Online Consultation on the
CFS Global Strategic Framework
Draft One
12th of March to the 1st of May 2012
Collection of contributions received
http://km.fao.org/fsn/cfs/
fsn-moderator@fao.org
Proceedings | 2
Table of contents
Invitation and Opening Note................................................................................................................ 4
Contributions Received ....................................................................................................................... 6
1) DFID, Iris Krebber, United Kingdom, Member States ................................................................. 6
2) Afghanistan, Ayazi Abdul Razak, Member States ...................................................................... 6
3) Permanent representation of Iraq to the UN Agencies in Rome, Ala Al-Mashta, Iraq, Member
States............................................................................................................................................... 7
4) Federal Office for Agriculture and Food/ Co-Facilitator of the SUN Donor Network, Dr. HannsChristoph Eiden, Germany, Member States .................................................................................... 8
5) Norwegian Ministry for Food and Agriculture and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Per Mogstad, Norway, Member States ............................................................................... 9
6) World Food Programme, Lynn Brown, Italy, UN agencies and other UN bodies ..................... 14
7) Oxfam, Luca Chinotti, Italy, Civil society and non-governmental organizations ....................... 16
8) International Fund for Agricultural Development, Bettina Prato, Italy, UN agencies and other
UN bodies ...................................................................................................................................... 21
9) USC, Faris Ahmed, Canada, Civil society and non-governmental organizations ..................... 25
10) Save the Children UK, Maria Pizzini, United Kingdom, Civil society and non-governmental
organizations ................................................................................................................................. 27
11) The People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty, Roy Anuciacion, Kenya and Philippines, Civil
society and non-governmental organizations ................................................................................ 30
12) IFSN and ActionAid , Shahidur Rahman, Civil society and non-governmental organizations 32
13) CSM Coordinating Committee Member for North America, Christina M. Schiavoni, Civil
society and non-governmental organizations ................................................................................ 35
14) Deputy Representative of Spain to FAO, Santiago Menéndez de Luarca, Member States ... 38
15) Deputy Representative of Cuba to FAO, Silvia Alvarez Rossell, Member States .................. 41
16) Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Member States ................. 42
17) Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, Switzerland, UN agencies and
other UN bodies ............................................................................................................................. 45
18) Groupe Interministériel français sur la Sécurité Alimentaire (GISA), Chaumel
Marianne, France, Member States ................................................................................................ 52
19) FIAN Ecuador / CSM, Natalia Landivar, Ecuador, Civil society and non-governmental
organizations ................................................................................................................................. 59
20) Permanent Representation of Argentina to FAO, Member States .......................................... 60
Proceedings | 3
21) Deputy Permanent Representation of Switzerland to FAO, Christina Blank, Member States 74
22) Syndicat des agriculteurs de Tunisie "SYNAGRI", Tunisia, Civil society and nongovernmental organizations .......................................................................................................... 79
24) IBON International, Amy V. Padilla, Philippines, Civil society and non-governmental
organizations ................................................................................................................................. 83
25) Near East Civil Society Consultation on Food Security 2012, Beirut, Lebanon, Civil society
and non-governmental organizations ............................................................................................ 86
26) Concern Worldwide, Thompson Jennifer, Ireland, Civil society and non-governmental
organizations ................................................................................................................................. 87
26) APRODEV working group on Trade, Food Security and Gender, Gunnel Axelsson Nycander,
Sweden, Civil society and non-governmental organizations ......................................................... 91
27) Kwesi Atta-Krah, Bioversity International, Italy, International Agricultural Research Institution
....................................................................................................................................................... 93
28) CSM Working Group on GSF, Martin Wolpold-Bosien, Germany, Civil society and nongovernmental organizations .......................................................................................................... 96
29) Berne Declaration, Biovision – Foundation for Ecological Development, Bread for All,
Swissaid, Michael Brander, Switzerland, Civil society and non-governmental organizations ...... 97
30) International Agri-Food Network on behalf of Private Sector Mechanism, Robynne Anderson,
Private sector associations and philanthropic foundations ........................................................... 97
31) Deputy Permanent Representation of Ireland to FAO, Jarlath O’ Connor, Member States ... 98
Proceedings | 4
Invitation and Opening Note
Dear colleagues
The process of developing the Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition
(GSF) is progressing well. The First Draft of this important document has been or will be
discussed at the FAO Regional Conferences (March - May 2012), and online through the
Food Security and Nutrition (FSN) Forum (12th March to 1st May 2012, extended until 15th
May).
We would like to invite you to take an active part in the online consultation by providing
written comments on the First Draft. These comments will feed into the preparation of the
Second Draft, which will be examined at a CFS consultation in Rome in June 2012, and
eventually into the First Version of the GSF to be submitted to the October 2012 Plenary
Session of the CFS.
Last year’s online consultation on the Annotated Outline of the GSF was quite broad in
scope, receiving individual as well as collective contributions, which provided a great deal of
input to the First Draft of the GSF. However, on this occasion we would like the online
consultation to be limited to collective contributions, such as from member governments,
organizations, institutions and networks.
When providing comments on the First Draft, please bear in mind the following guidelines
used in its preparation:




The GSF is intended to be a dynamic document that will be updated from time to
time to reflect regular CFS processes, policy debates and changing priorities; the
First Version should therefore focus on the most important agreed decisions and
frameworks;
The preparation of the First Version should avoid including any material that would
require an exhaustive negotiation of text;
The main focus of the First Version would be to present issues on which there is a
broad existing consensus, taking into account (i) CFS’s own
decisions/recommendations, and (ii) directly relevant policy/other frameworks;
The First Version should limit itself to simply highlighting other issues of importance
where there is no consensus and where further work is required to achieve
convergence.
We would ask you to focus your comments on the following key questions:




Does the First Draft present key issues of food security and nutrition on which there
is broad regional and international consensus?
Does the list of areas where there are gaps in policy convergence that may be
addressed in future versions of the GSF need to be amended?
Does the document have sufficient practical regional and country-level relevance?
Can you suggest improvements?
How can the GSF be linked to regional and national food security and nutrition
frameworks and strategies, and accountability and monitoring mechanisms, in ways
that promote two-way coordination and convergence?
Proceedings | 5
In addition to the above points, please note that the Second Draft of the GSF, to be prepared
by May 2012, will also contain a series of boxes with case studies that illustrate best
practices related to the policy recommendations in Chapter IV. You could greatly assist us in
this process by proposing innovative examples that we might include. The emphasis should
be on how application of best practice in these areas has translated into significant positive
outcomes for target beneficiaries – hungry and malnourished people in developing countries.
You can download the First Draft of the GSF here, but please note that we cannot accept
any comments made on the document itself using the track changes tool. We would also
urge you to keep your contributions to this consultation as concise and focused as possible –
case studies, for example, should not exceed 500 words, and preferably should be shorter
than that.
Thank you in advance for your participation in this important consultation.
Kostas Stamoulis
CFS Secretary
Proceedings | 6
Contributions Received
1) DFID, Iris Krebber, United Kingdom, Member States
I have tried to respond to the four key questions asked - please see below.
1. All related issues are mentioned, but the text is at times convoluted, not well structured
and confusing. The fact that food insecurity is a function of political economy, ie poor
governance, could come out more strongly.
2. List is fine
3. The document could be strengthened in its statements for the regional level.
4. On the definition of indicators (paras 94, 97-98, 104) to monitor progress on agriculture
and food security, there should be explicit mention of relevant existing and ongoing work to
build upon for more joined-up and therefore comparable monitoring and to avoid duplication.
2) Afghanistan, Ayazi Abdul Razak, Member States
Below I am responding only to the four questions posed in the Opening Note of the CFS
Secretary. More detailed comments on the First Draft of GSF will be submitted later to the
FSN-moderator.
Question One:
The First Draft covers nearly all the key issues of a global nature on which international
consensus has been built. But this cannot be said at the regional level due to lack of broad
agreements on food security and nutrition region by region. On the other hand, one can say
that the First Draft does contain the key provisions for stakeholders to consider for
consensus building on food security and nutrition at the country level.
Perhaps one aspect that has not received specific attention in the First Draft is the impact of
climate shocks on food security and nutrition, especiually on the vulnerable groups.
Therefore, a sub-section in Part IV of GSF with the title of "Building resilience against climate
shocks" would be a useful addition.
To create a good impression and to enhance proficiency, the GSF should be presented in
simple and clear language. The First Draft does not pass this key test and we hope that the
Second Draft to be available for CSF Consultation in June would do better.
Question Two:
Proceedings | 7
The gaps in policy convergence as stated in paragraphs 73 and 74 are well taken. For
better clarity, it may be advisable to limit paragraph 73 to the fragility of governance at the
national level and paragraph 74 to gaps in governance at the internatioinal level.
At national level three additional weaknesses can be considered (a) inadequate publicprivate partnership (b) weak inter-ministerial coordination and (c) inadequate consultation
with national CSOs.
Bullet points 3, 4 and 5 of paragraph 74 relate to issues at national level and could be
transfered to paragraph 73. At the international level the bullet points in paragraph 74 are
well chosen. One issue that could be added relates to global indicators. More work is
needed on such indicators with a view of reaching consensus among stakeholders.
Question Three:
We would be inclined to say "yes" to the relevance of GSF at regional and country level. In
fact, sections A and B of Part V of the document list a number of recommendations that are
illustrative of harmonization and coherence with the key messages of GSF. We have no
specific suggestion to put forward.
Question Four:
Coordination and convergence between GSF and regional and national food security and
nutrition frameworks is an on-going and evolving process and we do not expect any miracle
to happen in the near future. The GSF serves as a global guide and should not be imposed
on national and regional frameworks related to food security and nutrition. Better linkages
can be realized by adhering to a bottom-up approach in which country frameworks form the
basis of regional or sub-regional frameworks and the latter feeding into GSF as a dynamic
instrument for global coordination and convergence. As a contribution to this process, it may
be useful to consider the preparation by CFS of a tool-kit for accountability and monitoring to
benefit regional and national institutions responsible for food security and nutrition.
3) Permanent representation of Iraq to the UN Agencies in Rome, Ala AlMashta, Iraq, Member States
I have few general comments on the first draft of the GSF, as listed below:
1. When reading the draft, I think it is well handled, but I found it contains a lot of
explanation about existing frameworks and unnecessary introductions to hunger,
nutrition issues etc, that make the draft a long document. the structure of the
document may need little bit of rearrangement by gathering all the introductory parts
and the definitions in one annex to be attached to the draft in order to maintain the
GSF a technical framework of recommendations as much as possible.
2. no. IV (Policy, Programme and other Recommendations) / Paragraph B :
Recommendations
Proceedings | 8
consider new Recommendation as : “recommend the national bodies to mobilize a
budget allocated for the smallholders as compensations for the harvest loss due to
environment change”.
Also, “ to improve extension service to ensure dissemination of information and
knowledge through establishing in Agri-Educational media tools or channels
specialized in providing the stakeholders the access to necessary information in
nutrition, successful methods of production and video records of the latest
technologies used in these realms”.
3. Section G (Nutrition), perhaps including also the Private and public sector with the
local government in the process of consultations of programmes.
Paragraph no. 66 : I don’t see the need to limit the investors within the category of national
governments. In some countries and in some cases international or foreign investors can
provide better offers or options in terms of financial, budgetary and technical aspects of
investment.
4. Section H (Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests): consider adding a
recommendation stating “encouraging the governments to come up with new
policies, if not existing, to monitor and carry out statistics on regular bases to prevent
violations attempting at transforming the agricultural lands to residential lands, as it is
a serious problem in many countries.
5. consider adding the following to the recommendations stated in the draft :
- “establish safety networks to provide the necessary nutritional substances
for the vulnerable sections of the people; giving priority to the homeless
poor rural people.”
- “establish training and educational governmental institutions for the rural
stakeholders in order to enable them have stronger role in the agricultural
productivity ”. A lot of rural farmers lack the simplest technologies in
agriculture, and opening the opportunity for them to acquire new
techniques can rise the production level.
4) Federal Office for Agriculture and Food/ Co-Facilitator of the SUN Donor Network,
Dr. Hanns-Christoph Eiden, Germany, Member States
Responding to your 4 questions, the draft is quite fine, it raises the important aspects and
recalls to a large extent what has been discussed and approved earlier.
On questions 3 and 4 there is a need to describe more clearly, what should happen now and
to indicate, what is already going on. In this respect I do regret that the draft does not
Proceedings | 9
mention at all the work of the Scaling Up Nutrition Initiative, which is growing fast and aiming
at a cross-sectorial and multi-stakeholder approach for nutrition on country level and and an
increased awareness in global discussions.
Therefore I would propose to as a new chapter 77a: "The Scale Up Nutrition Movement
(SUN) was initiated in September 2010 to encourage increased political commitment to
accelerate reductions in global hunger and under-nutrition, within the context of the right to
adequate food security for all.
The Movement is growing rapidly:governments from 27 countries with high levels of undernutrition have committed to scale up nutrition. they are supported by a broad range of
domestic stakeholders from multiple sectors and global networks of donors, civil society,
businesses, research bodies and the United Nations system.
Governments and their partners in the movement are increasing resources for nutrition and
better aligning their financial and technical support with these national priorities. They are
helping countries implement their specific nutrition interventions and their nutrition-sensitive
development strategies. They are working with SUN countries in a whole of Government
approach that seeks to ensure improved nutrition outcomes across multiple sectors such as
agriculture, health, social welfare, education or environment. Those in the Movement are
working together to reduce fragmentation at the national, regional and global levels,
stimulate coherence and alignment around food security and nutrition policies, and support
the realization of results."
Thank you for considering my proposal. I do hope that many others support me in
underlining that SUN is an initiative which is really driving forward the objectives of the draft
GSF and should be mentioned as a core initiative.
5) Norwegian Ministry for Food and Agriculture and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Per Mogstad, Norway, Member States
QUESTION: Does the First Draft present key issues of food security and nutrition on
which there is broad regional and international consensus?
This draft does indeed present a number of central issues to be considered for the reformed
CFS. However, the perspective is somewhat narrow as the main focus are small-scale
farmers only. We agree that efforts to ensure food security and combat poverty must have
small-scale farmers at the centre. But when discussing food security in the light of scarce
natural resources and a growing world population, all forms of agriculture and fisheries must
be considered. The GSF must be shorter and more to the point in this part to capture only
the most pertinent and general trends and issues. We believe that the analysis under this
heading must reflect the increasing strain on and need for natural resources of all kinds. A
Proceedings | 10
major challenge in the years to come will be to match the natural resource base to the
demands of development in all parts of the world and to balance central elements such as
food security and energy security.
QUESTION: Does the list of areas where there are gaps in policy convergence that
may be addressed in future versions of the GSF need to be amended?
This list is not exhaustive in this draft, but should perhaps not be so either? The main
problem with this list as it stands is the fact that there are overlapping items and items are
not at the same level of generality. Thus, we would suggest that the resource dilemma be
placed as the central dilemma for achieving food security. This dilemma now appears as the
third last bullet point in para 74 and is listed as being equal to e.g. “Filling the evidence gap
on nutrition-sensitive approaches to food security and agriculture”. The Rio+20 Conference
will hopefully address this dilemma as the main challenge for green growth and food
security. The CFS should be signal explicitly that this is a central and emerging dilemma for
food security. By doing so, the CFS may forge a link with the environmental part of the UN
system to ensure better coordination within the UN. Thus, this dilemma should be
highlighted more than what is the case in Draft One.
QUESTION: Does the document have sufficient practical regional and country-level
relevance? Can you suggest improvements?
We refer to our general comments regarding a more central place for the Five Rome
Principles, the first and second of which explicitly calls for improved coordination and
cooperation between the various political levels with a view to invest in country-owned plans.
The GSF should follow up on these principles and provide guidance as to how they can be
operationalized. This is only partially realized in this draft. The CFS is already established as
the main international coordination forum for food security. Thus, we do not see a need for
new mechanisms here, but rather suggest that regional cooperation should have a defined
place in the CFS. It could figure as a standing item on the CFS agenda or we could ask the
High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) to undertake a study of regional platforms and
cooperation and suggest improved coordination.
QUESTION: How can GSF be linked to regional and national food security and
nutrition frameworks and strategies, and accountability and monitoring mechanisms,
in ways that promote two-way coordination and convergence?
See our reply to question 3. In addition, we highlight the need for a structure for cooperation
and coordination within the UN-system for food security. The High Level Task Force on the
Global Food Security Crisis (HLTF) was established to provide guidance on how respond to
the extraordinarily high food and agricultural prices in 2007/2008. The HLTF has since
provided and updated a Comprehensive Framework for Action CFA and we think that the
GSF should address the relationship between the GSF and the CFA. Furthermore, we refer
Proceedings | 11
to our remarks under Question 2 and the need to link food security work in the UN with work
in the environmental pillar. That way we may address, in a comprehensive way, the natural
resources vs food security/climate change/energy security-dilemma. Thus, the GSF must
explicitly be based upon already agreed principles and frameworks to assist the national
states and other relevant stakeholders in the follow up processes.
General comments
The reformed Committee on Food Security (CFS) encompasses a wider group of members
than before and has been given a stronger mandate to act as the focal arena of the UN
system for food security. The CFS should become the foremost inclusive forum for the global
governance of food security. For this to happen there is a need for an overarching guiding
framework like GSF. We welcome the central role given to the CFS in the Global Strategic
framework for food security and nutrition (GSF).
We welcome the reflection of the right to adequate food in this first version. For the GSF to
substantially make a difference, the human rights approach should be fully integrated in the
upcoming second draft – with an emphasis on monitoring and accountability. Important
elements that should be further improved in the upcoming second draft includes defending
secure land tenure and recognition of the human rights dimension of social protection.
A right based approach is needed in the section on addressing gender in food security and
nutrition. Women as active food producers face many forms of structural discrimination,
depriving them of their rights to self-determination. There should be reference to land tenure
and inheritance rights, equal access and control and ownership of the entire agriculture
production chain.
Other emerging challenges is the lack of strategic food reserves and lack of social safety
nets that affectes women and men in poor and marginalized communities. There is also a
need to develop policies to protect common property resources and regulate investments on
agriculture lands for food. It is urgent to intensify combating illegal, unreported and
unregulated fishing on national, regional and global levels.
Section II present comprehensive lists of causes and challenges concerning food security
and nutrition. It should be made very clear that climate change is a growing threat to food
security in many regions of the world. There is a need for more climate-resilient farming
methods and new cultivation methods that make agriculture more resilient to drought and
floods. There is a large untapped potential for synergies between food security, adaptation
and climate change mitigation from land-based agricultural practices, which could help to
generate the multiple benefits needed to address the multiple demands placed on
agriculture.
Proceedings | 12
Competition for land, water and energy will intensify. Sustainable intensification is vital
because meeting additional food demand puts additional pressure on natural resources.
Strategic options along the food value chain include changes in patterns of agricultural
production, integrated management of access to natural resources and assigning greater
value to sustainability in food markets.
The draft reflects that over one third of the food produced today is not eaten. That lost and
wasted food is costly, as it represents a missed opportunity to feed the growing world
population and comes at a steep environmental price. Governments should explore
incentives for the reduction of waste in the food system including addressing post harvest
losses.
A major challenge in the years to come will be to match the natural resource base to the
demands of development in all parts of the world and to balance central elements such as
food and energy security. The CFS should signal explicitly that this is a central and emerging
dilemma for food security. By doing so, the CFS may forge a link with the environmental part
of the UN system to ensure better coordination within the UN. We wish to emphasize the
decreasing quality and availability of natural resources as a major concern for food security.
We therefore suggest a bullet point on degradation of ecosystem services and depletion of
natural resources in the context of climate change and population growth.
To meet the projected demands for food, farmers will have to build climate resilience and
adapt sustainble agronomic practices protecting and enhancing the natural resource base.
This requires a holistic approach to land management. Norway feels this should be included
as an emerging challenge.
Smallholder agriculture dominates both in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Strengthening the
productivity of these farmers will be crucial for both poverty reduction and food security. Still
the focus should not be on small-scale farmers only. When discussing food security in the
light of scarce natural resources and a growing world population, all forms of agriculture and
fisheries must be considered.
The list under para 39 should include to create an enabling policy environment that provides
incentives for production increases and the development of effective input and output
markets, as well as provisions for sustainable fisheries and fish farming development;
The list relating to improving regional support to national and local action under para 84
should include: Support to regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) to
address shared stocks and shared marine ecosystems through regional cooperation
The World Summit on Food Security in 2009 underlined the special responsibility of the
reformed CFS in the follow up of the Declaration and the Five Rome Principles which are
listed in part III. However, we believe that these principles should be laid down as the main
Proceedings | 13
framework for the GSF as they are succinct and forward-looking as well as comprehensive
and precise. The IAASTD-report should not be singled out to be the central reference
document against which all new recommendations should be considered.
The last section “Uniting and organizing to fight hunger” points a way forward and the list of
suggested actions are comprehensive. The paragraphs concerning reporting, monitoring and
follow up, however, are weak and should be made more specific and concrete. The role of
the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food should also be clarified.
GSF must include a procedure for updating itself, i.e. a description of processes for
reviewing underlying analyses and for defining new challenges. The role of HLFE in this
should be defined, as well as the role of the three Rome-based agencies and other relevant
multilateral institutions
Specific comments
Although the list of root causes, emerging challenges and critical lessons are extensive we
find that more points could easily be added to the lists. We have highlighted some of the
points we find important:
All three lists could have mentioned some of the regional causes and challenges concerning
food security and nutrition.
Emerging challenges- The list under para 20 should include:

