Skip to main content Accessibility help

Climate-Resilient Crops and International Climate Change Adaptation Law



This article explores the role of international climate change adaptation law in promoting the use of genetically engineered crops as an adaptation strategy. The severity of climate change impacts and the realization that, by now, some adverse effects are inevitable, has intensified the urgency to devise effective adaptation strategies. Genetically engineered climate-resilient crops are presented as one possible means to adapt to the predicted adverse impacts of climate change on agriculture and crop yields. Despite increased attention on the research and development of climate-resilient crops, particularly by private sector seed corporations, there are many controversies surrounding this proposed adaptation strategy. The key contentions relate to apprehensions about genetically engineered crops more generally, the effectiveness of climate-resilient crops, and the involvement of the private sector in international climate change adaptation initiatives.

The main argument in this article is that the emerging field of international climate change adaptation law contributes to promoting genetically engineered climate-resilient crops as a possible means of adaptation. Moreover, international adaptation law creates an enabling environment for the active engagement of private sector corporations in devising adaptation strategies. Notwithstanding controversies over genetically engineered crops and the role of the private sector, there has been little consideration so far of the influence of the growing international legal regime on climate change on the types of adaptation strategies that are devised and promoted.



Hide All

1 Infra notes 31–4.

2 Infra Section 3.1.

3 United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA, APHIS), ‘Biotechnology: Determinations of Nonregulated Status’, Monsanto's drought-tolerant corn (MON 87460) is listed under number 91 in the table.

4 Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of this article provide some examples of how genetically engineered climate-resilient crops are promoted – more or less explicitly – as a proposed adaptation strategy. Section 4 of this article gives an overview of some of the main controversies of this purported adaptation strategy.

5 Infra notes 91–5.

6 In the debates around genetically engineered climate-resilient crops, there is much emphasis on the growing number of patent applications by corporations, and the dominant role played by the private sector. See Section 3 of this article. There are few, if any, discussions of what the influence is of the climate change regime – and particularly international law that relates to adaptation – on creating a conducive context in which such adaptations can be promoted.

7 ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’,

8 ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Reports’,

9 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 1771 U.N.T.S. 107 (1992).

10 See UNFCCC, ‘Background on the UNFCCC: The International Response to Climate Change’,

11 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 37 I.L.M. 22 (1998). The 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, taking place in Paris in November and December 2015, aims to create a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol. There are strong calls for the creation of a legally binding and universal agreement. See for more information, S. Maljean-Dubois, M. Wemaere, and T.A. Spencer. ‘A Comprehensive Assessment of Options for the Legal Form of the Paris Climate Agreement’ (November 2014) Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) Working Paper No.15/14, Sciences Po.

12 There can be many discussions about whether there is international law on climate change, and, if so, what constitutes this law. Robert Keohane and David Victor have described the broad range of mechanisms developed to regulate climate change action as the ‘regime complex for climate change’. One of these regimes is the ‘UN Legal Regime’, including the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. R.O. Keohane and D.G. Victor, ‘The Regime Complex for Climate Change’, The Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements, Discussion Paper 10-33, January 2010, at 5.

13 The UNFCCC has been called ‘a system of negotiation through which it would be possible to speedily adopt amendments and updates arising from the continuous rounds of negotiations covering development protocols’. R. Giles-Carnero, ‘Climate Change’, Oxford Bibliographies, 25 June 2013,

14 UNFCCC, supra note 9, Art 2: ‘The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.’

15 R. Verheyen, ‘Adaptation to the Impacts of Anthropogenic Climate Change: The International Legal Framework’, (17 December 2002) Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 11, at 129. See also J. Verschuuren, ‘Climate Change Adaptation under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Related Documents’, in J. Verschuuren (ed.) Research Handbook on Climate Change Aaptation Law, Research Handbooks in Environmental Law no. 16 (2013), 16–31.

16 J.J. McCarthy et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001).

17 M.L. Parry et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), at 19 (emphasis added). See also Verschuuren, supra note 15, at 17.

18 C.B. Field et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013).

19 S. Agrawala et al., ‘Private Sector Engagement in Adaptation to Climate Change: Approaches to Managing Climate Risks’, (2011) OECD Environment Working Papers Series No.39, OECD Publishing, at 9.

20 See, for example, Verschuuren, supra note 15, at 3–4.

21 ‘Regime’ is understood here in the sense in which Keohane and Victor described it, as a broad range of mechanisms to regulate climate change impacts. Supra note 12.

