London Climate Action Week 2026, 26 June 2026ODI Global Good morning. I do feel privileged for the opportunity to share a few insights from the perspective of climate science and my own professional experience at the start of this event on just transition and agrifood systems. I feel humble about this because all my background is actually in energy systems. But let me try and rescue my credibility. As the Chair of the IPCC for this cycle I am hosted by the International Institute for Environment Development, which is giving me a lot of opportunity to engage with relevant issues. In the last IPCC cycle, I was the Co-Chair of the Working Group III and co-led the management of the Special Report on Climate Change and Land. I’ll also say that for five years, I chaired Scotland’s Just Transition Commission, which took a deliberately broad framing of just transition issues, and it encompassed both agriculture and the demand side, as well as the supply side. And I may say that was not an academic exercise. I was holding the ring with businesses, trade unions, community groups, and farmers. We had real farmers on the commission, so we were addressing the issues. My remarks will draw mainly on experience from the IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land and the Just Transition Commission experience. I’ll then set out plans for the coverage of just transition issues with respect to agriculture and land management in the IPCC’s seventh assessment cycle. Turning first to the IPCC Land report. The Summary for Policymakers did not mention ‘just transition’ explicitly, but it made many relevant points – this was back in 2019 – before the concept of ‘just transition’ acquired the prominence it has now. It particularly noted that insecure land tenure, affecting the ability of people, communities and organisations to make changes to land that can advance adaptation and mitigation. It further noted that limited recognition of customary access to land and ownership of land increases vulnerability and reduces adaptive capacity. There was also a set of sections on relevant land policies such as recognition of customary tenure, community mapping, redistribution, decentralisation, co-management and regulation of rental markets – all can provide security and flexibility responses to climate change. It further made the point that given the complexity of the challenges and the diversity of actors involved in addressing land challenges, a mix of policies, rather than single-policy approaches, can deliver improved results. The policies included improved access to markets for inputs, outputs and financial services; empowering women and indigenous peoples which is very pertinent; enhancing local and community collective action; reforming subsidies; and promoting an enabling trade system. Now, in some respects, my role with IPCC can be seen as eyes to the horizon. In contrast, my role in the Scottish Just Transition Commission was very much feet on the ground. I was privileged to have two roles at the same time that kept the view of the longer and the bigger global vision, but combined it with local practises and what could be achieved. I am not going to suggest that there are directly transferable lessons to be learned from one corner of Northern Europe to other parts of the world. But, the Just Transition Commission did highlight for me the importance of local context and the critical role that land tenure plays. Scotland has an unusually concentrated pattern of ultimate land ownership. Tenant farming plays a large role. And as we engaged with farmers, most of the conversations were about the things such as complexities of multi-generational leases that passed from grandparents to parents to children before they expired. An interesting question is about the ownership of assets at the end of a lease when it expired. So the livestock belongs to the tenant, but the fixed material, the trees, the hedgerows belong to the ultimate landowner. And these kinds of things are really strong incentives about the choices that people make. Unlike IPCC, the Just Transition Commission, in line with its mandate to offer challenge to ministers, was unashamedly policy prescriptive, and it was liberating to take on that role and follow it through. Based on Commission recommendations, the Scottish Government has been developing sectoral Just Transition Plans, one of which, currently in draft form, addresses Land Use and Agriculture. Within the Scottish government, the plan is jointly owned by the Climate Action and Energy portfolio and the Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands portfolio. This is an important point – this issue cuts across government. I note that in a previous Scottish Parliament, climate action and land reform were in the same portfolio. And frankly, the minister spent 90% of her time on land reform, which was a really, really tricky issue in that context. In respect of the Land Use and Agriculture Just Transition Plan, the strongest messages emerging from stakeholder engagement relate to the need for place-based approaches. People who have knowledge and understand the locality need to be involved in the decision-making process from an early stage. Policies that are framed nationally can limit flexibility because they do not account for subtle variations between different localities. A second key theme concerns equity, value and respect. A disproportionate share of profits and other benefits from natural resources often leave the area where they are generated. If they do stay, they may not be fairly distributed within communities. And there’s a perfect example there about ownership of wind energy resources, when we went to the remote islands of Scotland, where people are generating power at lower cost, and are still paying mainland prices for electricity, which is a great source of resentment. These kinds of issues do really matter. A third theme was on communication, collaboration and innovation. People need to be aware of how interconnected rural activities are, and how farming and land use impact and benefit the wider environment as well as the locality. And without that appreciation, it’s going to be hard to change behaviour and move the policies forward. These messages are grounded in real-world experience, but they echo the more generic conclusions from the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Clearly, local context is everything, but there are clear commonalities, and sharing experiences can help ensure that policies and approaches are comprehensive and do not allow anything to fall between the cracks. Let me finally turn to what is planned for the IPCC Seventh Assessment Report. Working Group III on mitigation will include, among its systems and sectoral chapters, a chapter on Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. As in all the systems and sectoral chapters, mitigation will be assessed in the context of sustainable development, justice, equity, health and wellbeing. A common theme across these chapters will be the relationship between mitigation actions and measures to enhance sustainable development and adaptation, including risks, co-benefits, synergies, trade-offs, and spillover effects. That chapter will explicitly consider gender and the role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in co-designing and implementing mitigation measures. Working Group III also has a chapter dedicated to Development, mitigation and sustainability. This will include a focus on just transitions and their unpacking at sectoral, regional and national levels. Working Group II on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability includes a chapter on Agriculture, food, fibre and fisheries covering livelihood security, risks to cultural heritage and adaptation options for vulnerable groups such as smallholder farmers, pastoralists and fishing communities. There is an unprecedented degree of cooperation between the three Working Groups in this cycle. Given the strong linkages between adaptation and mitigation in the context of food systems and land use, a coordinated approach to a just transition can be expected. I would also note that our Vice-Chairs in the IPCC are given a focal point role with respect to the constituencies within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. So, we have a focal point for the Farmers group and try to engage with them in each COP and in each meeting of the subsidiary bodies. Earlier this year, we ran a workshop on Engaging Diverse Knowledge Systems, covering Indigenous Knowledge, local knowledge and practitioner knowledge. The workshop report, which includes recommendations agreed by consensus between IPCC insiders and holders of Indigenous Knowledge, is now available on our website. One final plea. All IPCC reports go through a rigorous process of expert review and government review. The expert review of the Working Group II report will open in early October, with the WG III report following shortly thereafter. Please take the opportunity to register for the reviews, download the drafts and submit your comments. We value a wide range of perspectives, and all reviewers are acknowledged in the final published reports. So, with that little advertisement, let me conclude my remarks, thank you once again for the opportunity to address this event, and pass back to the moderator.