Lack of strategic food reserves and lack social safety nets has affected women and
men in poor and marginalized communities.
Domestic and foreign land grabbing. There is a need to develop policies to protect
common property resources and regulate investments on agriculture lands for food.
Combating illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU)-fishing on national, regional and
global levels;

Concerning the 4th section Policy, Programme and other Recommendations, you
propose in the last sentence of para 36 that recommendations should be considered
in the light of the findings of the IAASTD report. We suggest that this sentence be
removed as it limits recommendations to one specific report which is not ratified by a
large number of countries.
The list under para 39 should include:

Create an enabling policy environment that provides incentives for production
increases and the development of effective input and output markets, as well as
provisions for sustainable fisheries and fish farming development;
Proceedings | 14

Concerning the 5th section Uniting and Organizing to Fight Hunger the list relating to
improving regional support to national and local action under para 84 should include:

Support to regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) to address shared
stocks and shared marine ecosystems through regional cooperation
6) World Food Programme, Lynn Brown, Italy, UN agencies and other UN bodies
GENERAL COMMENTS :
The Framework synthesises many parts of the food security and nutrition picture, however it
could be improved by being a) more focused in specifying what it wants to achieve b)
backing up statements throughout the document with evidence and figures c) being more
specific in its priorities (finding a balance between being comprehensive but not overly
broad), d) explain more explicitly why these priorities are in fact priorities.
It is repetitive in parts e.g. post-harvest losses is mentioned as an issue a number of times.
Some of the key issues such as trade policies, low agriculture budgets in Low Income
Countries (LICs) should come earlier in the document.
There are a number of key advocacy statements but they need to be supported with
evidence and clearer reasoning as to why they are important.
If it is to be a single-point reference document, there could be an annex with reference to
global food security and nutrition initiatives including Scaling Up Nutrition, the REACH
project and an explicit outline of MDG1c including progress or lack thereof to date.
Section II, part A which separates the structural causes of hunger and malnutrition and B,
the emerging challenges is ambiguous and would benefit from a clearer distinction between
the two.
Within the structural causes section, we would suggest reviewing the order of priority
including a higher up priority for war, conflicts and lack of security and natural disasters as
structural causes. In the first point ‘lack of social protection systems’ could be separated out
as a single structural cause.
The following points could be added: lack of national economic diversification leading to
greater vulnerability due to narrow economic bases in developing countries; low levels of
education and literacy proven to have a direct impact on undernutrition; detrimental feeding
and behavioural practices.
Within the emerging challenges section, it is not clear that all of the challenges listed are
new or emerging. Some challenges have been around for a long time such as intergenerational transmission of undernutrition, population growth, urbanization, technology
development and post-harvest losses. Greater priority could be given to the ‘emerging’
impacts of climate change and the issue of feed as fuel.
As the framework focuses on undernutrition rather than under and over-nutrition, it would be
more accurate to replace ‘malnutrition’ with ‘undernutrition’.
Proceedings | 15
SPECIFIC COMMENTS :
Paragraph 21. This statement should be backed up by statistics and references e.g. the
number of undernourished people in the world and recent trends. Is this paragraph focused
on development or on implementing food and nutrition strategies? If the latter, then the focus
of lessons learned should remain on strategies and not on ‘development programmes or
efforts’. On lessons learned it would be good to include lack of political will as a major
constraint/lesson learned when devising strategies if not one of the most important factors.
Paragraph 24: It states that the Right to Food ‘means that’ food security policies will aim at
increasing not only food availability, but also food adequacy and accessibility’. This
statement is misleading as it implies that without RTF you may not address adequacy and
accessibility when in fact these are core pillars of the World Food Summit definition on food
security.
Paragraph 35: Connecting the tracks: This section makes useful reference to how social
protection instruments can help to bridge the gap between short and long-term interventions.
We would recommend a more explicit reference to ‘systems’ versus a piece-meal approach.
Paragraph 39 This would benefit from a greater focus on access as well as
production/availability aspects of food security.
Paragraph 42 This could be clarified by specifying examples of risk management
instruments.
Paragraph 53: Urban gardening could be put as an example under the 4th bullet point after
conservation agriculture instead of as a stand-alone bullet point and ‘increasing availability of
and access to food’ could be reordered as the first bullet point.
Paragraph 57: This paragraph could include reference to the issues of growing urban
poverty and growing poverty in Middle Income Countries (MICs) in the context of challenges
for governments e.g. 71% of the world’s poor now live in MICs, up from only 6% two
decades ago.
Paragraphs 58-59. Reference to ‘enabling environments’ would benefit from a best
practice/case study to illustrate more clearly what is being referred to.
Paragraph 65: It is not clear why school feeding and food aid are singled out for improving
nutrition in this paragraph as there are many vehicles for enhancing nutrition. School-feeding
is not regarded as a primary vehicle for achieving nutritional outcomes. School-feeding
should be mentioned within the social protection agenda. This bullet point should be
reframed to say ‘when in-kind food transfers are used, efforts should be made to make them
as nutritionally-relevant as possible for the target group’. Reference could be also made to
blanket and targeted feeding programmes which are more focused on nutritional outcomes
than school-feeding.
Paragraph 70: The wording ‘countries are recommended to’ is cumbersome. We
recommend that it is revised: ‘it is recommended that countries.. ’ or ‘countries should’ or ‘the
CFS recommends that’.
Paragraph 74: This reads a bit like a shopping list without concrete prioritisation. The issue
of costing and generating figures on return of investment for social protection measures
could be included as an area for greater policy agreement.
Paragraph 78: The first recommendation should be for governments to ‘develop food
security policies that are linked to national poverty reduction strategies and that are
implementable, adequately-resourced, monitored and reported on and include a map of food
security and nutrition actions’. A case study for Brazil could be useful to illustrate this point.
Proceedings | 16
The first point on ‘free, democratic and just society’ is very broad and perhaps beyond the
remit of this framework or if not then it should be better-contextualised.
Under core actions at country level: ‘support the establishment of adequate protective and
productive safety net interventions’ could be re-worded as ‘support the establishment of
equitable, sustainable and adequately-resourced social protection systems at national level’.
Paragraph 81: There may not always be a clear consensus on the importance of regional
bodies.
Paragraph 86: This is a sweeping and unclear statement. We recommend either removing it
or clarifying a) exactly what is meant i.e. what type of debt and b) why it would have a direct
impact on the development of food security and nutrition strategies.
The bullet point on ‘food assistance’ should be changed to ‘food aid’.
Paragraph 90: Can this paragraph be backed up with statistics particularly focusing on
recent years bearing in mind that trends in investment in agriculture and nutrition are
changing?
The point on FDI is unclear. ODA may not always be focused on public investment and it is
unclear how private sector investment could be controlled with regard to food and nutrition
security or even whether this is a desired outcome.
Paragraph 91: It should say ‘Delivering as One’ not ‘Delivery and One’ concept (or ‘one UN’).
Paragraphs 92 and 93: This is going somewhat beyond the mandate of the CFS and would
need to have a more specific point or linkage with the overall framework. There needs to be
more detail on accountability and monitoring mechanisms e.g. who is doing it and what are
the ‘enforcement mechanisms’. It could include suggestions such as peer monitoring like the
human rights council, regional review systems etc. The role of the CFS could be further
outlined (Para 94-98).
Paragraph 95: This section could include ideas on ‘how’ to establish greater political will
among states to make progress on food security and nutrition i.e what role can the CFS play
in nurturing this process?
Paragraphs 98 and 101: These paragraphs should be moved to a more logical place in the
document.
Paragraph 99 and 100: This style is out of synch with the rest of the document and sounds
‘textbookish’.
Paragraph 103: We would recommend developing further the point on national information
systems and including it in the section on ‘Core actions at country level’.
Paragraph 104: Perhaps a word of caution should be added here that there is no ‘gold
standard’ food security indicator but only proxy indicators and that the use of a suite of core
food security indicators is subject to ongoing consultations.
7) Oxfam, Luca Chinotti, Italy, Civil society and non-governmental organizations
Proceedings | 17
Oxfam has supported the development of a CFS Global Strategic Framework (GSF) since
the reform of the CFS. In fact, the GSF is a critical tool for the CFS to deliver on its crucial
mandate; as the center of the global governance on food security, agriculture and nutrition,
to improve policy coherence, to enhance stakeholders’ coordination, to promote better and
more inclusive governance and accountability, to promote political commitment and to
ensure that policies and programmes prioritize food and nutrition security and the right to
food. A strong, comprehensive and ambitious GSF is needed to tackle the critical issues that
are the root causes of the current food crisis and to start to fix the broken global food
system.
In our response we have focused on the first two questions proposed to guide the
consultation. However, our comments also have relevance for other questions as well.
I.
Does the First Draft present key issues of food security and nutrition on which there
is broad regional and international consensus?
The current draft underlines a number of critical recommendations that need to be fully
implemented to achieve food and nutrition security. We welcome that the current GSF draft
underlines the importance of a right based approach, based on the Guidelines on the right to
food. However, a number of key elements, where international evidence-based consensus
exists, are missing or are too vague. The next GSF draft should:
1.
State more clearly that it should guide decisions, policies and action undertaken by
all decision makers both in developing and developed countries governments – including
those that deal with issues that have indirect impact on hunger and malnutrition (such as
trade, economic and investment policies) - as well as international and regional
intergovernmental organizations and the private sector. Furthermore, it should be flagged
that decisions on funding allocation as well should be guided by the GSF. It is necessary to
make those elements clear in the first paragraphs of chapter I. This is crucial to tackle the
lack of policy coherence and coordination by all actors. There is consensus that they are key
causes of the current food security situation.
2.
Clearly underline the need for strong high level political commitment and prioritization
of the fight against hunger and malnutrition. There is a strong evidence based consensus
that the lack of adequate political commitment and prioritization of the fight against hunger
and malnutrition in policies and actions is one of the root causes of the current situation. The
lack of adequate political commitment as well as the failure to fully implement past
commitments, including pledges (such as those taken at the 2009 G8 in L’Aquila), should be
included among the structural causes of hunger (part II.A).
3.
Promote improved coordination by going further into details and provide clear actionoriented guidance, based on lesson learned, on how concretely the Rome and aid
Proceedings | 18
effectiveness principles should be implemented in order to eradicate hunger and
malnutrition. Notably, the GSF, in the part V.D, should:
a)
List the mandates and value added of the different intergovernmental organizations
that play a role in food security, agriculture and nutrition as well as assess where the gaps,
overlaps and incoherence are and provide clear recommendations on how their collective
impact from local to global level can be strengthened.
b)
Not only mention but assess effectiveness of Intergovernmental organizations
coordination mechanisms and recommend how to improve them. In the case, where there is
no consensus on the analysis on this and the issue underlined in the bullet point above,
those elements should be added un the gaps section.
c)
Recommend and provide principles, based on best practices, to set up or strengthen
inter-ministerial and multi-stakeholder mechanisms at country and regional levels,
responsible for national food security and nutrition policies and plans. Those mechanisms
are much needed in order to improve coordination and policy coherence at country and
regional level and should be strongly underlined in the GSF (beginning of part V). The need
for multistakeholder platform and frameworks was underlined several times at the CFS.
Furthermore, we suggest that a box with a case study underlying the Brazilian experience of
the CONSEA is added in the GSF.
d)
Clearly underline the crucial role and responsibility donors have to support and align
with national and regional country-led plans in order to ensure coordination and ownership.
e)
Include the following key recommendation that was agreed at the CFS 36: the UN
system should promote better coordinated multi-stakeholder participation in the development
and implementation of country led, comprehensive plans of action in a small number of
countries affected by protracted crises.
4.
Include stronger provisions and recommendations on monitoring, accountability and
implementation. There is a strong consensus that the current situation is a consequence of
inadequate accountability at all levels as well as inadequate implementation of past
commitments. In particular, the next draft of the GSF should:
a)
Clearly underline, consistently with its reform document, the role of the CFS to
promote accountability at all levels and share best practices (part I.A)
b)
Recognize that the lack of accountability at all level is one of the root causes of the
current food crisis (part II.A).
c)
Include a clear assessment on existing monitoring and accountability mechanisms at
different levels, their linkages, overlaps gaps and inconsistency and clearly identify how they
can be filled and the role of the CFS to strengthen accountability (part V.E). If consensus is
not achievable for the first version of the GSF, this issue should be added in the gap section.
d)
Provide clear guidance for the development of an innovative accountability
mechanism, consistently with the CFS reform document. This mechanism should be based
on open, transparent and multistakeholder processes that will review policies and actions of
governments, intergovernmental organizations and the private sector as well as their
outcomes compared with internationally agreed human rights obligations, CFS policy
recommendations and other international commitments to eradicate hunger and malnutrition.
Proceedings | 19
The mechanism should be designed to achieve improved accountability, assess progress as
well as relevance and impact on existing recommendations and commitments, and promote
mutual learning. The outcomes of the mechanism should be clear and communicable to a
wide range of stakeholders and the general public.
e)
Underline the need to develop an interagency mechanism where international
organizations will come together to support the implementation of CFS decisions (part V.E)
5.
Reflect the evidence-based consensus that, in order to feed the world without
wrecking the planet, a shift of investments toward small scale sustainable resilient
agriculture that put women at its center is decisive. The next draft of the GSF should notably:
a)
Underline as a root cause of hunger (part II.A) as well as a growing emerging
challenge (II.B) the accelerated depletion and the lack of adequate management of natural
resources which has an impact beyond natural disasters notably by putting at risk
sustainable livelihoods of small scale food producers that often depend on marginal lands.
b)
Clearly state that all governments and international and regional organizations should
support and promote the scaling up of agro-ecological practices that proved to be extremely
successful to increase productivity of small scale food producers while increasing
agriculture sustainability and management of natural resources and enabling small scale
food producers to adapt to climate change and increase their resilience (part IV.F). This can
be done notably by scaling up extension services focusing on agro-ecology and support
farmer led research on sustainable practices. The importance of agro-ecology was
recognized in the IAASTD report and by many others.
c)
Recognize that the IAASTD provided specific scientific evidence-based
recommendations that need to be fully implemented as soon as possible by all governments
and intergovernmental organizations. The full implementation of IAASTD recommendations
is particularly crucial today when natural resources are increasingly depleted, climate
change impacts are growing and hunger is skyrocketing. Strong consensus exists on those
critical recommendations and in supporting the IAASTD process and findings.
6.
Recognize the role that incoherent trade, investment and other economic played in
creating the current food crisis situation by adding it under parts II.A and paragraph 73.
7.
Recognize that in order to connect both longer term and life-saving interventions
there is a need that. a) Development and humanitarian actors work together, under national
governments leadership, also thanks to more flexible funding, to build long term
development and sustainable livelihoods, safe live and livelihoods, increase resilience of
local communities and break the crisis-response cycle in areas in protracted crisis; and b)
Adequate investment is provided to support Disaster Risk Reduction strategies and
proactive measures that prevent crisis and/or facilitate early recovery. (part III.C)
8.
Recognize that it is crucial for States to invest in rural social services and
infrastructure to lessen the care economy burden on women and to free up women’s time.
This would directly contribute to close the gender gap in agriculture (part IV.D). Furthermore,
Proceedings | 20
it should be added that the CFS, at its 37th session, recalled the CEDAW and the Beijing
Platform for Action, adopted at the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, and in
particular its recommendations for advancing women’s food security under the strategic
objectives on macroeconomic and development policies, vocational training and continuing
education, health, access to resources, employment, markets and trade and sustainable
development and urges the Bureau to encourage and engage as appropriate with UN
Women in the development of specific indicators, targets and time tables to measure
progress made towards advancing women’s food security.
9.
Underline specific donors’ commitments on food and agriculture taken in recent years
(part V.D). Notably, the commitment taken at the G8 Summit in L’Aquila in 2009 should be
underlined. Furthermore, there is not only a “general agreement” on the need to reverse the
decline of aid and public investment in agriculture (paragraph 90) but clear commitments
were taken in 2009 at the G8 and FAO Summits as well as in other summits.
In addition to those key elements, the GSF can be improved with a number of additional and
more specific changes that will improve its impact. The next draft of the GSF should:
1.
Clearly state the common goals to halve hunger by 2015 and then move toward the
eradication of hunger and malnutrition in its first paragraphs.
2.
Expand the provisions on food aid/food assistance (part V.C. and IV.E) by including
notably the following elements: a) The growing consensus on the crucial role of cash based
interventions; b) Risks linked with the use of in kind food aid, particularly when purchased in
donors countries; and c) The need to further develop programmes to purchase food aid at
country and regional level while supporting small scale food producers. A box with the case
study of the WFP initiative P4P may be added.
3.
Clarify that, once the first version of the GSF is approved, the CFA should be
updated to ensure is consistent with the GSF (part I.B). In fact, it is the CFA that should be
consistent with the GSF and not the opposite.
4.
Include an updated version of the part on land, fisheries and forests tenure (IV.H) to
include the provisions of the Guidelines on Land.
II.
Does the list of areas where there are gaps in policy convergence that may be
addressed in future versions of the GSF need to be amended?
The GSF should underline not only gaps in terms of policy convergence but also the areas
where additional work is needed to ensure better coordinated action to tackle hunger and
malnutrition as well as to ensure stronger accountability.
Proceedings | 21
The existing list, cover a number of critical areas (such as biofuels, trade, monitoring &
accountability, nutrition-sensitive approaches, etc.) where gaps have strong impact on the
fight against hunger. However, those gaps should be presented in a way that do not preempt an evidence-based and open discussion at the CFS. This can be done by underlying
the different issues in a more evidence based manner. For example, the point on biofuels
may read as follow: “Address the incoherence between: 1) Evidence-based analysis
provided by all the relevant international organizations, the HLPE reports and civil society
that promoting biofuels has negative impacts on food price volatility and access to land and
do not provide advantages to mitigate climate change; and 2) The decision by a number of
countries to maintain subsidies, mandates and tariffs to promote biofuels” (this formulation
can be used on paragraph 20 as well).
Moreover, there are additional issue where there is no consensus or where urgent action is
needed and that should be addressed:
1.
How to stop land grabbing as defined by ILC (http://www.landcoalition.org/aboutus/aom2011/tirana-declaration)
2.
The role of the private sector in tackling hunger and what are the needed regulations
to ensure their operations will have a positive impact in term of food and nutrition security
and that negative impacts will be avoided.
3.
The role of different types of food reserves to tackle food price volatility, stabilize
markets, tackle food insecurity and increase resilience to shocks and what are the best
practices for their management.
4.
How to scale up sustainable agriculture practices and measure progress toward a
small scale, sustainable, resilient agriculture that put women at its center.
Finally, we would like to propose to add as a case study in the part IV.F that shows the
successful example of the HARITA (Horn of Africa Risk Transfer for Adaptation) program.
This initiative involved different actors, notably with the full involvement of small scale food
producers at all stages of the programme development, and shows how weather-indexed
micro-insurance for the poorest small-scale farmers can be fully integrated with holistic
climate resilience approaches. The program was initiated in 2007 by Oxfam America and a
host of partners, including the Government of Ethiopia, the Relief Society of Tigray and
Swiss Re. It has shown the potential for an integrated risk management approach. The
Ethiopian government has incorporated the program into its Productive Safety Net Program
and has enabled farmers to pay for insurance premiums by undertaking climate resilience
projects.
8) International Fund for Agricultural Development, Bettina Prato, Italy, UN agencies
and other UN bodies
Dear Food Security and Nutrition Forum moderator and colleagues,
Proceedings | 22
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the first draft of the CFS Global Strategic
Framework. We applaud the great efforts that have gone into the preparation of this very rich
document. Please find here some general comments from IFAD staff, followed by some textspecific comments, and accompanied by recommendations for case study material to
illustrate good practices in section IV of the document
(http://km.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CFS_consultation/file_comments/Case%20study%2
0suggestions%20for%20CFS%20GSF%20from%20IFAD.doc).
With kind regards and best wishes,
Bettina Prato, Research Coordinator, Office of the Chief Development Strategist of IFAD (on
behalf also of IFAD colleagues)
General:



