 1) they struggle to acquire land to cultivate, and 
  • 2) the land they can access is likely to be small and thus more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. 

However, climate finance could serve as a  crucial “pathway”’ to help young farmers overcome adversity. For instance, in 2020, Mawejje’s farm faced severe drought. He had five acres at the time and lost 80% of his cultivated crops. However, if he had had the financial means to drill a private well, he could have saved more of his crops. Similarly, he was recently impacted  by a flood that  destroyed two acres of bean crops. If he had  been able to afford solar dryers, this loss  could have been mitigated. Thus, access to funds through the climate finance architecture could have a meaningful impact on the lives of young farmers and help them survive in a sector where they are already at a disadvantage. 

Furthermore, climate finance could also attract more young people into agriculture. Mawejje explained that farmers only get their yield (which can vary from 100% to as low as 0%) after harvest, which may be four months after sowing. Agriculture is thus a high-risk business. However, if funds were available according to the guidelines suggested by young farmers, working in agriculture could become a lot more attractive. For example, Mawejje suggested a system of insurance whereby young farmers would be assured some compensation if their crops failed.  Indeed, young people are more likely to join agriculture if their entrance into this sector is de-risked, meaning that they will be assured that the capital they invest into this venture will not be entirely lost if crops fail. De-risking the entrance into agriculture would thus make it more accessible, incentivizing the take-up of agriculture by young people. 

Nevertheless, the forms of climate finance discussed at COP29 do not reach young farmers. Indeed, Mawejje questioned whether these climate funds exist at all. Developed countries congratulated themselves on reaching the $100bn goal in 2022, even though this was protested by developing countries, and proceeded to promise an annual funding of $300 bn at COP29 [5]. However, Mawejje highlights that the process by which these funds are going to be gathered and distributed still suffers from a lack of transparency, especially from the perspectives of those who are meant to be the recipients of this capital. Ultimately, Mawejje explains that COP29 did not resolve the fundamental question as to how this money will “sink down” and become accessible to those rendered vulnerable by the climate crisis, such as young farmers. It thus failed to achieve its main purpose.

Despite the ongoing conversations and negotiations around climate finance, there is still a fundamental gap between what it should be and what it really is. Maybe it is now time for different institutions and actors to take charge of the conversation? Indeed, more regional conferences like  the Africa Climate Summit may serve to “open the box” of climate thinking, in Mawejje’s words, and bring innovative solutions to a financing problem that remains stuck in a stalemate. Importantly, Mawejje argued that developing countries need to ask themselves “what if we don’t get the money we are hoping for?” and start thinking of other solutions, rather than seeing themselves as wholly dependent on developed countries. For example, are there ways that local private finance could be leveraged? Leveraging local private finances, such as local banks or individual donors, could help developing countries become protagonists in the fight against climate change, rather than waiting on the funds of reticent developed countries.

In summary, Mawejje’s testimony sheds light on the  inefficiency of climate finance and the unanswered questions in the wake of COP29. What will the new $300bn fund be used for? Who will receive it and why? Will young farmers even be able to access it? The lack of clear answers to these questions risks fostering a dangerous future of mistrust between those providing and those receiving climate finance.

References:
[1] Carbon Brief. ‘COP29: Key Outcomes Agreed at the UN Climate Talks in Baku’. Accessed 24 November 2024. https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop29-key-outcomes-agreed-at-the-un-climate-talks-in-baku/.  
[2] ‘Key Issues to Watch at COP29 | World Resources Institute’. Accessed 27 November 2024. https://www.wri.org/un-climate-change-conference-resource-hub/key-issues
[3] Personal observation made by Giorgia Ieraci Assumma from attending relevant meetings as an Observer Delegate. See ClimaTalk forthcoming COP29 negotiations full debrief, specifically my reports on the long-term climate finance negotiations. 
[4] His linkedin: linkedin.com/in/mawejje-harbert-771345115; the instagram for the Young Farmers Federation of Uganda: https://www.instagram.com/unyfa1/ ; World Farmers’ Organization Website: https://www.wfo-oma.org/
[5] Personal observation made by Giorgia Ieraci Assumma from attending relevant meetings as an Observer Delegate. See ClimaTalk forthcoming COP29 negotiations full debrief, specifically my reports on the long-term climate finance negotiations.

Categories COP29/Guest Features