22 J. McDonald, ‘The Role of Law in Adapting to Climate Change’, (March/April 2011) WIREs Climate Change 2.

23 UNFCCC, supra note 9; Kyoto Protocol, supra note 11.

24 UNFCCC, supra note 9.

25 Paavola, J. and Adger, W.N., ‘Fair Adaptation to Climate Change’, (2006) 56 Ecological Economics 594, at 597–8.

26 Ruhl, J.B. and Salzman, J., ‘Climate Change Meets the Law of the Horse’, (2013) 62 Duke Law Journal 975, at 976. Ruhl and Salzman liken climate change adaptation law to cyberspace law in the mid-1990s; a new issue that is regulated by a range of legal fields rather than one new legal regime.

27 The understanding of ‘international climate change adaptation law’ in this article is inspired by the ‘regime complex’ as described by Keohane and Victor, supra note 12. International climate change adaptation law is an emerging distinct field of international law, and its contours are being defined through expert assessments, discourse, and adaptation initiatives.

28 The CAF was adopted at the 2010 Climate Change Conference in Cancun. Its primary objective is ‘to enhance action on adaptation, including through international cooperation and coherent consideration of matters relating to adaptation under the Convention’. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Decision 1/CP.16: The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action, Section II Enhanced Action on Adaptation (2011), paras 11–35. See also ‘Cancun Adaptation Framework’,

29 The NWP was established at the 2005 Conference of the Parties (COP). It is a mechanism established under the UNFCCC and its aim is to ‘facilitate and catalyze the development and dissemination of information and knowledge that would inform and support adaptation policies and practices’. ‘Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change (NWP)’,

30 NAPAs are part of a work programme for least developed countries, established at the 2001 meeting of the COP. The main aim of NAPAs is to ‘provide a process for the LDCs to identify priority activities that respond to their urgent and immediate needs with regard to adaptation to climate change’. UNFCCC, ‘Background Information on the NAPAs’,

31 J.R. Porter et al., ‘Food Security and Food Production Systems’, in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013).

34 UNFCCC, Art. 2, supra note 14: The articulation of the ‘ultimate objective’ includes a reference a consideration ‘to ensure that food production is not threatened’.

35 The largest corporations include Monsanto, Syngenta, Pioneer Hi-Bred, BASF, and Bayer.

36 S. Agrawala, ‘Adaptation and Innovation: An Analysis of Crop Biotechnology Patent Data’, (2012) OECD Environment Working Papers No. 40, OECD Publishing, at 3.

37 ETC Group, ‘Patenting the “Climate Genes” . . . and Capturing the Climate Agenda’, (2008). A list of these patent applications can be found in Appendix A of the report.

38 ETC Group, ‘Capturing “Climate Genes”: Gene Giants Stockpile Patents on “Climate-Ready” Crops in Bid to Become “Biomassters”’, (2010), at 1.

39 Ibid., at 20.

40 For more information about WEMA, see

41 For more information about CIMMYT, see:

42 ‘Intensified Research Effort Yields Climate-Resilient Agriculture to Blunt Impact of Global Warming, Prevent Widespread Hunger’, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research,

44 G.C. Nelson et al., ‘Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation’ (2009) International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C., at viii.

45 The Economist, ‘Genetic Modification Filling Tomorrow's Rice Bowl: Genetic Engineers Are Applying Their Skills to Tropical Crops’, (6 December 2006) The Economist,

46 As mentioned in The Economist article, ibid.

48 Paarlberg, R.L., Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept out of Africa (2008), viii.

49 Adger, al. (eds.), Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change, (2006), 46.

50 See, for example, Trenberth, al., ‘Global Warming and Changes in Drought’, (2014) 4 Nature Climate Change 17, and Parry et al., supra note 17.

51 See, for example, Dai, A., ‘Increasing Drought under Global Warming in Observations and Models’, (2013) 3 Nature Climate Change 52, and Trenberth et al., supra note 50.

52 This idea of finding and using ‘drought-resistant’ crops to adapt to periods of drought is not a new idea, as Richard Grove demonstrates in his book Green Imperialism. Grove cites examples of scientists during the British rule in India in the 1700s talking of ‘deliberately cultivating and bringing drought-resistant crops together in one place, with the intention of distributing them to peasants living in drought-prone regions’. Grove, R.H., Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600-1860 (1995), 333.