The document indeed presents key issues concerning food security and nutrition on
which there is broad consensus, including consensus achieved in the CFS context.
On the other hand, the document also relies on a selected set of specialized sources
(e.g. the IAASTD report) or regional frameworks (notably CAADP). It may be useful
to specify the criteria that have guided the selection of these documents, and to
make explicit reference to them, when they are used in the course of the text,
particularly to differentiate between material drawn from these sources and material
from CFS sources.
The discussion on root causes of hunger and challenges ahead also reflects areas of
broad consensus. However, this section could be improved by differentiating
between “structural” causes of hunger and malnutrition, which require addressing the
“structure” of food systems, from causes that are not ”structural” (e.g. disasters, lack
of coherence in policymaking, or HIV/AIDS), as these would require different types of
policy responses. Reorganizing the bullet list in paragraph 19 (and removing some
repetitions) between causes of hunger that have to do with the structure of food
systems and those that are not “structural” would also help pave the way for the
discussion of a specific set of policy areas in section IV of the document,
strengthening the relevance and user-friendliness of the document for a policymaking audience.
Similarly, the discussion on emerging challenges would benefit from reorganization,
to differentiate between challenges that are emerging or have recently emerged and
others, which may be issues affecting long term trends in agriculture and food
security, but which are not “emerging challenges”. One way to more compellingly
package the analysis on causes of hunger and challenges may be around the
various elements of food security (availability, access, utilization, and stability,
including nutrition).
Proceedings | 23







Perhaps worthy of some added focus among emerging challenges is the impact of
climate change on agriculture, including land degradation, growing uncertainty about
crop yields as well as the intensification of floods and droughts, and the very pressing
challenge of how countries and other stakeholders can help farmers better adapt to
climate change and to its diverse impacts. Also worth adding is the challenge of
promoting crop biodiversity – today twenty-two per cent of all plant species face
extinction, with 75 per cent of crop diversity lost from 1900 to 2000. Just some 15
crop plants provide 90 per cent of the world’s food energy intake, rendering the
global food system vulnerable to shocks.
The discussion on past experiences and lessons learned should arguably be based
on the previous analysis of structural and non-structural causes of food insecurity
and of emerging challenges, which would probably lead to a broader set of
experiences (country-led experiences in particular) and lessons learned. Also
important may be to be clear about WHOSE experience is considered here as a
basis for lessons learned, with specific and differentiated reference to country
experience (not only with programmes but also with policy) and to the experience of
other stakeholders, such as development partners and international organizations.
This would also help strengthen the practical country-level relevance of the
document.
Lessons learned may include the importance of local knowledge in promoting food
security, particularly as the latter is influenced by the capacity to manage natural
assets and biodiversity and by the capacity to adapt to the localized impact of climate
change.
Under the discussion on the twin-track approach, actions to address root causes of
hunger in the medium and long-term would, arguably, address all “structural” causes
of food insecurity. Hence, discussion on land issues would need to be complemented
with other issues related to these root causes, including issues discussed under the
CFS concerning smallholder-inclusive investment. This is also in line with the
approach of the UCFA concerning the second of the two “twin tracks”. Similarly,
social protection instruments are not the only link between immediate and mediumterm interventions under a twin-track approach, and this should be recognized,
especially if reference is made to the UCFA.
Under IV.C, corrective measures to address food price volatility fail to include
measures to address its structural causes, particularly as concerns supply-demand
imbalances, which require investment in more productive, sustainable, resilience,
and inclusive agricultural and food systems. The need to address these as the
underlying, structural causes of volatility is the object of international consensus and
it has also been discussed in the CFS context.
Also under IV C, the recommendation concerning a pilot project for a regional
emergency humanitarian food reserve in the ECOWAS region is probably too specific
and time-bound to be included in the GSF.
Under IV E, it is suggested that the statement that “Increased investment in
agriculture should be promoted in countries suffering from protracted crises…” may
Proceedings | 24





require nuancing, given the high context specificity of factors contributing to
protracted crises. Moreover, the upcoming High Level Expert Forum on protracted
crises will explicitly tackle, among other, the issue of whether patterns of investment
in agriculture may contribute to triggering or worsening food insecurity in protracted
crises. Hence the question of what kind of investment or what kind of agriculture may
require greatest attention or support in protracted crisis situations, depending on
context-specific causes of crisis and related needs, should also be posed.
Section IV E is at present rather weak in terms of practical regional and country-level
relevance (both paragraphs 52 and 53, as well as paragraph 56). Given the ongoing
process of preparation for the HLEF, one possible suggestion to address this
weakness may be to explicitly state that more precise pointers for policymakers and
other stakeholders in this section will be developed in the context of, and in the wake
of, the Forum itself.
Section IV F takes up some of the issues addressed in section IV B. Arguably, the
issues covered in paragraphs 58 and 59 would fit quite well under section IV B, as a
complement to the discussion on promoting investment, enriching that discussion
with greater specificity about what kind of transformation of smallholder agriculture is
to be supported through greater investment. The issue of sustainable productivity
growth, on the other hand, deserves discussion in its own right, but is not of
relevance only to smallholder agriculture but rather to all kinds of agricultural
systems.
Section IV H may be revised with more specific reference to the Voluntary Guidelines
on land tenure, particularly as concerns para 70, and with added attention to what
actors other than “countries” are recommended to do under the VGs.
Section IV I lists areas where there are gaps in policy convergence that may be
addressed in future versions of the GSF. However, it combines that with an analysis
of the “fragility of governance mechanisms” at various levels, which makes it difficult
to clearly grasp what are the key areas in which the CFS needs to advance its work
in view of future versions of the GSF. Paragraph 74 itself combines areas where
policy convergence is in itself a challenge internationally with issues of a slightly
different nature (e.g. need for a value chain approach, designing exit strategies for
small farmers, filling the evidence gap on nutrition-sensitive approaches, boosting
rural employment, etc.). It is recommended that this list be revised to identify
specifically the key areas where policy convergence is needed, and towards which
the CFS could usefully orient its agenda in the coming years.
Section V is a particularly important part of the Framework in our view. As such, it
may benefit from further strengthening in various points. Section V A, for instance,
presents a list of country-level actions whose precise relationship to the actions
covered in section IV is not altogether clear. Is this list of actions supposed to be
about HOW governments should undertake initiatives in the various areas covered in
section IV, while the latter section is to cover the content (the WHAT) of those
initiatives? If so, it is not clear while there are specific references to human capital
development and safety nets (and not, for instance, to support to smallholder
Proceedings | 25



agriculture, or to the development of risk assessment and risk mitigating capacity,
resilience, adaptation to climate change, etc.).
Sections V B and C may benefit from the addition of an explicit discussion of what
role the CFS foresees for itself at the regional and global level to support regional
and national actions.
Section V D, paragraph 90, would benefit from the addition of explicit recognition of
the primary importance of domestic private investment in agriculture, in particular
investment by farmers, and the need to find ways to mobilize and unlock the
additional potential of domestic investment through better access to financial services
and markets, besides supporting ODA and FDI that are and will remain a small
proportion of overall investment in agriculture. Recognition of the potential of climate
and environmental finance to be used to support sustainable and resilient agriculture
systems may also be added.
Section V E may also benefit from an explicit discussion of how to monitor the
implementation of the GSF itself, and the role of the CFS in that context, as well as
from more explicit linkages to the actions covered in section IV of the document.
Text-specific
# 39 bullet point 4: suggest mentioning the possibility of promoting Rewards for
Environmental Services schemes
# 41/42: the environment/climate dimension and the notion of small-scale farmers living in
environmentally fragile areas is missing in these two paragraphs. However, supply-side
variability due to the impact of natural factors on harvests influences volatility. It is suggested
to include among risk-management instruments those related to climate risks (i.e. Weather
index-based insurances)
# 53: remove the reference to conservation agriculture in bullet point 4 as not clear (or better
explain it)
# 58: non-farm activities represents also an adaptation strategy to decrease reliance on
climate-vulnerable economic sectors
# 74 bullet point 3: policy support is needed to support those value chains that represent an
important driver for scaling up environmentally sound practices and promoting inclusive
green growth (i.e. certification processes, organic and sustainable niche environmental
products, etc.)
# 78: again the environment/climate dimension is missing here. A recommendation on
supporting the mainstreaming on environment and climate related issues along the policy
objectives and in line with national frameworks such as NAP, NAPA, etc., could be added.
9) USC, Faris Ahmed, Canada, Civil society and non-governmental organizations
USC Canada appreciates the opportunity to share our comments and perspectives on the
first draft of the Global Strategic Framework using the online consultation process. USC
Proceedings | 26
welcomes and supports the Global Strategic Framework as a key instrument in both guiding
the work of the CFS, as well as focusing it on achieving tangible improvements in the lives of
those who are food insecure.
USC Canada’s comments on the GSF are based on the lessons and experiences of almost
30 years working internationally with partners through the acclaimed Seeds of Survival
program. This work, and our comments on the GSF, are focused on ecological agriculture,
biodiversity and food security.
1. Key issues in Draft 1 where there is broad international consensus.
While the first Draft of the GSF mentions the importance of smallholder agriculture, it does
so mostly in the context of increasing food production. There is broad international
consensus that the role and contribution of small holder farmers, and especially
ecologically diverse food systems, is far more multi-dimensional.
1.a. Multiple benefits of ecological agriculture. Farms that embrace ecologically sound and
biodiversity based food production practices, have demonstrated high levels of
productivity. Yet there are many other equally important benefits: these farms are
characterized by innovation, stronger food, nutrition and livelihood security, and
resilience to external shocks related to both market volatility and climate extremes.
1.b. The role of farmer knowledge, innovation and research. The GSF document largely
frames the key actors in food production – the small holder farmers who produce the
majority of the world’s food – as passive actors in the equation, and as recipients of new
food production techniques. In fact, there is broad international consensus that smallholder
farms are knowledge intensive, and often at the cutting edge of agricultural innovation.
Agricultural knowledge and innovation on-farm is an under-researched and under-valued
phenomenon and should be placed high on the food security research agenda.
2. Areas where there are gaps and should be addressed in future versions of the GSF.
2.a. On-farm conservation of genetic resources. The current GSF draft talks about food
reserves at the international, national and community level, as a mitigation strategy against
food insecurity and hunger. Since its inception in the late 1980’s, USC’s Seeds of Survival
program has employed community seed banking as a key strategy to preserve
biodiversity, and combat food and seed insecurity. Communities in the regions where the
program operates are far more resilient, and have the means to cope with external shocks.
More, and specific attention to on-farm conservation (in-situ) of seeds and genetic
resources, at community level, is therefore critical in this regard. This should entail support
for farmer-led research, and strengthening small holder farmer organizations’ capacity for
research and development based on their own knowledge and experience.
Finally, please see the case study “Growing Resilience” as an example of community seed
and knowledge banks as the central strategy to build resilient food systems, in Honduras.
Proceedings | 27
About USC Canada:
Our Mission is to promote vibrant family farms, strong rural communities, and healthy
ecosystems around the world. With engaged Canadians and partners in Africa, Asia, and
Latin America, we support programs, training, and policies that strengthen biodiversity, food
sovereignty, and the rights of those at the heart of resilient food systems – women,
indigenous peoples, and small-scale farmers.
USC Canada was founded by Dr. Lotta Hitschmanova in 1945 as the Unitarian Service
Committee of Canada.
10) Save the Children UK, Maria Pizzini, United Kingdom, Civil society and nongovernmental organizations
1. Does the First Draft present key issues of food security and nutrition on which
there is broad regional and international consensus?
Save the Children welcomes the increased profile and importance given to nutrition in the
first draft of the Global Strategic Framework. Save the Children has participated in the GSF
consultation process from its inception and has seen the document make great strides in
recognising children as one of the ‘most affected’ groups by food and nutrition insecurity.
The GSF has also now been strengthened to not only ensure nutrition is highlighted as
appropriate and relevant in the various chapters but also includes a section on the topic
which signals that the CFS sees nutrition as an issue of equal importance and relevance in
its ongoing discussions around food security and agricultural development. We are very
encouraged by these positive evolutions in the GSF.
As the current draft states, the GSF states ‘is a tool for charting a new course for the
international community by prioritizing key principles, policies and actions and by mobilizing
the collective action of all stakeholders to overcome the scourge of hunger and poverty...’
Bearing this in mind, it is disappointing to see that there is no reference to the Scaling Up
Nutrition Movement in the GSF. SUN embodies the unprecedented momentum and
commitment to tackling all forms of malnutrition through an agreed set of principles. Most
notable among these are the establishment of accountable multi-stakeholder national
platform which includes vibrant civil society participation; coordinated support for country-led
plans to increase investment in proven interventions to tackle the immediate causes of
malnutrition as well as to improve the evidence base to inform intensified responses to the
underlying causes of malnutrition.
Over one hundred international agencies, UN bodies, academics, foundations and NGOs
have endorsed SUN. Most importantly, 27 countries have now officially committed
themselves to scaling up nutrition through the SUN framework. SUN partners who include
Proceedings | 28
the broad-based constituency mentioned above have promised to fully support and align
their efforts behind these countries in their efforts.
Nearly all of the principles guiding the SUN movement are reflected in the current draft of the
GSF as components of other existing internationally recognized frameworks and principles.
This is unsurprising as those supporting SUN have been clear in their conviction that
partners working together to tackle malnutrition must build upon effective existing structures
and approaches wherever possible. SUN endeavors to bring together a wide range of
actors working towards various parts of the food insecurity puzzle to solve what has been
until now the intractable problem of malnutrition.
As such, we believe that when referring to ‘other frameworks’ in paragraph 11, it would be
helpful to also mention the Scaling Up Nutrition Framework for Action. In addition, the
growing SUN movement can be referred to alongside the Alliance Against Hunger and
Malnutrition model described in paragraph 77.
2. Does the list of areas where there are gaps in policy convergence that may be
addressed in future versions of the GSF need to be amended?
The definition of ‘food security’ has evolved considerably over time and additional
terminology and concepts including, ‘nutrition security’, ‘food security and nutrition’ and ‘food
and nutrition security’ have emerged over the past few decades. Each of these terms has
varying connotations. While this signals better understanding of the complex inter-linkages
between food security and adequate nutrition, the lack of consistency in the use of terms
often creates confusion, and holds back meaningful discussions on how best to address
concerns of food insecurity and malnutrition.
As the CFS continues to build its reputation as the foremost inclusive intergovernmental and
international platform on food security and nutrition related issues, and considering the
continuous development of the Global Strategic Framework throughout 2012, having a
common and full understanding and appreciation of these terms and their implications for the
potential mandate and work of the CFS, will be of particular importance.
Recognizing this, the 37th Session of CFS called on ‘the Bureau, in consultation with the
Advisory Group and joint Secretariat, as well as with relevant international organizations, in
particular World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF),
to propose options on the meaning and different uses, if any, of the terms “Food Security”,
“Food Security and Nutrition”, “Food and Nutrition Security” and “Nutrition Security” to the
Proceedings | 29
CFS Session for the standardization of the official terminology that the Committee should
use ...' (CFS37, 2011).
This piece of work is currently underway, led by the UN SCN and a core group of
representatives from UN agencies as well members of the CFS Secretariat and Advisory
Group. An agreement on standardized terminology is to be made at the 38th Plenary
Session of the CFS in October 2012.
Previous versions of the GSF draft had made reference to this issue, first in the body of the
document and then in a footnote. We note that this reference has now been completely
removed. Given how important this newly agreed terminology will be for CFS dialogue, we
feel that it is important for the terminology standardization work to be profiled in the current
draft of the GSF, not least to ensure that the agreed terminology is fully utilized in the next
iteration of this ‘living document’ but also in any future CFS policy discussion and
documents. This can perhaps be highlighted in the Chapter 1 Section C on Definitions as it
originally appeared or in Chapter 4 Section I on Major Existing Gaps in Consensus on Policy
Issues.
3. Does the document have sufficient practical regional and country-level relevance?
Can you suggest improvements?
Save the Children believes that this draft makes a solid attempt to ensure that the GSF will
have practical regional and country-level relevance not only by separating recommendations
by county and global levels but also through the various sections in the final Chapter ‘Uniting
and Organizing to Fight Hunger’ which outlines critical roles and responsibilities at national,
regional and global levels as well as best methods for supporting these functions.
In particular, we are very happy to accommodate the request for case studies in this
consultation, as we believe that sharing lessons from the ground is one of the best ways to
demonstrate the application of best practice.
4. How can the GSF be linked to regional and national food security and nutrition
frameworks and strategies, and accountability and monitoring mechanisms, in ways
that promote two-way coordination and convergence?
Save the Children believes that Chapter 5 Section E on Follow up and Monitoring has begun
to set out the critical guidance required to ensure that decisions and agreements reached by
the CFS translate into meaningful action at the national level.
Proceedings | 30
We also welcome the recent formation of the Open Ended Working Group on Monitoring,
chaired by Zimbabwe, as an encouraging sign that members of the CFS are committed to
carrying the CFS into its second phase of reform. In its initial discussions, the OEWG on
Monitoring has recognized the importance of acknowledging and building upon existing
structures and initiatives as well as recognizing that ultimate responsibility for accountability
must rest with national governments. It would be helpful to reference this recent
development to ensure that the outcomes and proposed next steps of the OEWG on
Monitoring receive the support it requires from the CFS going forward.
Case study submission
Save the Children would like to submit the following case studies (please follow this link, Ed.)
of our learning in Ethiopia and north-east Kenya in relation to the policy recommendations in
Chapter IV on mitigating the negative impacts of food price volatility and in particular in
relation to the recommended action to:
‘Increase the role of the state in mitigating the negative impacts of volatility through the
development of stable long term national social protection strategies and safety nets,
particularly addressing vulnerable categories of populations such as women and children
that can be scaled up in times of crisis.’
11) The People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty, Roy Anuciacion, Kenya and
Philippines, Civil society and non-governmental organizations
The People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS) welcomes the open consultation on the
Committee on World Food Security’s Global Strategic Framework PCFS has the following
comments regarding the Global Strategic Framework:
1. Food Sovereignty: The Global Strategic Framework is supposed to be a
comprehensive plan for food security. However, it falls short of recognising food
sovereignty as a key concept for addressing poverty and hunger. Food sovereignty
incorporates key principles of the right to healthy and culturally appropriate food that
is produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods. It also recognises
the peoples’ right to define their own food and agriculture systems free from external
interference and imposition. Adopting a food sovereignty framework would enrich
policy decisions on a national and international level as it incorporates sustainable
agriculture and local ownership into thinking on poverty and hunger. It would ensure
that the structural causes of poverty, hunger and malnutrition are addressed rather
than treating only the symptoms.
In the circumstances that a food sovereignty framework is not adopted, PCFS recommends
that key principles of sustainable agriculture, local ownership of food production systems,
consultation of grassroots organisations and freedom from external impositions should still
be incorporated into the Global Strategic Framework.
Proceedings | 31
2. Root causes of Hunger and Malnutrition: Poverty is cited as a root cause of hunger
without describing the causes of persistent poverty. Large agro-industrial
corporations responsible for large-scale land acquisitions displacing local rural
populations as well as the depletion of natural resources through intensive farming
are major contributors to poverty in the rural areas. This is not acknowledged in the
list of root causes of hunger and malnutrition and is clearly lacking.
3. Section III The Foundations and Overarching Frameworks: While it is indispensible
that the GFS is built on the Rome Principles for Food Security and consequently the
Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda, PCFS urges the GFS
to go further and refer specifically to the need to abandon aid conditionalities
altogether. This is the only way to achieve true ownership and partnership as
enumerated in both aid agreements.
4. Small-scale farmers: Although the Global Strategic Framework dedicates a section to
small-scale farmers in addressing food security, they are not included in the
recommended groups for consultation in the Right to Food guidelines. Small-scale
farmers are the key intended beneficiaries of the Global Strategic Framework and
they are also the agents for achieving improved food security. In order to develop
suitable policies which can be realised, they need to be included in the research,
development and implementation of the policies and they should be represented at
each of these stages. Processes that exclude them will miss key insights into culture
and environment specific conditions and practical realisation of policies as well as
lose the commitment of the small-scale farmers.
5. Harmful policies: Although the Global Strategic Framework makes strong policy
recommendations, it neglects to deal with harmful policies currently in place. These
includes food subsidies in Northern countries and related ‘dumping’ of excess
produce in Northern States on Southern countries; and the creation of legal,
economic and political conditions ideal for foreign land acquisitions which have
displaced local populations and increased poverty and malnutrition in the areas
concerned; as well as the promotion of unsustainable industrial farming which has
negatively impacted surrounding ecosystems and communities. These are just some
examples of policies, which continue today but are not sufficiently tackled on the
international level. There is a disproportionate focus on improving farming techniques
of small-scale farmers without addressing negative policies, which impede their
development. The Global Strategic Framework provides on opportunity for these
policies to be confronted and revised in favour of sustainable agricultural policies.
6. Accountability Mechanisms: It is not sufficient for there to be an agreement on how to
proceed without also implementing measures to ensure that the agreed objectives
are met. The GSF is vague on what kinds of accountability mechanisms are effective.
In addition, recommendations of country level action in paragraph 78 do not include
the need to introduce accountability mechanisms. There needs to be greater
emphasis on the importance of accountability mechanisms and concrete suggestions
of effective measures to prevent the adoption of principles without any realistic aims
to achieve them.
7. Medium/ long term actions to address root causes of hunger: On paragraph 33 on
the insecure tenure of land and natural resources, the GFS should explicitly address
Proceedings | 32
large scale acquisitions of land in developing countries. In cases of foreign largescale land acquisitions, rural poor were displaced from the land with little or no
compensation and neighbouring populations have lost vital access to water
resources and other natural resources customarily held as common property. Their
displacement has not served to increase food production but in fact has decreased it.
In depth research on foreign land acquisitions has shown that of total foreign land
acquisitions since 2008, 78% was for agriculture and three quarters of that 78% for
biofuels.1 This poses a great threat to food security in the countries in question.
8. Gaps in consensus on policy issues, International level: Food sovereignty is referred
to in par. 74 as merely a concept on which requires consensus on the international
plane. Food sovereignty is already a widely known and accepted term especially in
countries with a large proportion of small-scale food producers. Mali, Bolivia, Ecuador
and Venezuela have all incorporated food sovereignty into their legislative
frameworks and the GFS should incorporate these country lessons as a country level
strategy for achieving food security. There is strong support behind food sovereignty
as a key concept as opposed to food security especially from the targeted
beneficiaries of the GFS and their representative organisations.
12) IFSN and ActionAid , Shahidur Rahman, Civil society and non-governmental
organizations
The Global Strategic Framework (GSF) can play an important role to support government
actions by providing policy guidance coming from the decision makers, international
agencies, private sector, CSOs, grassroots movements and networks. The GSF needs to
reflect the needs and the demands from people at the grassroots level, especially from the
most vulnerable i.e. small food producers, women, indigenous groups, who feed 80 percent
of the world population. All the Governments must commit to fully adopt and implement a
pro-poor GSF to achieve food and nutritional security (FNS) and take concrete measures to
support women’s groups, youth, children, elderly and indigenous people.
In the draft GSF document we welcome the attention to; sustainable model of agriculture
with emphasis on agroecology, gender perspective throughout the document, and a strong
reference to Voluntary Guidelines on responsible tenure of land, fisheries and forests.
Although the document emphasize on addressing the needs of women as a vulnerable
group, we expect a stronger reference of women’s rights to achieve FNS.
IFSN and ActionAid have compiled comments from 15 national networks from 3 continents
on the draft GSF document. This following submission presents a summary of their
comments, concerns and remarks collected through a four week long consultation with
national food security networks.
Q1. Does the First Draft present the key food security and nutrition issues on which
you have broad consensus at regional and international level?
W. Anseeuw, et al. “Land Rights and the Rush for Land: Findings of the Global Commercial
pressures on Land Research Project,” International land Coalition, January 2012
1
Proceedings | 33
The ‘root causes of hunger and the challenge ahead’ section of draft GSF is one of the most
relevant as all policies and strategies developed in the document will emerge from it.
However, we found the following elements missing in the analysis:
The unequal distribution of productive resources like land, credit, knowledge, etc deserve a
specific mention in this section since there is a large consensus that unequal distribution of
resources is one of the causes of hunger- creating disparity among people and preventing
the poorest from accessing food and other resources.
The importance of social protection for the extremely poor, the old, and children living in
hunger affected areas needs to be strengthened in the paper. Better access to market for
the small food producers must go along hand in hand with social protection interventions like
school feeding, cereal banks, food coupons for the vulnerable.
One of the barriers for the small food producer is the lack of finance in the rural area that
should be accessible on time, with agreeable interest rates. On the other hand crop and
harvests are destroyed due to sudden disasters while the small food producers do not have
rural insurance at their doorsteps. Thus finance for small food producers and crop
insurance for smallholder farmers should be recommended.
Adaptation to climate change needs to be strengthened in this section. This must be
supported with the need for a better weather forecasting system that will support farmers
with accurate weather related information and possible affect on their harvest. The farmers,
fisherfloks, forest dwellers and pastoralists groups also need long-term weather and climatic
forecasting especially on droughts, flood, and other natural disasters. Children, minority
community and the people with disabilities should be considered as vulnerable groups in
addition to women.
Q2 should the list of areas where there are gaps in policy convergence be addressed
and necessary amendments be made to the GSF?
The document should include the following areas that are much debated and still
controversial:
The private investors as a result of weak governance by states continue grabbing the natural
resources. According to the ILC reports from 2000 to 2010 around 203 million of hectares of
land have been transferred collapsing the rights of rural communities;
The document refers to investment in agriculture however increase in investment specifically
towards smallholder sustainable agriculture is essential to ensure climate friendly food
production and livelihoods security. This point is very weak in the document and needs to be
strengthened together with the need of reorientation of research and extension systems
ensuring climate friendly results of sustainable agriculture investment.
Creating access to water and irrigation is important for a sustainable use of water.
Governments must invest on small scale irrigation and build water harvesting infrastructure
to manage the scarce water resources arising due to increasing climate variability ;
International trade in food should be addressed within the CFS with a right to food
perspective. We believe trade in food should not compromise on national and local food
sovereignty and ensure better prices for small scale food producers. The trade should
address the volatility of food prices instead of creating it.
Proceedings | 34
We demand an end to financial speculation in food commodities. Governments should take
measures to regulate hyper inflation in food items. Private sector should comply with these
regulations.
The extremely important issue of chemical pesticide and food poisoning should be
incorporated, as it is completely absent in the present document.
Concentration of power within the value chain with greater vertical and horizontal integration
leads to the exclusion of smallholders from the market. In an unregulated market, the small
food producers have little negotiating power with other stronger corporate players. In many
countries small food producers are not even allowed to form cooperatives to increase their
market share. There must be a check on corporate concentration in value chain along with
favorable public policies to support farmer’s cooperatives and unions.
Q3. Are the content and the issues laid out in the document reflecting the needs at
your region and country? Can you suggest any improvement?
Generally the document seems to be focusing mainly on Africa region while a reasonable
focus on the Asia and Latin America is also needed both to understand the global
requirements and available solutions.
For the actions at country level, we believe countries should adopt a rights based approach
in their food security policies. We also want a greater harmonization among all policies and
programs on food and nutritional security. In a number of countries, there is a lack of
coordination at policy design and implementation stages leading to fragmentation and
incoherence results. We believe, it should start with a legal framework on food and
nutritional security; which can start from introducing ‘right to food’ in the national
constitutions. All other policies and laws on FS should stem from there to ensure a multisectoral approach on FS.
Although the document covers major issues, problems like forced eviction and replacement
resulting into food insecurity are not highlighted in this document. For example, in Cambodia,
forced eviction and replacement and the absence of adequate social protection are major
causes of food and nutritional insecurity. People, especially women and children who are the
most vulnerable groups, are evicted from their resources and are excluded from social
services schemes. The Latin American countries like Bolivia, Nicaragua, Honduras,
Guatemala demand the: the adoption of the food sovereignty concept in their FNS policies.
They want the national policies to carry an effective agrarian reform for a greater support to
sustainable agriculture; policies that would allow families to cultivate their plot of land and
produce the food they need for their livelihood. They also want policies that will put an end to
the pressure on land and natural resources for energy production.
Private investments must be regulated by a framework guiding private sector towards
responsible investments which respect human rights, environment and the people’s culture.
We do not accept the GSF to open door for GMOs. This cannot be accepted since the
international community is still discussing the negative impacts of GMO technology.
In the African region, the right based approach is missing in the CAADP framework and the
National Agricultural development strategies and related polices. Most African countries also
Proceedings | 35
do not take into account the rights based approach while formulating their investment plans
and food and nutritional policies.
The document must demand a higher investment in creating and supporting to farmer’s
organizations. To achieve FS, the document must acknowledge farmers and their institutions
ability to provide solutions to the problems in FNS. They are the key stakeholders who can
give credible solutions, and help design the FNS policies. Till now, most of the farmer’s
organizations have just been used as conduits in the name of purported consultations, and
hence their participation has remained merely symbolic. Women farmer’s interests are rarely
represented as well.
Q4 How can the GSF be linked to the regional and national food security and nutrition
frameworks and strategies? How can it promote a 2-way accountability and
monitoring mechanism?
The current FN insecurity in the world can largely be attributed to the lack of appropriate
good governance in FNS at the global, regional and national level. This implies, the GSF
must promote, among others, a democratic policy-making and right to food accountability
through multi-level policy coordination with an intersectoral approach to achieve FNS. This is
particularly important as we live in a globalized food system with many threats to FNS are
coming from other policy areas. As a consequence, a multi-stakeholder and intersectoral
approach has to be adopted with the inclusion of other departments, such as the health
department, education, women’s rights, land management, in the formulation of a national
strategy.
We want the existing platforms on FNS to be used to encourage and support the
implementation of the GSF at national and regional level., For example, in Cambodia, the
Food Security and Nutrition Forum led by the Council for Agriculture and Rural Development
(CARD) plays a vital role in coordinating with relevant NGOs, Government agencies and
development partners to develop relevant FNS policies, guidelines and strategies.
Development of these kinds of forums and councils with a strong representation of CSOs
would ensure better implementation of the GSF.
There is a need for a stronger monitoring and evaluation system in food and nutrition
security. Such system must accommodate human rights based approach without which
there would not be positive changes in the national and international policies. The reviewed
monitoring and accountability system may hold all stakeholders accountable for their share
of commitments and responsibilities. It will also identify specific policy failures and policy
incoherence to tackle them effectively.
13) CSM Coordinating Committee Member for North America, Christina M. Schiavoni,
Civil society and non-governmental organizations
The following comments are the result of an initial email consultation with North American
civil society organizations concerning the first draft of the CFS Global Strategic Framework
(GSF) carried out during the month of February. Our comments are divided into two
categories:
Proceedings | 36
 Comments on the accuracy of the reported consensus on each of the policy areas in
the GSF.
 Comments on the further policy areas to be considered by the CFS.
Accuracy of the Reported Consensus
Para 11: Users of the GSF – the current wording focuses on those government
ministries responsible for food security/right to food and international
development assistance only. Yet international policies related to trade,
finance, etc. in all countries have a bearing on food security and the
implementation of the human right to adequate food. The GSF should be
addressed to all UN member countries with reference to all policies
affecting food security and human right to adequate food.
Definitions – in the Zero Draft the term ‘Food Sovereignty’ was included. It was
subsequently in this draft relegated to future topics. Yet this term was coined
and developed by an international process by non-state actors, has been part
of the food security discourse for over a decade and it retains its validity and
importance by its origin with those who are food insecure. It should be
retained in the definitions section.
Para 18: Structural Causes – the structure and functioning of food markets
play a crucial role in food security but are not mentioned. This is a serious
deficiency. Market failures and lack of competition due to dumping and
corporate concentration undermine local agriculture as both a vital basis for
livelihoods adequate to support food security and, most of the time in most
places, a reliable source of healthy food.
Para 31: Access to Resources – under a section titled ‘actions’ this is only
diagnostic. The Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food contain several
sections dealing with specific actions which should be included here.
Para 39: Increasing smallholder-sensitive Investment – it is widely recognized
that the creation and maintenance of remunerative employment is a key
element of smallholder-sensitive investment but this point is absent in the
text.
Para 53: Trade and Price Volatility – the role of trade in making a positive
contribution to food security is given special prominence despite the fact that
it is mentioned again under Actions to Reduce Volatility. This special
prominence does not reflect the consensus reached in the Round Table.
Similarly, in the fourth bullet point, text has been added referring to
Proceedings | 37
‘ambitious, balanced, fair and comprehensive conclusion’, text that was not
part of the outcome of the Round Table.
Social Protection and Safety Nets – it is not appropriate to include this section
before the full discussion of the topic at CFS 38.
Para 75: New Food Aid Treaty – this treaty deals principally with commitments
to make available food assistance resources to meet emergency and chronic
needs. These are not limited to their use in social protection or safety nets. It
would be more appropriate to include this point under Section D - Making it
happen: linking policies and programmes with resources to ensure that it is
included in international assistance to food security. Clarification of language
is also needed – is it food aid or food assistance?
Climate Change and Natural Resource Management – it is not appropriate to
include this section before the full discussion of the topic at CFS 38. The
most affected stakeholders, farmers in developing countries, have had no
opportunity to be part of any consensus formation.
Further Policy Areas for CFS – Para 88
Current text
Definition of Food Sovereignty – as noted earlier, the term food sovereignty
was introduced by civil society over a decade ago and has already been
subject to several international processes by civil society to arrive at a
definition. It is not clear what added value a wider discussion will yield.
Exit Strategy for Small-Scale Farmers – the first priority should be given to
creating the conditions for most of these farmers to become productive and
food secure. The focus on unreliable ‘exit strategies’ because they are
subsistence farmers is simply not appropriate when talking about more than
50% of the population in many developing countries. The focus should
instead be on remunerative employment with dignity. If employment can be
generated from outside agriculture as well, so much the better. But for many
countries, particularly LDCs, agriculture is the obvious, historically tested path
is to focus on improving opportunities in agriculture and its related services.
New Proposals
Food Reserves for Resilience – much of the earlier discussion of food reserves
focussed on their effectiveness in reducing excessive food price volatility on
national markets. However, with the declining availability of international food
assistance and continuing international market volatility, the role of food
reserves as an essential tool for resilience in the national food supply needs
Proceedings | 38
further consideration. Changes in current international agricultural trade
policies and the best policies for ensuring that such reserves serve to support
rather than undermine well functioning local markets needs to be considered.
Based on input from Stephen Bartlett (Agriculture Missions), Christina Schiavoni
(WhyHunger), Cathleen Kneen (Food Secure Canada), Stuart Clark (Canadian Foodgrains
Bank), Sophia Murphy (IATP), Faris Ahmed (USC Canada), David Andrews (Food and
Water Watch), and others. 24 April 2012
14) Deputy Representative of Spain to FAO, Santiago Menéndez de Luarca, Member
States
Spanish original
Consideraciones generales

Dar la bienvenida al trabajo realizado siendo conscientes de la extrema complejidad
que supone hacer una recopilación y sistematización de los numerosos comentarios
recibidos sobre el esquema comentado y el borrador cero.

Por ello consideramos importante ajustarnos a las preguntas clave planteadas desde
el Secretariado como guía de nuestro documento.
Comentarios particulares

P. 11: Nos parece importante incluir la Declaración final de la Cumbre Mundial de
Seguridad Alimentaria de noviembre de 2009 como marco de referencia puesto que
es este documento el que establece los cinco principios de Roma como referencia
de las acciones en materia de seguridad alimentaria global.

P.20: sugerimos incorporar la gestión adecuada y sostenible de los recursos
naturales, especialmente tierra, agua y biodiversidad como desafío.

Segundo punto P.21: En relación a “debe situarse a las mujeres en el centro de las
iniciativas”, señalar que no se trataría tanto de situarlas en el centro como de que se
rompa la discriminación que sufren y que se traduce en una menor productividad e
incremento de la pobreza. Se trata de garantizar la participación de las mujeres
como actor clave de la agricultura.

P.21: Se considera oportuno incorporar un nuevo punto sobre el papel del sector
privado y la importancia de la inversión privada en la agricultura como actividad
económica, destacando el peso de los pequeños agricultores como inversores.

P.28: Incorporar conclusiones y recomendaciones de la Conferencia de Busan.

Segundo punto del p.39: En relación a asegurar que las políticas agrícolas otorguen
prioridad a la producción alimentaria y elevar los niveles de nutrición, se debería
tratar de combinar una agricultura orientada a la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición
y al mercado, cubriendo las dos dimensiones del ODM 1: reducir la pobreza y
mejorar la seguridad alimentaria.
Proceedings | 39

Segundo punto del p.40: añadir al final del párrafo “cooperación triangular”

Dentro de las “medidas para mitigar los efectos negativos de la volatilidad”,
incorporar “ancianos y personas viviendo con VIH/ sida, en el primer punto en
referencia a los grupos vulnerables.

Punto V: Aunar fuerzas y organizar la lucha contra el hambre: en este punto se
considera importante incorporar el Scaling-Up Nutrition como movimiento que está
relanzando los esfuerzos nacionales e internacionales para fomentar las acciones
dirigidas a mejorar la nutrición. En este sentido sugerimos incorporar a continuación
del párrafo 77 el siguiente texto:
“The Scale Up Nutrition Movement (SUN) was initiated in September 2010 to
encourage increased political commitment to accelerate reductions in global hunger
and under-nutrition, within the context of the right to adequate food security for all.
The Movement is advancing rapidly: governments from 27 countries with high levels
of under-nutrition have committed to scale up nutrition. They are supported by a
broad range of domestic stakeholders from multiple sectors and global networks of
donors, civil society, businesses, research bodies and the United Nations system.
Governments, and their partners in the Movement are increasing resources for
nutrition and better aligning their financial and technical support with these national
priorities. They are helping countries implement their specific nutrition interventions
and their nutrition-sensitive development strategies. They are working with SUN
countries in a whole of Government approach that seeks to ensure improved nutrition
outcomes across multiple sectors such as agriculture, health, social welfare,
education or environment. Those in the Movement are working together to reduce
fragmentation at the national, regional and global levels, stimulate coherence and
alignment around food security and nutrition policies, and support the realization of
results.”

P.86: Incorporar la cooperación triangular como un elemento esencial que junto con
la cooperación Sur-Sur constituye una línea relevante de la cooperación al desarrollo
enmarcada en la alianza de Busan para una cooperación para un desarrollo eficaz.
English translation
General considerations
Proceedings | 40

We welcome the work undertaken, being aware of the extreme complexity of
gathering and organising all the numerous comments received regarding the
annotated outline and the zero draft.

Therefore we consider it is important to strictly follow the key questions raised by the
Secretariat as a guide to our document.
Specific comments

P. 11: We believe it is important to include the Final Declaration of the World Summit
on Food Security in November 2009 as a reference framework, since this document
establishes the five Rome principles as a guideline for action on global food security.

P.20: We suggest including the adequate and sustainable management of natural
resources, especially land, water and biodiversity, as a challenge.

Second item of P.21: Regarding the statement "initiatives should be focused on
women”, it shall be noted that, more than having them as a target, it is a matter of
eradicating discrimination leading to lower productivity and increased poverty. the
goal The goal is ensuring the participation of women as a key player in agriculture.

P.21: Including a new item on the role of the private sector and the importance of
private investment in agriculture as an economic activity, highlighting the importance
of small farmers as investors, is deemed appropriate.

P.28: Incorporating conclusions and recommendations of the Busan Conference.

Second item of P.39: Regarding the prioritisation of food production and enhanced
nutrition levels by agricultural policies, combining agriculture focused in food security
and nutrition and the market, covering the two dimensions of the MDG 1(reducing
poverty and improving food security), should be pursued.