53 Suggestions to use biotechnology to develop ‘drought-resistant’ crops are done often by or on behalf of the private sector. See for instance Agrawala et al., supra note 36; Agrawala et al., supra note 19; KPMG, ‘Climate Change Adaptation in the Private Section: UNFCCC Private Sector Initiative’, (30 March 2012), 28,; Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP, ‘Business Leadership on Climate Change Adaptation: Encouraging Engagement and Action’, (December 2010), PricewaterhouseCoopers, London,

54 C. Gillam, ‘Biotech Companies Race for Drought-Tolerant Crops’, Thomson Reuters, 14 January 2008,

55 G. Lean, ‘Biotech Giants Demand a High Price for Saving the Planet’, The Independent, 8 June 2008,

57 Grove, supra note 52.

59 Some evidence can be found that conventional breeding techniques are in fact outperforming genetic engineering in developing higher yielding drought-resistant crops. See, for instance, N. Gilbert, ‘Cross-Bred Crops Get Fit Faster’, (16 September 2014) Nature 513, at 16,;

60 USDA, APHIS, supra note 3.

61 One critic of DroughtGard has suggested that Monsanto might never succeed in developing effective genetically engineered drought-resistant crops, ‘except in PR terms’. T. Philpott, ‘USDA Greenlights Monsanto's Utterly Useless New GMO Corn’, Mother Jones, 23 January 2012, Succeeding in PR terms is not a small feat in complex debates about climate change adaptation and genetically engineered crops.

62 See discussion in Section 3.1 of this article.

63 Nature, ‘GM Crops: A Story in Numbers’, in ‘GM Crops: Promise and Reality’ (2 May 2013) Nature 497, Special Edition, 22–3. Most genetically engineered crops are grown in the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, and India. In 2012, nearly all genetically engineered crops were soya, maize cotton, and granola. The most popular genetically engineered traits are herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. See also: ISAAA, ‘Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014’ Brief 49-2014: Executive Summary, Table 1 of this report shows the ‘Global Area of Biotech Crops in 2014’. In addition to the five top countries, countries such as Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Indonesia are also starting to introduce genetically engineered crops.

64 ISAAA 2014, supra note 63.

65 For instance, about 2,000 patent applications were applied for in Europe on genetically engineered crops, mostly by the largest seed corporations. ASEED Europe, ‘GMO Patents Held by Bayer and BASF’, 21 October 2013, In China, patent applications on genetically engineered crops are also increasing. SciDev.Net, ‘China's Agricultural Patents on the Rise’, 2 March 2010,

66 Nature 2013, note 63 above: the four most grown genetically engineered crops are commercially viable.

67 Crops that are ‘under-researched and underfunded due to their limited importance in the global market’ are often referred to as ‘orphan crops’. Despite their relative lack of commercial value, orphan crops can be extremely important in local food production, particularly in the face of climate change. See, for example, K. Assefa, ‘The Dire Need to Support “Orphan Crop” Research’ SciDev.Net, 27 January 2014,

68 World Health Organization, ‘Food, Genetically Modified’,

69 See for an overview of controversies related to genetically engineered food, P. Diehl, ‘The Controversy of Genetically Modified Food', 24 November 2014,

71 See, for example, T. Laskawy, ‘Frankenfoods: Good for Big Business, Bad for the Rest of Us’, Grist, 9 May 2013,; M. Schoffro Cook, ‘20 Frankfoods to Avoid’, Care2, 12 September 2013,; C. Guthrie, ‘Frankenfood = Genetically Modified Foods’, Experience Life, June 2013,

72 For a definition of Frankenfoods see

73 European Food Safety Authority, ‘Successful EU Response to BSE’, 30 January 2012,

74 See, for example, GMO Compass, ‘Labelling of GMO Products: Freedom of Choice for Consumers’,; LabelGMOs website, focusing on the need to label genetically engineered foods, see

75 See, for instance, Corporate Europe Observatory, ‘An Open Door for GMOs? – take action on the EU-US Free Trade Agreement’,; F. Harvey, ‘EU Under Pressure to Allow GM Food Imports from US and Canada’, The Guardian, 5 September 2014,

76 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 April 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, in The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299; 33 I.L.M. 1197, 1994.

77 See, for example, Linarelli, J., ‘TRIPS, Biotechnology and the Public Domain: What Role will World Trade Law Play?’ in Cardwell, M.N., Grossman, M.R., and Rodgers, C.P. (eds.) Agriculture and International Trade: Law, Policy, and the WTO (2003), 197.

78 See, for example: R. Charnas, ‘“No Patents on Life” Working Group Update’,; The International Coalition of ‘No Patents on Seeds’, ‘Stop Patents on Plants and Animals!’,

79 No Patents on Seeds!, ‘Monsanto soon to receive 30 European patents on food plants: Coalition of No Patents on Seeds! publishes appeal to European governments’, 21 May 2015,

81 See, especially: Kloppenburg, J. Jr. and Kleinman, D.L., ‘Seed Wars: Common Heritage, Private Property, and Political Strategy’ (1987) Socialist Review 95, at 7–41; and Aoki, K., Seed Wars: Controversies and Cases on Plant Genetic Resources and Intellectual Property (2008).