Second item of P.40: At the end of paragraph, "triangular cooperation" should be
added

Amongst the "measures to mitigate the negative effects of volatility," a reference to
"the elderly and people suffering HIV/AIDS” should be incorporated to the first point
regarding these vulnerable groups.

Item V: Joining forces and organizing the fight against hunger: it is important to
include the Scaling-Up Nutrition as a movement that is re-launching the national and
international efforts to promote actions aimed at improving nutrition. In this sense we
suggest including the following text after paragraph 77:
“The Scale Up Nutrition Movement (SUN) was initiated in September 2010 to
encourage increased political commitment to accelerate reductions in global hunger
and under-nutrition, within the context of the right to adequate food security for all.
The Movement is advancing rapidly: governments from 27 countries with high levels
of under-nutrition have committed to scale up nutrition. They are supported by a
broad range of domestic stakeholders from multiple sectors and global networks of
donors, civil society, businesses, research bodies and the United Nations system.
Proceedings | 41
Governments, and their partners in the Movement are increasing resources for
nutrition and better aligning their financial and technical support with these national
priorities. They are helping countries implement their specific nutrition interventions
and their nutrition-sensitive development strategies. They are working with SUN
countries in a whole of Government approach that seeks to ensure improved nutrition
outcomes across multiple sectors such as agriculture, health, social welfare,
education or environment. Those in the Movement are working together to reduce
fragmentation at the national, regional and global levels, stimulate coherence and
alignment around food security and nutrition policies, and support the realization of
results.”

P.86: Incorporating triangular cooperation as an essential element which, -along with
the South-South cooperation- constitutes a relevant element for the development
cooperation framed in the Busan alliance, with the goal of effectiveness.
15) Deputy Representative of Cuba to FAO, Silvia Alvarez Rossell, Member States
Spanish original
Cuba considera que es un documento muy completo con una visión abarcadora e integral
del problema de la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición. Presenta las cuestiones claves
asociadas al tema.
Enfoca las diversas aristas del problema, caracteriza la situación que existe actualmente en
muchos países y brinda un conjunto de medidas que pudieran aplicarse, por lo que tiene
relevancia práctica.
Hace un adecuado énfasis en el papel de la mujer y en los aspectos de carácter social.
Aborda adecuadamente el papel que deben tener las organizaciones regionales de
integración.
Como es un documento que se actualizará periódicamente, es suficiente lo que contiene
como primera versión.
El marco estratégico puede utilizarse por los países y regiones como referencia para
establecer políticas y estrategias nacionales y/o regionales o actualizar y mejorar las
políticas existentes.
Proceedings | 42
Brinda elementos para poder establecer a nivel nacional, procesos de evaluación y análisis
de los resultados que se van alcanzando al aplicar las políticas y estrategias establecidas.
En el numeral 86 se presentan acertadamente elementos esenciales para elaborar una
estrategia que garantice la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional.
Propuesta de dos casos exitosos de CUBA para incluir en MEM
http://km.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CFS_consultation/file_comments/Experiencias%20d
e%20Cuba%20en%20la%20protecci%C3%B3n%20de%20las%20mujeres%20y%20los%20
ni%C3%B1os%20y%20en%20tenencia%20de%20tierras.doc
English translation
Cuba considers it is a very comprehensive document, featuring an inclusive and integral
approach to the problem of food security and nutrition. It presents key issues related to the
subject.
The document addresses the diverse perspectives of the problem, characterizes the current
situation in many countries and provides a set of measures that could be implemented. It is
therefore practical.
The document appropriately highlights the role of women and the social aspects. It
adequately addresses the role that regional integration organizations should play. As the
document will be updated regularly, the content of its first version is sufficient.
The strategic framework can be used by countries and regions as a reference for the
formulation of national and/or regional policies and strategies or the update and
improvement of existing policies. It provides inputs for the national implementation of
assessment and analysis processes of results that are achieved after implementing the
corresponding policies and strategies. In number 86, essential inputs are conveniently
presented for the development of a strategy that ensures food and nutritional security.
Proposal of two successful cases in CUBA to include in the GSF
http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/CFS_consultation/doc/EN__Experiencias_de_Cuba.doc
16) Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Member States
Germany welcomes the opportunity to participate in the e-consultation-process of the
elaboration of the Global Strategic Framework GSF. We took note that our comments
regarding the Zero Draft of the GSF were not taken on.
General Comments about the Purpose and the Goal of the GSF:
Proceedings | 43
1. The GSF is meant to be a living document, summarizing the topics on which
currently consensus does exist (Chapter I. – IV. H.). It is explicitly stated that it is not
the purpose of the document to discuss topics, where consensus could not be
reached yet. Hence, it is misleading to expect a document, which provides
completely new incentives or policy advice to eradicate hunger and ensure food
security and nutrition for all human beings.
2. The value added of the GSF is, that it can be regarded as single global reference for
policies on food security and nutrition that can ensure more coherence and
integration among regional strategies and frameworks.
3. Nevertheless, the current version does not meet the aspiration “to chart a new course
… by prioritizing key principles, policies and actions”, as specific priorities are barely
named within the policy recommendations.
4.
Overall policy coherence to FAO strategy should be kept in mind.
The 4 Key Questions:
(1) Are key issues represented on which there is consensus?
 General comment: Although CFS decisions have been taken on all of the topics
listed under Part IV. A-H, this does not imply that full consensus has been reached
(for example: although price volatility has been discussed in the CFS, certain aspects
related to price volatility (such as regulation and supervision of agricultural derivative
markets) remain areas for further discussion). The same accounts for the topic
smallholder-sensitive investments.
 Missing aspects under Part VI Policy, Programme and other Recommendations in this
regard are:
Under (i): reference to the principle of participation (could be included
between Step Three and Four
Under (iv): reference to discrimination and structural violence against women
Under (vi): reference to role of primary and higher education
Under (viii): reference to the Voluntary Guidelines Land Tenure
 Missing aspects under V. Uniting and Organizing to fight Hunger are:
.... Reference to the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN)- process (for more details please consider
Annex 1)
Under (iii): reference to nutrition education
Under (v): reference to a global monitoring-mechanism as envisioned in the CFS reformdocument of 2009
(2) Does the list of areas where gaps in policy convergence exist need to be
amended? (Chapter IV. I. Major existing gaps in consensus on policy issues)
 General comment: It would be good to specify the purpose of the list of gaps in
policy coherence – to possibly list priorities and objectives, and indicate how they
will feed into the CFS work plan.
Proceedings | 44
 Missing aspects are:
the conflict between the demand of water for agricultural production and other sectors
 Since a definition of the green economy-concept is part of the Rio+20 negotiations, it
should be refrained from mentioning it explicitly in the GSF
 possible additional topics:
 Improving practical linkages of short-term and long-term measures.
 Cross-border cooperation (infrastructure, ecosystems/resource use,
markets; programming by donors)
 Climate change (likely to be considered at the next CFS session)
(3) Sufficient practical regional and country level relevance?
The practical relevance for the regional and country level of the document is rather
limited. However, specific documents and strategies for the practical use at country and
regional level already exist (such as CAADP or also the UCFA). So it is questionable,
whether a globally negotiated document like the GSF needs incorporate such a practical
relevance.
(4) Possible linkages to regional and national food security and nutrition frameworks and
strategies?
 The linkages to national and regional strategies as well as monitoring
systems is not clearly obvious.
ANNEX 1: recommendation for the inclusion of a SUN-reference in the document
It is recommended to include a reference to the Scaling Up Nutrition Movement into part V
Uniting and Organizing to fight Hunger.
As new paragraphs 77a. the following is suggested:
77a. The Scaling Up Nutrition Movement (SUN) was initiated in September 2010 to
encourage increased political commitment to accelerate reductions in global hunger and
under-nutrition, within the context of the right to adequate food security for all. The
Movement is advancing rapidly: governments from 27 countries with high levels of undernutrition have committed to scale up nutrition. They are supported by a broad range of
domestic stakeholders from multiple sectors and global networks of donors, civil society,
businesses, research bodies and the United Nations system.
Governments, and their partners in the Movement are increasing resources for nutrition and
better aligning their financial and technical support with these national priorities. They are
helping countries implement their specific nutrition interventions and their nutrition-sensitive
development strategies. They are working with SUN countries in a whole of Government
approach that seeks to ensure improved nutrition outcomes across multiple sectors such as
agriculture, health, social welfare, education or environment. Those in the Movement are
working together to reduce fragmentation at the national, regional and global levels,
stimulate coherence and alignment around food security and nutrition policies, and support
the realization of results
Proceedings | 45
17) Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, Switzerland, UN
agencies and other UN bodies
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food welcomes the First Draft of the
Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition (GSF) and expresses his thanks to
all the delegations who were involved in shaping this document. He offers the following
comments:
A. The GSF and the human right to adequate food
1.
The Special Rapporteur commends the First Draft for confirming the right to food as an
overarching framework for the action of the CFS (paras. 23-25). The definition of the right to food
(paras. 14-16) rightly refers to some of the most important elements of the right to food as
recognized in international human rights law, notably the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and General Comment No. 12 of the Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.2 The references to the Voluntary Guidelines to support the
progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security
(VGRtF) are important, and the proposal to summarize some of the duties of States in
implementing the right to food at national level in “seven steps” (para. 38) is also very welcome,
as it provides in simple terms adequate guidance to States’ efforts to progressively realize the
right to food.
2.
The GSF, however, could be clearer in stating the progressive realization of the human
right to adequate food as an ultimate goal of the GSF. While this overall goal is implied through
several references to the right to food throughout the document, such as the objective stated in
paragraph 18 “to identify and prioritize challenges affecting the realization of food security and
nutrition and the right to adequate food for all people,” it would be important to make it more
explicit. This would be consistent both with the CSF 2009 Reform Document, which placed the
right to food at the centre of the reform, as rightly recalled in a recent FAO note on the GSF;3 and
with existing international obligations of States to progressively realize the human right to
adequate food, as framed in international human rights law. Placing the right to food as the goal
of the GSF does not create new legal obligations. It simply reemphasizes a commitment to
2
The right to adequate food is recognized under article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (G.A. Res. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810, at 71 (1948)); under article 11 of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted on 16 December 1966, G.A. Res.
2200(XXII), U.N. GAOR, 21st sess., Supp. No. 16, U.S. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 UNTS 3); and article
24 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child, among other international human rights treaties. The
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides an authoritative interpretation of the
scope of the right to food in its General Comment No. 12: The right to adequate food (1999), U.N.
doc. E/C.12/1999/5.
3 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The Global Strategic Framework for Food
Security and Nutrition: A Right to Food Perspective, Right to Food team, Fact Sheet 1, March 2012, p.
4. During its 35th session held in October 2009, the Committee on World Food Security endorsed its
reform, pledging to ‘strive for a world free from hunger where countries implement the voluntary
guidelines for the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food
security'.
Proceedings | 46
implement existing obligations. A new paragraph could be added in the introduction section to
refer to this ultimate goal.
3.
Explicitly grounding the GSF in a human rights framework presents a number of
advantages. By endorsing such a framework and seeking to define their policies in accordance
with what such a framework prescribes, countries are provided a reference point, based on their
existing international obligations, for coordination efforts. This facilitates the search for a
consensus between them. A human rights framework also requires the participation, as a matter
of right, in the design and implementation of development policies, of the ultimate beneficiaries of
development. Such participation in turn is facilitated by the invocation of internationally agreed
human rights as benchmarks, by which the effectiveness of efforts could be judged. A reference
to the realization of the right to adequate food as the ultimate aim of food security strategies thus
not only provides us with an objective evaluation tool of these strategies; it also improves the
effectiveness of these strategies, by obliging countries, international agencies and donors alike
to pay greater attention to the impacts of their policy choices, both intended and unintended,
direct and indirect, particularly on the most vulnerable sectors of society.
4.
The reference to the VGRtF in section III “The foundations and overarching framework”
(paras. 23-25) is very important and should be retained, but it should be put in the broader
context of existing human rights norms and standards that frame States' duties to progressively
realize the right to food, in particular the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights and the authoritative interpretation of this right provided by the Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights in its General Comment No. 12. The Special Rapporteur is aware that
these norms are referenced in the definition of the right to food (paras. 14-16), but they should
also appear in Section III.
5.
Explicitly grounding the GSF in a human rights framework is also a matter of efficiency in
delivering results: the seven recommended steps to implement the VGRtF (para. 38), combined
with the human rights principles of participation, accountability, non-discrimination, equality,
transparency and the rule of law, serve to ensure that national, regional and global food security
policies are on the right track in effectively fighting hunger.
B. The GSF and monitoring
6.
With the 2009 reform, it was agreed that accountability would be at the center of the
CFS’s work. As the CSF enters its second phase of reform, it is expected to “promote
accountability and share best practices at all levels”, and to establish “an innovative
mechanism, including the definition of common indicators, to monitor progress towards
these agreed upon objectives and actions.”4 At its 37th session, the CFS confirmed its
intention to proceed into the second phase of reform in due time and underscored the
importance of monitoring by requesting “the CFS Secretariat, in collaboration with the Advisory
Group, and based on the information made available by the relevant stakeholders, to prepare a
4
CFS:2009/2 Rev.1, para. 6.
Proceedings | 47
general report on the state of implementation" of its recommendations to be presented to CFS.5
The CFS Bureau has also renewed its attention on monitoring by creating an open-ended
working group on the issue.
7.
The First Draft of the GSF clearly emphasizes the importance of monitoring and
accountability (paras. 94-102), and it states that right to food indicators should be used in the
process (para. 95). Those references could be further strengthened. Guideline 17 of the VGRtF
addresses monitoring, indicators and benchmarks. UN agencies have devoted significant energy
to conceptualize and operationalize rights-based monitoring since the adoption of the VGRtF in
2004.6 The Updated Comprehensive Framework of Action (UCFA) of the High-Level Task Force
on Global Food Security Crisis (HLTF) also refers to a rights-based monitoring methodology,
including the use of a set of illustrative indicators on the right to food, based upon the work of
FAO and OHCHR.7
8.
The GSF could usefully build on this accumulated experience. As such, the monitoring
mechanism associated with the GSF should be grounded explicitly in a human rights framework,
which would provide countries with a reference point based on their existing international
obligations. To do so, it could usefully be specified in Section E that monitoring should be
focused on the progressive realization of the right to food, and paragraph 97 could reflect the
following five key principles for monitoring and accountability systems:
a) The requirement of accountability should extend to all orientations adopted by the CFS
Plenary, including the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of
Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security, as well as the
substantive elements of the GSF, which should in turn be considered in the broader
context of international norms and standards on the right to food;
b) Adequate participation in monitoring should be ensured, by taking into account in the
process of monitoring inputs from non-State actors, including UN agencies, civil society
and independent experts. The advantages of a multistakeholder peer-review mechanism
analogous to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) system of the Human Rights Council
were outlined in a letter to CFS members dated 18 January 2012, and subsequently in a
joint open letter dated 19 March 2012 to States negotiating the Rio+20 Summit Outcome
document (signed by twenty-two special procedures mandate holders of the Human
Rights Council)8. The process employed by the UPR provides a model that should guide
our discussions. Other solutions, however, could be considered, including the
5
CFS, Final report of the 37th Session, Rome, 17-22 October 2011 (CFS:2011/ FINAL REPORT),
para. 29(xi)
6 FAO, Methods to monitor the human right to adequate food. Volume I: Making the Case for RightsFocused and Rights-Based Monitoring, 2008, pp. 6-12. See also Volume II: An Overview of
Approaches and Tools.
7 High-Level Task Force on Global Food Security Crisis, Updated Comprehensive Framework of
Action, September 2010, see Topic Box 18, p. 57.
8 See OHCHR Special Procedures, If Rio+20 is to deliver, accountability must be at its heart. An Open
Letter from Special Procedures mandate-holders of the Human Rights Council to States negotiating
the Outcome Document of the Rio+20 Summit, 19 March 2012, available from
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/OpenLetterRio20.aspx ; and De Schutter, The Right to
Food as a Global Goal, Background Note of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, March 2012,
available from http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/SP/BNRighttoFood.pdf.
Proceedings | 48
establishment of an independent monitoring mechanism – an Observatory – that would
provide the CFS plenary with independent reports on the implementation of CFS
decisions, like the High-Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) provides the CFS plenary with
independent expertise. Whichever the solution ultimately preferred, parallel reporting from
civil society is essential to the credibility of the monitoring process;
c) In order to be manageable, the monitoring of the implementation of the orientations set by
the CFS should concern a few priorities every year, allowing cross-country
comparisons and collective learning across different regions; the aim should be that,
based on the information provided, the CFS engages in a dialogue on implementation of
the major orientations it has adopted every four or five years (for instance, such a cyclical
approach could lead the successive sessions of the CFS in 2013-2016 to follow up
respectively on: (1) investments in agriculture and food security, taking into account the
challenge of climate change; (2) the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible
Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food
Security; (3) price volatility and social protection; and (4) other orientations set by the
GSF, not covered under the headings above);
d) Under each of the areas covered, the CFS should assess whether or not the CFS
Members, in implementing CFS decisions and/or recommendations, have applied human
rights principles and standards.9 Right to food indicators should be used, as rightly
suggested in the First Draft. The GFS could build on the set of structural, process and
outcome indicators proposed in the UCFA.10 And in all the areas covered, States should
be expected to take measures to ensure that food insecure and marginalized groups are
informed about their rights and about the claims mechanisms available;
e) The monitoring process should also provide an opportunity to identify obstacles that
countries face in implementing the CFS orientations in a way that is consistent with
their obligation to progressively realize the right to food with a view to highlighting issues
which require further consideration by the CFS. Thus, the outcomes of regular monitoring
should inform the agenda of future CFS plenary sessions: for instance, if many States
face a systematic obstacle in meeting the CFS recommendations, the CFS may consider
devoting a specific session to addressing that obstacle. The monitoring process should
be seen as an iterative process, allowing the CFS to gradually improve its orientations in
the light of successes and failures at implementation level, and as an opportunity to
identify how the constraints faced by States in implementation could be alleviated, in
particular by action at international level.
9.
It is the conviction of the Special Rapporteur that the CFS cannot meet its ambition – to
be “the foremost inclusive international and intergovernmental platform for a broad range of
committed stakeholders to work together in a coordinated manner and in support of
country-led processes towards the elimination of hunger and ensuring food security and
nutrition for all human beings” – without monitoring and accountability mechanisms, including
9
Such as the principles are participation, accountability, non-discrimination, equality transparency,
and the rule of law. As noted by the FAO, implementation of right to food measures should, for
instance, ensure equity in terms of resource distribution; should not discriminate against certain
population groups; should guarantee transparency in public affairs, administration and decision
making; and should ensure informed popular participation in the formulation of public policies
and programmes. (FAO, Methods to monitor the human right to adequate food. Volume I: Making the
Case for Rights-Focused and Rights-Based Monitoring, 2008, p. 8).
10 High-Level Task Force on Global Food Security Crisis, September 2010, see Topic Box 18, p. 51.
Proceedings | 49
accountability of CFS Member States to discharge their human rights obligations in the context of
achieving food and nutrition security.
C. The GSF and trade
10.
The Special Rapporteur supports the inclusion of international trade as an issue that
requires concerted efforts in the coming years to build a necessary consensus (para. 74). The
confidence in a supposed automatic link between the expansion of international trade and
improvements in food security has broken down following the 2007-2008 and 2010 global food
price crises. As such, increasing attention is being given to the complex links between trade and
food security at national and global levels.11
11.
For that matter, the Updated Comprehensive Framework of Action (UCFA) of the HighLevel Task Force on Global Food Security Crisis depicts the role of trade in a more elaborated
way: “open and well-functioning local, regional and international markets and trade policies are
fundamental to food and nutrition security. They should be characterized by price predictability
and transparency, function in a stable, transparent and integrated manner and contribute to the
realization of internationally agreed human rights. Interventions which support the functioning of
international, regional and local markets should be consistent with the goal of achieving food and
nutrition security for all and of encouraging efficient and competitive production by
smallholders.”12 It is precisely because the links between trade and the realization of the right to
food are complex that human rights impact assessments should be conducted before free trade
agreements are agreed upon.13 The GSF could also better acknowledge this complexity in
paragraph 42.
D. Tenure of land, fisheries and forests
12.
The section on tenure of land, fisheries and forests (paras. 68-70) should be updated and
improved to reflect the discussions held in the CFS on the challenges and problems posed by
the expansion of large-scale land acquisitions and leases for food and nutrition security and for
the right to food of vulnerable land users. This section should also integrate the Voluntary
Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the
Context of National Food Security (VGGT), which will be considered for endorsement during the
38th Special Session of CFS in Rome on 11 May. The intergovernmental negotiations have been
successfully finalized on 9 March 2012. Upon the endorsement, the focus will shift to the
implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines. States are indeed responsible for the
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the VGGT (art. 26.1); and they are encouraged to
11
See for example, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food to the tenth session of the
Human Rights Council, Addendum: Mission to the World Trade Organization (WTO), [U.N. doc
A/HRC/10/5/Add.2], March 2009.
12 High-Level Task Force on Global Food Security Crisis, Summary of the Updated Comprehensive
Framework of Action, September 2010, p. 15.
13 See Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food presented to the 19th Session of the
Human Rights Council, Guiding Principles on Human Rights Impact Assessments of Trade and
Investment Agreements [U.N. doc. A/HRC/19/59/Add.5], March 2012.
Proceedings | 50
set up “multi-stakeholder platforms and frameworks” at local, national and regional levels or use
such existing platforms and frameworks to collaborate on the implementation of these Guidelines
(art. 26.2). The GSF should include these two elements in the section for full coherence across
CFS activities.
E. Support to smallholders and agroecology
13.
Since the global food price crisis of 2008, there has been a general consensus that we
should put greater efforts into supporting small-scale food producers, particularly women, in
order to reduce rural poverty and local food insecurity. The GSF usefully integrates these
considerations in various sections, including in paras. 39-40 and 57-59, but could further
strengthen its focus on the duty to respect, to protect and to fulfil the human rights of
smallholders throughout its strategy. The GSF could devote more attention to the policies that
promote agroecological methods of farming. In its resolution 16/27 adopted at its 16th session in
March 2011, the Human Rights Council “encourages States and donors, both public and private,
to examine and consider ways to integrate the recommendations [contained in the report
“Agroecology and the right to food” (A/HRC/16/49) submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the
right to food] in policies and programmes.” It stressed that “improving access to productive
resources and investment in rural development is essential for eradicating hunger and poverty,”
and that the promotion of investments “in programmes, practices and policies to scale up
agroecological approaches” is a means towards achieving that end.
14.
A key recommendation of that report was to call States to “support decentralized
participatory research and the dissemination of knowledge about the best sustainable agricultural
practices by relying on existing farmers’ organisations and networks, and including schemes
designed specifically for women.” Indeed, the expansion and achievements of agroecological
modes of production in all continents are impressive, and farmer’s organizations play a vital role
in many countries.
15.
The GSF should better reflect the importance of agroecology as well as the importance
for public authorities to collaborate with farmer’s organizations in the design and implementation
of agriculture, nutrition and food security policies.
F. Workers' right and food security
16.
The GSF acknowledges that “many agricultural and food workers and their families suffer
from hunger and malnutrition because the basic labour laws and minimum wage policies do not
cover rural workers” (para. 35). The GSF, however, could usefully underline key steps to be
taken by States to tackle this situation, notably the importance of ensuring basic workers’ rights,
as set out in the core ILO conventions14 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
14
Specific instruments that concern agricultural workers include ILO Convention, No. 99 (1951) on
Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery in Agriculture 21 and No. 110 (1958) on Conditions of Employment
of Plantation Workers, supplemented by its Protocol of 1982, and recommendation No. 110 (1958) on
Conditions of Employment of Plantation Workers.
Proceedings | 51
Cultural Rights, and the importance of ensuring living wages to enable rural workers to feed
themselves and their families.15
17.
There are more than 450 million waged agricultural workers globally, composing 40 per
cent of the agricultural workforce. Fundamental rights at work are frequently violated in the
agricultural sector. Collective bargaining is crucially important for agricultural workers, both
because knowledge and enforcement of the law tend to be weak in rural areas and because
labour legislation frequently treats the agricultural sector differently from other sectors with regard
to issues such as working time, overtime pay or leave.
G. Social protection
18.
The right to social security is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The important role that
social protection plays in contributing to the right to food is rightly highlighted in the GSF as well
as in “Social Protection for Food Security,” the zero draft consultation paper authored by the High
Level Panel of Experts.
19.
Drawing from the UN common understanding on a human rights based approach, for
social protection schemes to contribute to the realization of the right to food it is crucial that they
are grounded in an adequate legal and institutional framework; respect the human rights
principles of equality and non-discrimination; mainstream gender considerations; guarantee
active and meaningful participation; ensure transparency and access to information; and ensure
access to complaint mechanisms and to effective remedies.
20.
Universal social protection systems are required to prevent food insecurity, malnutrition
and hunger among the most marginalized and vulnerable. Recognizing the importance of social
protection programmes, the UN system has been undertaking work in this area. In April 2009,
the United Nations Chief Executive Board (CEB) launched the Social Protection Floor Initiative
as a part of a set of multilateral actions to address the global crises of 2008 (food, financial and
economic). The Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights has also been
undertaking work on social protection;16 And UNICEF has recently published its “Social
Protection Strategic Framework” that presents the approach and main principles guiding its work
in this area.17 The GSF could support these initiatives and promote the importance of universal
social protection systems for food security and the progressive realization of the right to
adequate food.
15
For more details on what States should do, see Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to
food to the 13th session of the Human Rights Council, Agribusiness and the Right to Food
[A/HRC/13/33] (March 2010), para 52.
16 See A/HRC/11/9 (on cash transfer schemes); A/64/779 (on the importance of social protection in
the context of the global financial crisis; A/HRC/14/31 (on non-contributory old age pensions);
A/65/259 (on social protection in facilitating achievement of the MDGs); and A/HRC/17/34 (on a
human rights based approach to recovery from the global financial and economic crises, and the
important role of social protection systems in this regard).
17 The full Framework is available from: www.unicef.org/socialprotection/framework.
Proceedings | 52
H. Biofuels
21.
The GSF should consider biofuels among the thematic issues for which there is a need
for a stronger international consensus. It should thus be included in section I “Major existing gaps
in consensus on policy issues.”
***
Olivier De Schutter was appointed the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food in March 2008
by the United Nations Human Rights Council. He is independent from any government or
organization, and he reports to the Human Rights Council and to the General Assembly. All
reports are available on http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Food/Pages/FoodIndex.aspx. See
www.srfood.org for a thematic classification of all reports and statements of the Special
Rapporteur. The Special Rapporteur can be contacted at srfood@ohchr.org
18) Groupe Interministériel français sur la Sécurité Alimentaire (GISA), Chaumel
Marianne, France, Member States
French original
I. Commentaires généraux
Cette première version est une bonne base de travail, très complète. Cependant, le GISA a
trois commentaires majeurs :
1/ Un certain nombre de recommandations et /ou de langage utilisé s'éloignent de ce
qui est déjà agréé au plan international (y compris au sein du CSA), ou pourraient
préempter les décisions à venir, contrairement à ce qui avait été acté lors des
réunions de l'OEWG.
2/ Le document pourrait être plus concis, en se concentrant sur les recommandations
opérationnelles et éliminant les parties sans valeur ajoutée, les redites, et de trop longs
paragraphes introductifs. Les définitions pourraient être supprimées ou placées en annexe
ou note de bas de page. Le langage gagnerait à être plus opérationnel.
3/ Considéré comme un outil de travail dynamique et évolutif, le GSF devrait inclure
une partie explicitant son processus de mise à jour, notamment pour la partie IV
(Recommandations relatives aux politiques, au programme et à d’autres questions).
Dans un souci de cohérence, cette partie devrait reprendre uniquement les décisions
adoptées lors des sessions du CSA, en reprenant de manière littérale le langage agréé (ex :
décisions, recommandations politiques ou autres textes agréés). Des indications précises
quand aux sessions concernées (date des sessions, intitulé des tables rondes …) devraient
aussi être incluses. Cette proposition n'exclut pas que soit reprises dans le GSF des
recommandations formulées par d'autres enceintes, après validation par le CSA, afin
d'assurer la cohérence des politiques.
Proceedings | 53
II. Propositions
Sur la base de ces constats, le GISA propose les modifications suivantes, dont une légère
restructuration du document de manière à ce qu'il soit plus concis.
Ces remarques restent des remarques de principe et sont sans préjudice de remarques
complémentaires des différents membres du GISA quant au fond des recommandations du
GSF.

Introduction: la partie « structure du document » pourrait être supprimée (la
table des matières devrait suffire).

Partie I « Introduction et généralités »
 Chapitre A - Réforme du CSA : (faire un encadré)
Il conviendrait d'ajouter une référence au HLPE. Proposition : fin du para 6 :
Un Groupe d’experts à haut niveau (HLPE) a été créé pour éclairer les
discussions du CSA par une expertise structurée pour que les décisions et le
travail du CSA se fondent sur des faits avérés et sur l’état de l’art des
connaissances.

Chapitre B (nature et objectifs) : cette partie devrait apparaître au début. Il
conviendrait d'inclure ici un paragraphe explicitant comment le GSF est
régulièrement remis à jour via les sessions du CSA uniquement .
 Chapitre C - Définitions
La définition de »sécurité alimentaire » mériterait d'être placée en haut du
GSF juste après le titre comme préambule.
Les autres définitions pourraient plutôt figurer en annexe (ou éventuellement en
note de bas de page). Concernant la définition de la sécurité nutritionnelle, il
est important de rappeler que le CSA lors de sa 37ème session (octobre
2011) a lancé un travail sur la terminologie: « on the meaning and different
uses, if any, of the terms "Food Security", "Food Security and Nutrition",
"Food and Nutrition Security" and "Nutrition Security" […]
for the
standardization of the official terminology that the Committee should use [..].


Inclure un nouveau chapitre D : les principaux éléments de la partie III
« Bases de référence et cadres généraux » pourraient être intégrés en tant
que chapitre D (avec le même titre et le lien vers les sites Internet ad hoc), en
tenant compte des remarques faites plus loin.
Partie II « Les causes profondes de la faim et les défis à relever en
perspective »
Proceedings | 54
La partie II (les causes profondes de la faim et les défis à relever) porte
grandement à la controverse, en particulier en ce qui concerne les défis et
enseignements tirés (b et c), qui ne sont d’ailleurs pas exhaustifs.
La partie a (causes structurelles) pourrait être restructurée en catégorisant par
exemple les causes sous différents thèmes : aspects de gouvernance ;
économiques ; sociaux ; environnementaux ; catastrophes.
La partie b « nouveaux défis » mélange défis et préconisations. Cette partie
devrait être remaniée de manière à sortir du plaidoyer sujet à controverses.
Cette partie pourrait ainsi être rédigée de manière à donner des pistes
méthodologiques pour expertiser au niveau régional et national les principales
causes d’insécurité alimentaire, les principaux défis et les enseignements tirés.
La partie c « enseignements tirés » pourrait également être réordonnée en
commençant par les aspects de gouvernance et en ajoutant la nécessité
d’adopter une démarche transversale et coordonnée, multisectorielle et
multidisciplinaire.

Partie III « Bases de référence et cadres généraux » : à remonter dans la
Partie I – chapitre D.
La partie III est répétitive et déséquilibrée. Il manque des liens hypertexte et des
références (VG Droit à l’alimentation, 5 Principes de Rome.). La partie relative à la
twin track approach doit être remaniée pour ne porter que sur ses principes :
articuler actions à court et moyen terme, articuler les approches liées à l’accès
(protection sociale, filets de sécurité) et celles liées à la disponibilité (production,
limitation des pertes et gaspillages…). Telle que rédigée actuellement, elle est
réductrice (quasi limitée aux questions foncières pour la partie moyen - long terme)
et non issue d'un consensus.
 Partie IV « Recommandations relatives aux politiques, aux programmes et à
d’autres questions»
Cette partie serait considérablement allégée en se limitant strictement aux
décisions déjà négociées par le CSA : soit faire simplement référence aux rapports
du CSA correspondant, soit reprendre les décisions et recommandations sans
nouvelles phrases introductives, sous forme d'encadrés par exemple, avec
notamment des précisions sur la date de la session. Elle devrait inclure les VG GT
dès leur approbation (Point H). Les points F, et H devraient être retirés (à inclure
dans les futurs sujets à traiter par le CSA, cf. ci après).
=> Cela permettrait de mettre à jour les différentes parties en fonction des
avancées au sein du CSA et d'avoir un document souple et vivant
permettant aux décideurs de se référer aux dernières préconisations sur
chaque thème. On pourrait imaginer avoir une page web dédiée renvoyant
aux décisions adoptées par le CSA sur chaque sujet.
Proceedings | 55
Le Chapitre I ne comporte pas à proprement parler des recommandations agréé. Il
pourrait faire l'objet d'une nouvelle partie en tant que telle visant à souligner les «
Principales divergences quant aux grandes orientations» mais aussi les
thématiques émergentes sur lesquelles une expertise est souhaitable (par exemple
alimentation durable), et préciser ainsi
les thématiques sur lesquelles la
communauté internationale souhaite se mobiliser (via le CSA et le HLPE) en
précisant le calendrier et les articulations avec d'autres instances à prévoir.
=> faire pour cela le lien avec le programme de travail à moyen terme du
CSA et du HLPE.
 Partie V « S'unir et s'organiser pour lutter contre la faim »
C'est une partie essentielle du document, qui vise à apporter une valeur ajoutée à ce qui
existe déjà.







Les chapitres A et B devraient beaucoup plus clairement appeler les Etats à
définir des stratégies nationales de sécurité alimentaire. Dans le B, ce
devrait être l'objet de la phrase introductive, les puces du para 92 étant des
indications opérationnelles sur la manière de mettre en place une telle
stratégie.
Chapitre C : parler de cohérence des politiques.
La question de la redevabilité et des mécanismes de suivi devrait être
davantage traitée
Lorsqu'il est fait référence à la recherche (para 46 et 59), il est important de
mentionner la nécessité d'y associer les producteurs. Une référence à la
GCARD pourrait aussi être introduite.
Attention aux paras 77 et 82, 83 qui conseillent le recours aux alliances
nationales. Autant préconiser des principes est légitime (consultation et
participation inclusive, en terme d'acteurs – secteur public comme société
civile et secteur privé – et sectoriel), autant il faut laisser de la subsidiarité
quant aux mécanismes mis en place par les pays membres. Sinon on risque
de (re)-créer des mécanismes du passé (cf. avant la réforme) alors même
qu’ils n’ont pas fait la preuve de leur efficacité. Le modèle inclusif du CSA
peut être mis en avant.
Une mention du rôle des financements innovants pour l’agriculture, la
sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition manque.
Chapitre D : certains passages peuvent porter à controverse. Une réflexion
sur les partenariats publics-privés mériterait sans doute d’être engagée par le
CSA.
English translation
I. General Comments
This first version is a good, comprehensive working base. However, the GISA ( Interministerial Group on Food Security) has three important comments:
Proceedings | 56
1/ Various recommendations and/or terms used depart from what has already been
agreed to at an international level (including in CFS), or could preempt future
decisions, contrarily to what was recorded in the minutes of the OEWG (Open Ended
Working Groups) meetings.
2/ The document could be more concise, concentrating on the operational
recommendations and eliminating the parts with no added value, the repetitions and the
too long introductory paragraphs. The definitions could be eliminated or put into an appendix
or as footnotes. The language would benefit from being more practical.
3/ Considered as a dynamic and developmental working tool, the GSF should include
a section explaining its updating process, particularly of part IV (Recommendations
on Policies, Programmes and other issues).
For the sake of consistency, this part should take up only decisions adopted during the CFS
sessions, reproducing literally the wording agreed (e.g. decisions, policy recommendations
or other agreed texts). Precise information in relation to the sessions concerned (date of
sessions, title of round tables,) should also be included. This proposal does not exclude
the GSF taking up recommendations made by other entities, after validation by the
CFS, so that coherence of policies is assured.
II. Proposals
On the basis of these findings, the GISA proposes the following modifications, which entails
a little restructuring of the document so that it may be more concise.
These comments remain comments in principle and are without prejudice to any additional
observations by different members of GISA regarding the substance of the GSF
recommendations.

Introduction: the part « structure of the document » could be eliminated (the
table of contents should be enough).

Part I « Introduction and background »
 Chapter A - Reform of CFS: (make a table)
It will be useful to add a reference to HLPE. Proposal: end of paragraph 6: A
Group of high-level experts (HLPE) has been created to enlighten the CFS
discussions through structured expertise so that the decisions and the work of
CFS are based on verified facts and on state of the art knowledge.

Chapter B (Nature and Purpose of the GSF): this part should appear at the
beginning. It would be useful to include here a paragraph explaining how
Proceedings | 57
GSF is regularly updated only through the sessions of CFS.
 Chapter C - Definitions
The definition of «food security» deserves to be put at the top of the GSF just
after the title as a preamble.
The other definitions could preferably appear in appendix (or otherwise in
footnotes). Concerning the definition of nutritional security, it is important to
remember that during its 37th session (October 2011) the CFS launched a
work on terminology: « on the meaning and different uses, if any, of the terms
"Food Security", "Food Security and Nutrition", "Food and Nutrition Security"
and "Nutrition Security" […] for the standardization of the official terminology
that the Committee should use [..]. ».


Include a new chapter D: the principal elements of part III « Foundations and
Overarching Frameworks» could be integrated as Chapter D (with the same
title and the links to the relevant web sites), taking into account the remarks
made further on.
Part II «The Root Causes of Hunger and the Challenges Ahead»
Part II (The Root Causes of Hunger and the Challenges Ahead) lends itself
greatly to controversy, especially about the challenges and lessons drawn (b and
c), which are not exhaustive.
Part A (Structural Causes of Hunger and Malnutrition) could be restructured by,
for example, categorizing the causes under different topics: aspects of
governance; economic; social; environmental aspects; disasters.
Part B « Emerging Challenges » is a mixture between challenges and
recommendations. This part should be modified so that it avoids any controversy.
This part could be rewritten so as to provide some methodical ways of bringing
expertise to bear at regional and national levels on the most important causes of
food insecurity, the main challenges and the lessons learnt.
Part C «Lessons Learned» could similarly be re-organized by starting with the
aspects of governance and by including the need to adopt an across-the- board,
coordinated, multi-sectoral and multidisciplinary approach .

Part III « The Foundations and Overarching Frameworks»: to insert in Part I –
Chapter D.
Part III is repetitive and unbalanced. There is a lack of hypertext links and references
(Voluntary Guidelines, Right to Food, Five Rome Principles). The part related to twintrack approach should be rewritten so that it only deals with these principles:
articulate actions for the short and medium term, articulate the approaches
linked to access (social protection, safety nets) and those linked to availability
(production, minimizing losses and waste…). As it is written now, it is simplistic
Proceedings | 58
(almost limited to questions of land tenure for the medium - long term) and does not
reflect a consensus.

Part IV « Recommendations on Policies, Programmes and other issues »
This part would be considerably reduced if it was limited to decisions already
negotiated by CFS: either make simple references to the corresponding CFS
reports or resume the decisions and recommendations without new introductory
phrases, in the form of boxes, for example, highlighting details of the session’s date.
It should include the VG GT as soon as they are approved (Point H). Points F and H
should be eliminated (to be included in future CFS dealings of the subject, see
below).
=> That will allow to update the different parts according to the advances
made in the CFS and to have a flexible and vital document allowing
decision makers to refer to the latest recommendations on each subject.
One could imagine having a dedicated web-page reviewing the decisions
adopted by CFS on each topic.
Chapter I does not strictly speaking deal with recommendations agreed. Aa new
separate section could be created aiming to highlight the « Main discrepancies in
relation to wide guidelines» but also the emerging issues on which some
expertise is needed (for example, sustainable food supply), and thus to define the
issues on which the international community wishes to act (through CFS and HLPE)
by detailing the schedule and the connections with other entities to be foreseen.
=> create the link for this with the CFS and HPLE medium term working
program.
 Part V « Uniting and Organizing to Fight Hunger »
This is an essential part of the document, which aims at providing an added value to
what already exists.