82 V. Shiva, ‘GMOs, Seed Wars, and Knowledge Wars’, Navdanya,

83 Supra notes 31–3.

84 CGIAR, supra note 42.

86 The Union of Concerned Scientists is an independent collaboration of scientists based in the US that critically addresses ‘the planet's most pressing problems’. See

87 D. Gurian-Sherman, ‘Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops’, (2009) Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

88 D. Gurian-Sherman, ‘High and Dry: Why Genetic Engineering Is Not Solving Agriculture's Drought Problem in a Thirsty World’, (2012) Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

90 Ibid., at 4.

91 USDA/APHIS, ‘Monsanto Company Petition (07-CR-191U) for Determination of Non-regulated Status of Event MON 87460’ (November 2011), 33,

92 Ibid., at 34.

93 Philpott, supra note 61.

94 GM Watch is a not-for-profit organization that seeks to counter what they see as ‘propaganda’ in the biotech industry. See

95 GM Watch, ‘Non-GM Successes: Drought Tolerance’,

96 David Harvey writes, for instance, about the ‘fetish of technology’, which ‘arises because we endow technologies – mere things – with powers they do not have (e.g., the ability to solve social problems, to keep the economy vibrant, or to provide us with a superior life)’. , D. Harvey, ‘The Fetish of Technology: Causes and Consequences’ (2003) 13 Macalester International 3, at 3.

97 Sarewitz, D. and Nelson, R., ‘Three Rules for Technological Fixes’ (December 2008) Nature 456.

98 Bellamy Foster, J., ‘Why Ecological Revolution?’ (2010) 61 Monthly Review.

100 J.A. Heinemann, Ch.4 Commentary VI: ‘Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology for Food Security and for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Potential and Risks’ in Trade and Environment Review 2013: ‘Wake Up Before It Is Too Late: Make Agriculture Truly Sustainable Now for Food Security in a Changing Climate’ United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, at 203.

101 Gurian-Sherman 2009, supra note 87.

102 Heinemann, supra note 100, at 208.

103 See, for instance, reports by the ETC Group and the OECD, noting both the rapidly rising number of patent applications and the large proportion of those applications from a handful of seed corporations. Supra notes 37–8 (ETC Group), 19 and 36 (OECD).

104 See, for example, Altieri, M.A., ‘Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty’, (2009) 61 Monthly Review, in which the author argues that traditional crops grown by indigenous farmers often outweigh corporate monocrops in terms of productivity and resilience to adverse climatic conditions.

105 Shue, H., ‘Solidarity among Strangers and the Right to Food’ in Aiken, W. and LaFollette, H. (eds.) World Hunger and Morality (1996), 128.

106 M. Berlin Snell, ‘Against the Grain: Why Poor Nations Would Lose in a Biotech War on Hunger’, (July/August 2013) Sierra Magazine – Sierra Club.

107 For instance, in the title of their 2010 report, supra note 38.

108 ETC Group 2010, supra note 38, at 2 (emphasis in original text).

109 O'Neill, O., ‘Ending World Hunger’ in Aiken, W. and LaFollette, H. (eds.) World Hunger and Morality (1996), 92.

110 ‘Seed Industry Ignores Farmers’ Rights to Adapt to Climate Change’, International Institute for Environment and Development, 7 September 2009,

111 UNFCCC, supra note 9 (emphases added).

112 Kyoto Protocol, supra note 11.

113 Parry et al., supra note 17, at 296 (emphases added).

114 Ibid., Table 10.8 at 490.

115 Pachauri, R.K. and Meyer, al. (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Table 4.3 at 98.

116 Verschuuren, supra note 15, at 22.

117 NWP, supra note 29.

119 NAPAs, supra note 30.

120 CAF, supra note 28.

121 To establish this, a search was done for the terms ‘technology’, ‘technologies’, and ‘technological’ in the 50 country reports. All of the NAPAs that are available include at least some references to these terms. Such a cursory search suggests merely that there is recognition of the value of technologies. What kinds of technologies, for what purposes, and with what intention they are used exactly cannot be recounted without a more detailed analysis of the reports. The main point to make here is that there is at least a superficial recognition that technologies are necessary for adaptation.

122 Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, ‘National Adaptation Programme of Action’, June 2009,, at 1.

123 Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, ‘National Adaptation Programmes of Action on Climate Change’, December 2006,, at 17.

124 State of Eritrea, Ministry of Land, Water and Environment, Department of Environment, ‘National Adaptation Programme of Action’, April 2007,, Preface.