Chapters A and B should much more clearly call on the States to define
national strategies for food security. In B, this should be dealt with in the
opening sentence, the bullet points in paragraph 92 being the operational
guidelines for the way to put such a strategy in place.
Chapter C: to talk about coherence of policies.
The question of accountability and follow up mechanisms should be more
thoroughly addressed
When there is a reference to research (paragraphs 46 and 59), it is important
to mention the need to involve the producers. A reference to GCARD could
also be introduced.
Be careful with paragraphs 77, 82 and 83 which advise resorting to national
partnerships. If it is legitimate to recommend principles (inclusive
consultation and participation, in terms of stakeholders – public sector, civil
Proceedings | 59


society and private sector –and sectorial), it is necessary to allow for
subsidiarity in relation to mechanisms put in place by the member
countries. If not, there is a risk of (re)-creating out-dated mechanisms (cf.
before the reform) even though they have not been proved to be efficient. The
inclusive model of CFS can be put forward.
The role of innovative funding for agriculture, food security and lack of
nutrition should be mentioned.
Chapter D: some passages could become controversial. Some thinking about
public-private partnerships would, no doubt, should be undertaken by CFS.
19) FIAN Ecuador / CSM, Natalia Landivar, Ecuador, Civil society and nongovernmental organizations
The consolidated draft contributions from CSO consultations at regional conferences on the
GSF First Draft is a synthesis from civil society contributions to the questions raised by the
CFS Secretariat on the GSF first draft online consultation. It is the result from contributions
compiled during civil society consultations held in the frame of FAO regional conferences in
March and April. A range of civil society actors had the opportunity to hold regionally specific
discussions in Hanoi, Buenos Aires, Baku and Brazzaville on the main aspects of the GSF
first draft based on a summary assessment prepared by the CSM Working Group on GSF.
However, when drafting this paper, the final recommendations of the civil society West
Asia/North Africa meeting have not been finalized. Results from the civil society consultation,
as realized on May 4-5 in Beirut, will be included in the final version of this paper, to be
submitted to you within the extended deadline, before May 15.
The purpose of this synthesis is to support the CFS secretariat with a precise and
comprehensive document, by
a)
Identifying the main common points of concern and joint proposals of civil society
organizations gathered at the regional consultations regarding the GSF, along the lines of
the four questions raised by the secretariat (Page 2-16);
b)
Compiling in the annexes of this document the different documents that have been
elaborated by members of the CSM working group on GSF or by the regional consultations
of civil society, with particular relevance for the GSF draft two (page 17-49).
We hope that the substantial proposals included in the enclosed civil society contributions
will be useful for the elaboration of the second draft. And please do not hesitate to contact us
whenever you need further information or clarification.
Best,
Natalia Landivar on behalf of the CSM Task Team Members on GSF
Proceedings | 60
20) Permanent Representation of Argentina to FAO, Member States
Spanish original
I- COMENTARIOS GENERALES:
En primer lugar, deseamos agradecer a la Secretaría del CSAM por la compilación de este
nuevo borrador de Marco Estratégico Mundial en materia de Seguridad Alimentaria (MEM).
Compartimos plenamente el objetivo de establecer una herramienta para priorizar a nivel
internacional todos aquellos principios, políticas y medidas fundamentales relacionados con
la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición así como para movilizar la acción colectiva de todos
los interesados directos a fin de superar el flagelo del hambre y la pobreza. De igual modo,
damos la bienvenida al proceso amplio, transparente e interactivo de consultas lanzado
recientemente, en el convencimiento de que ello garantizará la profundidad del debate y la
representatividad y eficacia del documento una vez acordado. Entendemos fundamental
avanzar en este proceso interactivo, para lo cual estimamos de suma utilidad que en
aquellos casos en que las menciones realizadas en el MEM estén sustentadas en estudios
o publicaciones específicas, se realice la cita de rigor para poder analizar el tema con mayor
detenimiento.
Finalmente y con respecto a la Sección IV, a través de la cual se plantean recomendaciones
en materia de políticas, programas y otros aspectos, entendemos importante que para cada
acción identificada se mencione (preferentemente como nota al pié de página) el documento
o informe de la reunión en las que se acordó el tema. Esto es de gran importancia para
verificar el ámbito en que tal acuerdo tuvo lugar.
Pregunta 1: Considerar si el Primer Proyecto expone las cuestiones fundamentales
relacionadas con la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición respecto a las cuales existe
un consenso amplio en el plano regional e internacional. (Does the First Draft present
key issues of food security and nutrition on which there is broad regional and
international consensus?)
A) Entendemos que existen ciertos temas abordados en el MEM respecto de los cuales no
existe aún consenso amplio y, atento a ello, solicitamos que sean removidos del documento,
como ser:
 la utilización del término “seguridad nutricional” (párrafo 63) cuya definición y
alcance no han sido aún consensuados. En su lugar, solicitamos se utilice la
palabra nutrición;
 las referencias a las repercusiones de la producción de biocombustibles sobre la
seguridad alimentaria. Al respecto, la Argentina desea destacar que el tema es
muy controvertido a nivel internacional y no hay una posición unívoca. En tal
sentido, consideramos que no necesariamente la producción de “los
biocombustibles” afecta la seguridad alimentaria y, consecuentemente,
solicitamos eliminar el anteúltimo punto del párrafo 20 (“la gestión de la
demanda de energía y en particular los biocombustibles, así como las
repercusiones sobre la seguridad alimentaria de la utilización de cultivos
alimentarios para producir energía”).
En este mismo sentido, entendemos apropiado reemplazar la palabra “prioridad”
por “importancia” en la primera línea del punto dos del párrafo 39, de la
Proceedings | 61
siguiente manera: “Asegurarse de que las políticas agrícolas y la inversión rural
otorguen prioridad importancia a la producción alimentaria y a elevar los niveles
de nutrición, especialmente de las poblaciones más vulnerables, así como a
aumentar la capacidad de resistencia de los sistemas alimentarios locales y
tradicionales y la biodiversidad...”.
Adicionalmente, entendemos que cualquier análisis en materia de
biocombustibles debiera tener muy en cuenta que: (i) los biocombustibles emiten
menos gases de efecto invernadero, así como otros gases nocivos para el
ambiente, en comparación con los combustibles fósiles, por lo que su impacto
sobre la seguridad alimentaria debe ser analizado en términos dinámicos y no
únicamente en términos estáticos de corto plazo y (ii) la producción de
biocombustibles promueve el desarrollo local a través de la generación de un
tejido productivo con oportunidad de generación de valor agregado en la
producción de energía, contribuyendo al desarrollo de las zonas rurales y a la
lucha contra la inseguridad alimentaria.

Con respecto al párrafo 41 en donde se expresa que “se necesita urgentemente
una respuesta normativa coordinada de los países a la volatilidad de los
precios”, se solicita suprimir dicha frase dado que aún no existe un consenso
general al respecto y en cualquier caso, las decisiones en la materia debieran
realizarse en el marco de otras organizaciones internacionales. Adicionalmente,
entendemos que hay varios aspectos relevantes que han sido omitidos tales
como los mecanismos de transmisión entre los mercados internacionales y los
mercados locales, la importancia de los precios de las commodities agrícolas
dentro de las cadenas de valor, factores que pueden ser de crucial relevancia
para analizar la desnutrición a nivel global. Por otro lado, se debe enfatizar el
hecho de que los objetivos de políticas para la lucha contra la desnutrición
deberían estar fijados en términos de volumen per capita y no en términos
monetarios. Consecuentemente, la volatilidad de precios no debiera tener
influencia.
B) Así también, creemos necesario incluir algunos puntos respecto de los cuales
entendemos que existe un consenso amplio y que no se encuentran planteados por el
MEM, como ser:
 la falta de acceso efectivo a las nuevas tecnologías, principalmente por parte de los
pequeños productores, que constituyen el sector más vulnerable, debiera ser
incluida como una de las causas del hambre (Párrafo 19). En esta misma línea, se
sugiere incluir en el párrafo 59 la siguiente frase: “Garantizar y fortalecer el acceso
efectivo a las nuevas tecnologías, principalmente por parte de los pequeños
productores, que constituyen el sector más vulnerable.”

También debieran ser incluidas como causas estructurales del hambre (Párrafo
19) las distorsiones en el sistema del comercio internacional de productos
agrícolas. Entendemos que en los últimos 50 años la producción agropecuaria
mundial se ha visto perjudicada por un sistema de comercio internacional
fuertemente distorsionado por las políticas proteccionistas de ciertos países los
cuales, a través de sus subsidios y elevados aranceles de importación, han
generado una importante transferencia de recursos desde los países menos
adelantados y en desarrollo hacia los países desarrollados. Esto resultó en un
desincentivo para la inversión, la innovación, y por ende la producción
Proceedings | 62
agropecuaria, generando perjuicios para el desarrollo y crecimiento de numerosos
países con fuerte potencial agroexportador, afectado seriamente a la seguridad
alimentaria.
Sólo se podrá hacer frente a las causas estructurales del hambre a través de, por
un lado, el cumplimiento del mandato agrícola de la Ronda de Doha, y por otro
lado, la eliminación de todas aquellas medidas sanitarias/fitosanitarias o
ambientales oficiales adoptadas sin justificación científica y todos aquellos
estándares privados incompatibles con las normas de la OMC, los cuales actúan
como obstáculos a la innovación tecnológica e impiden aumentos en la
productividad agropecuaria.
Pregunta 2: Determinar si en las versiones futuras del MEM, consideran oportuno que
se modifique el primer proyecto en lo que atañe a los ámbitos que requieren una
labor ulterior o en los que se registra una falta de convergencia de políticas. (Does
the list of areas where there are gaps in policy convergence that may be addressed in
future versions of the GSF need to be amended?)
Entendemos que el MEM debe reflejar el “estado del arte” sobre el grado de consenso a
nivel internacional respecto de los diferentes temas que éste aborda, por lo que entendemos
conveniente que el mismo se actualice a medida de que se note una clara evolución en los
temas que requieren labor ulterior o sobre los cuales no hay convergencia en el plano
internacional. Sin perjuicio de ello, se debería ser muy cuidadoso respecto de las
competencias y ámbitos de tratamiento específico de cada tema, evitando superposiciones
con respecto a los trabajos de las diferentes organizaciones internacionales.
Pregunta 3: Considerar si el documento tiene suficiente relevancia desde el punto de
vista práctico en el plano regional y nacional y, si procede, proponer mejoras al
respecto. (Does the document have sufficient practical regional and country-level
relevance? Can you suggest improvements?)
Consideramos que el MEM es un documento de suma importancia en cuanto a su
contenido, cuya relevancia, desde el punto de vista práctico en el plano regional y nacional,
podrá ser evaluada en el futuro una vez que comience a ser utilizado.
Pregunta 4: Cómo puede ser conectado el MEM a los marcos y estrategias de
seguridad alimentaria y nutrición regionales y nacionales y a los mecanismos de
rendición de cuentas y monitoreo, de modo tal de promover una doble vía de
coordinación y convergencia? (How can GSF be linked to regional and national food
security and nutrition frameworks and strategies, and accountability and monitoring
mechanisms, in ways that promote two-way coordination and convergence?)
Para que el MEM se conecte con las estrategias de seguridad alimentaria y nutrición
regionales y nacionales, es preciso que se tengan en cuenta los marcos normativos locales
y los agentes involucrados así como un profundo conocimiento de la complejidad y
heterogeneidad de la temática en el territorio y la disponibilidad de información. En este
sentido, se destaca la necesidad de contar con medidas más precisas como, por ejemplo,
de Asistencia Oficial para el Desarrollo, a fin de poder cuantificar variaciones en la cantidad
de alimentos per capita suministrado a las poblaciones vulnerables.
Proceedings | 63
Por otra parte, se destaca la necesidad de contar no sólo con indicadores de la desnutrición
pasada, como es el índice de desnutrición de FAO, sino con indicadores que permitan
valuar la vulnerabilidad de poblaciones en riesgo de inseguridad alimentaria. En este
sentido, se debe ahondar en las causas de la desnutrición. Se destaca el informe de FAO 18
en el cual se evidencia que el 99% de las personas desnutridas habitaban en países en
desarrollo durante el período 2006/2008. Consecuentemente resulta fundamental trabajar
en indicadores que contemplen la falta de desarrollo.
II- COMENTARIOS ESPECÍFICOS POR PARRAFO:
 Párrafo 1: La Argentina solicita reemplazar la frase “La reciente alza de los precios
alimentarios […]” por “La reciente recuperación de los precios de alimentos y su
excesiva volatilidad […]”. El tema es muy controvertido a nivel internacional pero, lo
que sí resulta un hecho es que en términos reales los precios son sensiblemente
inferiores a los de la década del 70. En todo caso lo que está sucediendo en estos
últimos años es: (i) una recuperación de los precios artificialmente deprimidos por los
subsidios y demás políticas proteccionistas de los Países Desarrollados y (ii)
excesiva volatilidad principalmente motivada por la irrupción de capitales
especulativos.
 Párrafo 11: no todos los miembros de la FAO han suscripto el Comunicado conjunto
de L´Aquila sobre Seguridad Alimentaria. Por ello, es necesario o bien eliminar esta
referencia, o si no agregar entre paréntesis luego de la misma “(para aquellos países
participantes)”.
 Párrafo 13: se solicita la eliminación del párrafo dado que la información allí incluida
no aporta elementos de relevancia a los fines del MEM.
 Párrafo 17: a lo largo del documento permanentemente se hace referencia a los
“pequeños agricultores”. Entendemos conveniente que el MEM prevea una definición
que precise el alcance de dicho concepto.
 Párrafo 20. Punto 7: en primer lugar, deseamos destacar que coincidimos respecto
de que el comercio tiene un rol muy importante en la lucha contra el hambre y,
desde éste ámbito consideramos que el mayor aporte que puede hacerse es concluir
prontamente con las negociaciones agrícolas de la Ronda de Doha en el marco de la
Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) conforme a su Mandato.
Entendemos que si no se logra una mayor apertura en el sector agrícola por parte de
los países desarrollados y si no se eliminan sus políticas de apoyo a ese sector
distorsivas del comercio, será dificultoso alcanzar mayores progresos en los campos
de la seguridad alimentaria y la erradicación de la pobreza mundial.
Atento a ello y a los cambios planteados en el párrafo 19 con respecto al tema de
barreras no arancelarias, se sugiere modificar el párrafo 20, punto 7, de la siguiente
forma:
-“ la necesidad de lograr un sistema justo, abierto y transparente de comercio de
productos agrícolas y alimenticios para garantizar el acceso adecuado a los
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (2011). “The State of Food Insecurity in the
World. Addressing Food Insecurity in Protracted Crisis”, pp. 43
18
Proceedings | 64
alimentos a través de, por un lado, el cumplimiento del mandato agrícola de la
Ronda de Doha para el Desarrollo y, por otro, a través de la eliminación de los
obstáculos no arancelarios a las importaciones agrícolas; la importancia del acceso
de los pequeños agricultores a mercados eficientes y al comercio; la necesidad de
políticas económicas y comerciales acertadas a nivel mundial, regional y nacional;”
 Párrafo 21. Punto 5: en cuanto al punto 5 del párrafo 21, se recomienda especificar
los estudios que han demostrado que las prácticas agroecológicas son de
importancia clave para mejorar la sostenibilidad en agricultura.
 Párrafo 30: la Argentina desea solicitar que sea aclarado el alcance de la frase “…el
ajuste de las políticas comerciales y fiscales…”. En este sentido, se estima oportuno
aclarar que las políticas de índole comercial que un país adopte deben ser
congruentes con los múltiples compromisos que en el ámbito multilateral los
Miembros de la OMC han asumido.
 Párrafo 33: Respecto de las Directrices Voluntarias, se indica que éstas ya fueron
negociadas y finalizadas en marzo de 2012. Por ello, dado que la forma en que
están expresados estos elementos no reflejan el contenido de las Directrices
Voluntarias, se sugiere que la redacción sea modificada respetando el espíritu y
letra de las mismas. En este sentido, se destaca que el objetivo de las Directrices
es: “These Voluntary Guidelines seek to improve governance of tenure of land*,
fisheries and forests. They seek to do so for the benefit of all, with an emphasis on
vulnerable and marginalized people, with the goals of food security and progressive
realization of the right to adequate food, poverty eradication, sustainable livelihoods,
social stability, housing security, rural development, environmental protection and
sustainable social and economic development. All programmes, policies and
technical assistance to improve governance of tenure through the implementation of
these Guidelines should be consistent with States’ existing obligations under
international law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other
international human rights instruments.”
 Párrafo 39: resultaría apropiado contar con una definición de cada uno de los
agentes mencionados en la primera parte del párrafo 39. Asimismo, se solicita
brindar información relativa a los estudios que demuestren que la mayor parte de
las inversiones en agricultura la realizan los propios agricultores y pequeños
productores, sus cooperativas y otras empresas rurales así como aquella referida a
que los pequeños agricultores son los principales inversores en agricultura en
numerosos países en desarrollo.
En el caso del Punto 2: se considera apropiado contar con una aclaración sobre la
frase “así como a aumentar la capacidad de resistencia de los sistemas alimentarios
locales y tradicionales y la biodiversidad”, particularmente sobre su alcance y
contenido, en forma previa a su inclusión en el documento.
 Párrafo 40. Punto 3: dado que los precios de productos agropecuarios son
inherentemente volátiles, es necesario agregar el adjetivo “excesivo” antes de
“volatilidad”.
 Sección IV. Apartado C: por las razones ya expuestas, es necesario agregar el
adjetivo “excesivo” antes de “volatilidad”.
 Párrafo 41: Ídem anterior, con respecto a “fluctuaciones” y a “volatilidad”.
 Párrafo 42: compartimos la visión de que el comercio internacional puede contribuir
en medida importante al fortalecimiento de la seguridad alimentaria. Sin embargo,
Proceedings | 65
consideramos que debemos especificar el tipo de medidas comerciales que pueden
adoptarse a tal fin. La seguridad alimentaria podrá apuntalarse sólo a través de, por
un lado, el cumplimiento del mandato agrícola de la Ronda de Doha, esto es:
reducción sustancial de la ayuda interna y mejora sustancial del acceso a mercado,
en particular reducción sustancial de los altos aranceles a las importaciones así
como la eliminación de los subsidios a las exportaciones y, por otro lado, a través
de cumplimiento de los ya existentes Acuerdos de la OMC sobre Medidas
Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias y de Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio en lo que se
refiere a la actual proliferación de barreras sanitarias/fitosanitarias o técnicas,
inconsistentes con estos acuerdos, incluidas aquellas sin justificación científica.
Merece destacarse que estas restricciones a la importación de tipo técnico, también
son perjudiciales para la seguridad alimentaria, porque desalientan la innovación
tecnológica, que es esencial para aumentar y diversificar la producción.
Atento a ello sugerimos modificar el párrafo de la siguiente manera, haciendo
referencia al mandato agrícola de la Ronda de Doha, que está universalmente
aceptado y preservar la coherencia del Marco con otros foros multilaterales: “Unos
flujos comerciales libres en el ámbito nacional y entre los países pueden contribuir
en medida importante al fortalecimiento de la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición. Se
deberían buscar mayores oportunidades de comercialización en el plano
internacional y regional —mediante el cumplimiento del mandato agrícola de la
Ronda de Doha de la OMC la eliminación reducción de los obstáculos arancelarios
y la eliminación de las medidas de apoyo a la agricultura que distorsionan el
comercio— a través de las negociaciones comerciales multilaterales, prestando la
debida atención a la necesidad de asegurar la equidad en el comercio
internacional.”
Con respecto al Punto 5 relativo a la producción de biocombustibles, se sugiere sea
tomado en consideración lo que fuera aprobado en el 37° período de sesiones del
CFS (octubre de 2011). Por ello, a fin de que no se modifique el sentido de lo
aprobado, se sugiere agregar la frase que se encuentra a continuación en negrita y
subrayado, en tanto fue omitida en el presente documento de la FAO: “Revisar las
políticas en materia de biocombustibles cuando sea aplicable y necesario de
acuerdo con …”
 Sección IV. Apartado E: referido a “Abordar el problema de la inseguridad
alimentaria y la nutrición en las crisis prolongadas”. Se sugiere incorporar la
importancia de la infraestructura para tal fin. Se torna de vital importancia poder
contar con infraestructura suficiente para, entre otros, enfrentar los efectos adversos
del clima sobre la agricultura o tener acceso al agua potable, todo ello necesario
para combatir el hambre en países que se encuentran en situación de crisis
prolongadas.
 Párrafo 57: Se sugiere sacar la frase “También es necesario centrar la atención en
la calidad nutricional de los alimentos…” y pasarla al apartado G que trata el tema
Nutrición.
Deseamos señalar que las versiones en español e inglés no coinciden en cuanto al
contenido de este párrafo. Al respecto, se señala que en el caso de la versión en
inglés se encuentra la frase “in the context of a more environmentally friendly
agriculture”. Sobre ese tema, se destaca que en caso que se incluyera esa visión en
Proceedings | 66
el texto en español, debería en su lugar hacerse una referencia al desarrollo
sostenible, el cual está compuesto por 3 pilares (ambiental, social y económico) que
deben ser armónicos y equilibrados entre si. Por este motivo, se sugiere se elimine
cualquier referencia que proponga la primacía de un pilar sobre otro. Resulta
importante que no se trata de escoger entre sostenibilidad y producción y, como
consecuencia, se sugiere que se haga referencia a la búsqueda de una armonía
entre ambos elementos.
 Párrafo 58: Tomando en consideración el comentario realizado en el párrafo
anterior, se sugiere eliminar la palabra “protección del medio ambiente” y
reemplazarla por “dimensión ambiental”.
 Párrafo 59: Se sugiere eliminar la palabra “garantizar” y reemplazarla por “alentar”.
Asimismo se sugiere reemplazar el término “discriminación” por “distinción”.
 Párrafo 61: deseamos hacer referencia a las regulaciones sobre etiquetado
mencionadas en este párrafo. Al respecto, la Argentina desea manifestar que este
tipo de etiquetado ya ha sido abordado por las Recomendaciones de la “Estrategia
Mundial de la Organización Mundial de la Salud sobre Régimen Alimentario,
Actividad Física y Salud” y por las disposiciones adoptadas por el Codex
Alimentarius en materia de etiquetado para prevenir las enfermedades no
transmisibles.
En este sentido deseamos manifestar que, en materia de hábitos alimenticios para
prevenir enfermedades no transmisibles, las campañas informativas y la educación
resultan de vital importancia dado que no toda la información con la que deben
contar los individuos se puede transmitir a través de una etiqueta.
 Párrafo 64: creemos que este párrafo no es claro, en particular cuando expresa:
“garantizar un impacto nutricional óptimo de la agricultura, la seguridad alimentaria,
la calidad e inocuidad de los alimentos, la protección social y las redes de
seguridad, el desarrollo rural y el desarrollo en su conjunto.” Se agradecerá su
reformulación.
 Párrafo 68: Tal como fuera señalado en comentarios previos, entendemos que el
MEM no debería avanzar por sobre el texto de las Directrices Voluntarias, dado que
se trata de un texto consensuado en el marco de FAO (tras reunión del 5-9 de
marzo de 2012), y que será presentado el próximo 11 de mayo al CSAM.
 Párrafo 70: Tal como fuera señalado en comentarios previos, entendemos que el
MEM no debería avanzar por sobre el texto de las Directrices Voluntarias, dado que
se trata de un texto consensuado en el marco de FAO (tras reunión del 5-9 de
marzo de 2012), y que será presentado el próximo 11 de mayo al CSAM.
 Párrafo 74: se sugiere realizar los siguientes cambios:
1) Punto 1°: no es totalmente claro. Especialmente consideramos necesario aclarar a
qué se refiere el concepto de “sistemas de comercio internacionales”.
Se sugiere re-escribir el punto de la siguiente manera:
“Los sistemas de comercio internacional; la falta de acuerdo en las negociaciones
agrícolas de la Ronda del Desarrollo de Doha de negociaciones comerciales
internacionales, de acuerdo con el mandato, así como la necesidad de
Proceedings | 67
incorporación plena de la agricultura en los acuerdos comerciales preferenciales
para la mejor incorporación de las cuestiones relativas a la seguridad alimentaria, a
través de la eliminación de aranceles a las importación así como de cualquier otro
obstáculo no arancelario que afecten el comercio de los productos
agroindustriales”.
2) Punto 2°: los conceptos de “soberanía alimentaria” y de “economía verde” no
cuentan con una definición aceptada multilateralmente, por lo que se sugiere
eliminar este segundo punto del párrafo 74.
Además, en el caso de la “economía verde”, se encuentra bajo negociación en el
contexto del desarrollo sostenible y la erradicación de la pobreza en el foro de
competencia primaria para su tratamiento, la Conferencia de Desarrollo Sostenible
de las Naciones Unidas (Río más 20), por lo cual no se debería avanzar ni
prejuzgar sobre esas discusiones en el ámbito del CSAM.
3) Punto 3°: El concepto de “cadena de valor” no es claro. Se solicita mayores
precisiones para poder remitir una opinión al respecto.
4) Punto 8°: reemplazarlo por el siguiente: “Resolver los problemas relacionados con
los impedimentos que existen a la transferencia internacional y acceso a la
tecnología y su utilización en la agricultura, la pesca y la actividad forestal en
particular en países en desarrollo
5) Agregar un nuevo punto que establezca: “Eliminar los obstáculos al uso y la difusión
de la biotecnología en aquellos países que no adoptan sus decisiones en la
materia basados en ciencia y su impacto en el comercio internacional y la
seguridad alimentaria.”
 Párrafo 76: sugerimos modificar la primera oración de la siguiente manera: “Las
crisis económicas y la excesiva volatilidad de los precios de los alimentos han
puesto de manifiesto la fragilidad de los mecanismos mundiales de seguridad
alimentaria.”
 Párrafo 84. Punto 3: incluir después de la palabra convergencia “o coordinación”.
 Párrafo 86: Deseamos destacar que no es claro el punto relativo a cambio climático.
En primer lugar, no se considera apropiada la utilización del término “racional” y, por
lo tanto, se sugiere su eliminación. Asimismo, se considera inapropiado el enfoque
utilizado en el documento, en tanto resulta inadecuado respecto de cómo plantea la
relación entre información científica y medidas que deberían tomar los países. Al
respecto, se señala que, dado que la información científica es uno de los insumos
que se toman para el diseño de políticas, la prioridad para los países en desarrollo
es el fortalecimiento de las capacidades nacionales y la cooperación internacional
para el desarrollo y transferencia de tecnologías que redunden en una mejora en la
capacidad adaptativa y eficiencia de los sistemas productivos.
Es de fundamental importancia, tomar en cuenta que el sector agropecuario se
enfrenta a importantes desafíos con relación al cambio climático dado que el mismo
es altamente vulnerable frente a este fenómeno. Por ello, la relación entre agricultura
y cambio climático debe tratarse de una manera holística que tome en consideración
las particularidades locales y las propias capacidades de los países, especialmente
Proceedings | 68
de los países en desarrollo. De este modo, considerando las implicancias presentes
y futuras que podría tener el cambio climático sobre el sector, la prioridad debe ser
reducir la vulnerabilidad de los países en desarrollo, lo cual implica fortalecer el
desarrollo del sector agropecuario y su contribución al bienestar social en su
conjunto.
English translation
I- GENERAL COMMENTS:
Firstly, we would like to thank the CFS Secretariat for the compilation of this new draft of the
Global Strategy Framework on Food Security (GSF). We fully share the target of
establishing a tool to prioritize at an international level all those key principles, policies and
measures related to food security and nutrition, and to mobilize collective action of all
stakeholders to overcome the scourge of hunger and poverty. Similarly, we welcome the
broad, transparent and interactive consultation process recently launched with the conviction
that it will ensure a detailed discussion and the representativeness and effectiveness of the
document once agreed. Progressing in this interactive process is essential and, for this
purpose, we consider very useful rigorously quoting specific studies or publications in which
GSF contents are supported, allowing a more detailed further analysis.
Finally, and regarding Section IV, in which policy, program and miscellaneous
recommendations are made, we consider important mentioning (preferably as a footnote)
the document or meeting report in which the topic was agreed for every identified action.
This is very important to check the area in which the agreement took place.
Question 1: Does the First Draft present key issues of food security and nutrition on
which there is broad regional and international consensus?
A) We understand that there are certain topics addressed in the GSF for which there is still
no broad consensus, and therefore we request removing them from the document, such as:
 Using the term "nutrition security" (Paragraph 63) whose definition and scope
have not yet been agreed. Instead, we request using the word nutrition;
 References to the impact of biofuels production on food security. In this regard,
Argentina would like to highlight that the issue is very controversial at the
international level and there is no univocal position. In this regard, we consider
that the “biofuels” production does not necessarily affect food security and,
consequently, we request eliminating the penultimate item of Paragraph 20 ("the
management of energy demand and in particular biofuels, and the impact on food
security of the utilization of food crops to produce energy ").
In this sense, we consider appropriate replacing the word "priority" by
"importance" in the first line of item two of Paragraph 39, as follows: "Ensuring
that agricultural policies and rural investment prioritize emphasize food
production and enhancing nutrition levels, especially of the most vulnerable
populations, and increasing the resilience of local and traditional food systems
and biodiversity... ".
Additionally, we understand that any biofuels analysis should take into account
that: (i) biofuels emit less greenhouse gases and other harmful gases for the
Proceedings | 69
environment in comparison to fossil fuels, so their impact on food security must be
analyzed in dynamic terms, not just in short-term static terms and (ii) the
production of biofuels promotes local development through the creation of a
productive structure that can generate added value in energy production,
contributing to the development of rural areas and the fight against food insecurity.