125 ‘Afghanistan: National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment for Global Environmental Management (NCSA) and National Adaptation Programme of Action for Climate Change (NAPA)’, Final Joint Report, February 2009,, at 34.

126 Republic of Malawi, ‘Malawi's National Adaptation Programmes of Action’, March 2006,, at 3. This is listed third on a list of 15 adaptation options, ranked in terms of priority.

127 Ministry of Tourism Environment and Natural Resources of the Republic of Zambia, ‘Formulation of the National Adaptation Programme of Action on Climate Change’, September 2007,, at 20.

128 Ibid.

129 Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, ‘National Adaptation Programmes of Action on Climate Change’, December 2006,, at 17.

130 Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, ‘National Adaptation Programme of Action’, June 2009,, at 29.

131 Republic of Yemen, Environment Protection Authority, ‘National Adaptation Programme of Action’, 2009,, at 59.

132 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ‘Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer – Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, in Metz, al. (eds.) IPCC Reports (2000) Cambridge, UK: IPCC, Foreword.

133 Ibid., section 11.3.3.

134 Ibid.

135 Ibid., section 11.3.3.

136 Ibid., section 11.3.5.

137 The list of technical papers published by the UNFCCC until now can be found here:

138 R.J.T. Klein et al., ‘Application of Environmentally Sound Technologies for Adaptation to Climate Change, FCCC/TP/2006/2’, in FCCC Technical Papers (10 May 2006).

139 IPCC, supra note 132.

140 Klein et al., supra note 138. See also Sarewitz and Nelson, supra note 97, and Bellamy Foster, supra note 98.

141 Ibid., in the Summary on the front page.

142 R.J.T. Klein and R.S.J. Tol, ‘Adaptation to Climate Change: Options and Technologies: An Overview Paper, FCCC/TP/1997/3’, in FCCC Technical Papers (9 October 1997), especially Box 3.2: ‘Opportunities for biotechnology in seed development’.

143 Klein et al., supra note 138, para. 193.

144 Ibid., para. 58.

145 Ibid., para. 55.

146 Ibid., para. 216.

147 Ibid.

148 Ibid., paras 217 and 218.

149 Verheyen, supra note 15, at 132.

150 Neither does it use the words ‘business’ or ‘corporation’; private entities are excluded entirely from the text.

151 Kyoto Protocol, supra note 11 (emphasis added).

152 Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP, supra note 53.

153 Cancun Adaptation Framework 2010, Art. 34: ‘Invites relevant multilateral, international, regional and national organizations, the public and private sectors, civil society and other relevant stakeholders to undertake and support enhanced action on adaptation at all levels, including under the Cancun Adaptation Framework, as appropriate, in a coherent and integrated manner, building on synergies among activities and processes, and to make information available on the progress made.’ Supra note 28.

154 UNFCCC, ‘Adaptation Private Sector Initiative’,

155 See for the complete database so far UNFCCC, ‘Private Sector Initiative – Database of Actions on Adaptation’,

156 UNFCCC Private Sector Initiative – Actions on Adaptation: BASF, ‘New Technologies for Climate Change Adaptation’,

157 UNFCCC Private Sector Initiative - Actions on Adaptation: Bayer, ‘Developing Stress-Tolerant Plants’,

158 UNFCCC Private Sector Initiative – Actions on Adaptation: BASF, ‘Help Crops Adapt to Changing Climates’, 19 December 2012,

159 UNFCCC Private Sector Initiative – Actions on Adaptation: Bayer, ‘Provide Seed Treatment for More Efficient Resources Use’, 19 December 2012,

160 UNFCCC Private Sector Initiative – Actions on Adaptation: Syngenta, ‘Boosting Crop Yield for Every Drop of Water’, 5 February 2013,

161 Lesotho Ministry of Natural Resources and Lesotho Meteorological Services, ‘Lesotho's National Adaptation Programme of Action’, June 2007,, Section 6.3.

162 Republic of Cape Verde, Ministry of Environment and Agriculture, ‘National Adaptation Programme of Action on Climate Change’, November 2007,, at 17.

163 Government of Sierra Leone, Ministry of Transport and Aviation, ‘National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA)’, December 2007,, 52.

164 United Republic of Tanzania, ‘National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA), January 2007,, at 3.

165 Angola, ‘National Adaptation Programme of Action’, 2011,, at 65.

166 IPCC, supra note 132.

167 Ibid.

168 Ibid.

169 Ibid.

170 Ibid., Section 11.3.3.

171 USDA, APHIS, supra note 60.

* Assistant Professor of International Law [].


Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Climate-Resilient Crops and International Climate Change Adaptation Law



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.