With respect to Paragraph 41 in which it is stated that "a coordinated policy
response of countries to the price volatility is urgently needed", we request
deleting this sentence because there is still no general consensus on the matter
and, in any case, decisions should be made in the framework of other
international organizations. Additionally, we understand that there are several
relevant aspects that have been omitted such as the transmission mechanisms
between international and local markets and the importance of the agricultural
commodities prices within value chains. These factors may be crucial for the
analysis of global malnutrition. On the other hand, it must be highlighted that
policies targets for combating malnutrition should be established in terms of
volume per capita and not in monetary terms. Consequently, price volatility should
have no influence.
B) We also consider necessary including several items for which we understand there is a
broad consensus and are not addressed by the GSF, such as:
 The lack of effective access to new technologies, mainly by small farmers who
constitute the most vulnerable sector, should be included as one of the causes of
hunger (Paragraph 19). Similarly, including the following sentence in Paragraph 59
is suggested: "Ensuring and strengthening effective access to new technologies,
mainly by small farmers, who constitute the most vulnerable sector".

The distortions in the international trade system of agricultural products should also
be included as structural causes of hunger (Paragraph 19). We consider that in the
last 50 years the world agricultural production has been adversely affected by an
international trade system strongly distorted by the protectionist policies of certain
countries which, through subsidies and high import tariffs, have generated a
significant transfer of resources from the least developed and developing countries
to the developed ones. This has discouraged investment, innovation, and therefore
agricultural production, damaging the growth and development of many countries
with strong agricultural export potential, and seriously affecting food security.
Structural causes of hunger can only be addressed by complying with the
agricultural mandate of the Doha Round on one hand and, on the other, eliminating
all the sanitary/phytosanitary or environmental measures adopted without scientific
justification and all those private standards incompatible with WTO rules, which act
as obstacles to technological innovation and avoid increasing the agricultural
productivity.
Question 2: Does the list of areas where there are gaps in policy convergence that
may be addressed in future versions of the GSF need to be amended?
We understand that the GSF must reflect the "state of the art" regarding the international
consensus degree on the various issues it addresses, so we believe it should be updated as
the issues requiring further work show a clear progress or lack convergence at the
international level. Notwithstanding the foregoing, special care should be taken regarding the
Proceedings | 70
specific treatment competence and scope of each topic, avoiding overlaps in the work of the
different international organizations.
Question 3: Does the document have sufficient practical regional and country-level
relevance? Can you suggest improvements?
We consider that the GSF is a very important document in terms of content. From the
practical point of view at the regional and national levels, its relevance shall be evaluated in
the future once it starts to be used.
Question 4: How can GSF be linked to regional and national food security and
nutrition frameworks and strategies, and accountability and monitoring mechanisms,
in ways that promote two-way coordination and convergence?
To link the GSF with regional and national food security and nutrition strategies, the local
regulatory frameworks and agents involved should be taken into account, and the complexity
and heterogeneity of the subject in the territory and the availability of information need to be
deeply understood. In this regard, the need for more accurate measurements like, for
example, official development assistance to quantify variations in the amount of food per
capita provided to vulnerable populations, is stressed.
On the other hand, the need of having not only malnutrition indicators, like the FAO
malnutrition index, but also indicators to assess the vulnerability of populations at risk of food
insecurity is highlighted. In this sense, we must delve into the causes of malnutrition. The
FAO report 19 which shows that 99% of undernourished people lived in developing countries
during the period 2006/2008 is emphasized. Consequently it is essential to work on
indicators that consider the lack of development.
II- SPECIFIC COMMENTS PER PARAGRAPH:
 Paragraph 1: Argentina requests replacing the phrase "The recent increase in food
prices [...]" by "The recent recovery of food prices and its excessive volatility [...]".
The issue is very controversial at the international level, but the fact is that, in real
terms, prices are significantly lower than in the 70’s. In any case, what is happening
in recent years is: (i) a recovery of prices artificially reduced by subsidies and other
protectionist policies of developed countries and (ii) excessive volatility mainly driven
by the breakthrough of speculative capital.
 Paragraph 11: Not all the FAO members have subscribed the L’Aquila Joint
Statement on Global Food Security. Therefore it is necessary either to remove this
reference or to add the following one in brackets "(for those countries involved)".
 Paragraph 13: We request deleting this Paragraph as the information included does
not constitute a relevant contribution to the GSF targets.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2011). “The State of Food Insecurity in
the World. Addressing Food Insecurity in Protracted Crisis”, pp. 43
19
Proceedings | 71
 Paragraph 17: Throughout the document there is a continuous reference to "small
farmers". We believe that the GSF should envisage a definition to specify the scope
of this concept.
 Paragraph 20. Item 7: Firstly, we would like to emphasize that we agree on the fact
that trade has a very important role in the fight against hunger and, from this
perspective, we believe that the most significant contribution that can be made is
promptly concluding the Doha Round agricultural negotiations within the framework
of the World Trade Organization (WTO), according to its Mandate.
We understand that, if developed countries do not achieve a greater openness in the
agricultural sector and if their support policies distorting trade are not eliminated, it
will be difficult to achieve further progress in the fields of food security and global
poverty eradication.
With this in mind and the changes proposed in Paragraph 19 regarding the non-tariff
barriers issue, modifying item 7 of Paragraph 20 as follows is suggested:
- "the need of achieving a fair, open and transparent agricultural and food products
trade system to ensure adequate access to food through, on one hand, the
compliance with the agricultural mandate of the Doha Round for Development and,
on the other, through the elimination of non-tariff trade barriers on agricultural
imports; the importance of small farmers access to efficient markets and trade; the
need for sound economic and trade policies at global, regional and national levels; "
 Paragraph 21. Item 5: Regarding item 5 in Paragraph 21, specifying the studies that
have shown that agro-ecological practices are crucial for improving sustainability in
agriculture is recommended.
 Paragraph 30: Argentina would like to clarify the scope of the phrase "... the
adjustment of trade and tax policies ...”. In this sense, clarifying that the commercial
policies adopted by a country must be consistent with the numerous commitments
undertaken by the WTO members at the multilateral level seems appropriate.
 Paragraph 33: Regarding the Voluntary Guidelines, it is stated that these have been
negotiated and finalized in March 2012. Therefore, as these elements do not reflect
the Voluntary Guidelines content, modifying their wording is suggested, maintaining
the spirit of the guidelines. In this regard, it is stressed that the target of the
guidelines is: “These Voluntary Guidelines seek to improve governance of tenure of
land*, fisheries and forests. They seek to do so for the benefit of all, with an
emphasis on vulnerable and marginalized people, with the goals of food security and
progressive realization of the right to adequate food, poverty eradication, sustainable
livelihoods, social stability, housing security, rural development, environmental
protection and sustainable social and economic development. All programmes,
policies and technical assistance to improve governance of tenure through the
implementation of these Guidelines should be consistent with States’ existing
obligations under international law, including the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and other international human rights instruments”.
 Paragraph 39: Having a definition of each of the actors mentioned in the first section
of Paragraph 39 would be appropriate. Additionally, information should be provided
on studies showing that the bulk of agricultural investments are undertaken by
farmers and small producers, their cooperatives and other rural enterprises, as well
as referring to the fact that small farmers are the main agricultural investors in many
developing countries
Proceedings | 72
Item 2: The phrase "as well as increasing the resilience of local and traditional food
systems and biodiversity" should be clarified, particularly regarding its scope and
content, prior to its inclusion in the document.
 Paragraph 40. Item 3: As the prices of agricultural products are inherently volatile,
the adjective "excessive" should be added before "volatility".
 Section IV. Section C: Due to the reasons already indicated, the adjective
"excessive" should be added before "volatility".
 Paragraph 41: Same as above, with respect to "fluctuations" and "volatility".
 Paragraph 42: We agree that international trade can significantly contribute to
strengthening food security. However, trade measures that can be adopted for this
purpose should be clearly specified. Food security can only be propped up through
the compliance with the agricultural mandate of the Doha Round (that is, substantial
reduction of internal assistance and significant improvement of market access, in
particular significant reduction of high imports tariffs and elimination of export
subsidies) and, on the other hand, through the fulfilment of the existing WTO
Agreements on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical Barriers to
Trade in regard to the current proliferation of sanitary/phytosanitary restrictions,
inconsistent with these agreements and without scientific justification. It is worth
highlighting that these technical import restrictions are also harmful for food security,
because they discourage technological innovation, essential for increasing and
diversifying production.
We suggest modifying the Paragraph as follows, referring to the universally
accepted agricultural mandate of the Doha Round and preserving the coherence of
the Framework with other multilateral forums: "Free trade flows at the national level
and between the countries can significantly contribute to strengthening food security
and nutrition. More marketing opportunities at international and regional levels
should be targeted - through the compliance with the agricultural mandate of the
WTO Doha Round elimination/reduction of tariff barriers and the elimination of
agricultural support measures that distort trade - through multilateral trade
negotiations, paying due attention to the need of ensuring equity in international
trade".
Regarding Item 5 on biofuels production, taking into account what has been
approved at the 37th session of the CFS (October 2011) is suggested. Therefore, to
avoid changing the meaning of what was been approved, adding the following
sentence, in italics and underlined, is suggested, as it was omitted in this FAO
document "Reviewing the biofuels policies when applicable and necessary in
accordance with ... "
 Section IV. Section E: Referred to "Addressing the problem of food insecurity and
nutrition in protracted crises". Incorporating the importance of infrastructure is
suggested for this purpose. Having sufficient infrastructure for, among others,
addressing the climate adverse effects on agriculture or access to potable water, is
vitally important. This is necessary for fighting hunger in countries suffering
protracted crises.
 Paragraph 57: Removing the phrase "Focusing in the nutritional quality of food is
also necessary..." and including it in Section G addressing Nutrition is suggested.
Proceedings | 73
Regarding the content of this Paragraph, versions in Spanish and English are not
coincident. In the English version the following sentence can be found: "in the
context of a more environmentally friendly agriculture". If this approach is to be
included in the Spanish version, a reference to sustainable development, composed
of 3 harmonic and balanced pillars (environmental, social and economic), should be
included instead. For this reason, we suggest deleting any reference that suggests
the primacy of one pillar over the others. It is not a matter of choosing between
sustainability and production and, therefore, a reference to the quest of a harmony
between both elements should be made.
 Paragraph 58: Taking into account the previous Paragraph comments, replacing the
expression "environmental protection" by "environmental dimension" is suggested.
 Paragraph 59: We suggest deleting the word "ensure" and replacing it by
"encourage". We also suggest substituting the term "discrimination" by "distinction".
 Paragraph 61: We would like to refer to the labelling regulations mentioned in this
Paragraph. In this regard, Argentina considers that this type of labelling has been
already addressed by the recommendations of the "Global Strategy of World Health
Organization on Diet, Physical Activity and Health" and the provisions adopted by
the Codex Alimentarius in the field of labelling to prevent non-communicable
diseases
In this sense we would like to indicate that, regarding eating habits and the
prevention of non-communicable diseases, information campaigns and education
are essential, as not all the necessary information can be transmitted through a
label.
 Paragraph 64: We believe this Paragraph is not clear, particularly when stating:
"ensuring an optimal nutritional impact of agriculture, food security, food quality and
safety, social protection and safety nets, rural development and development as a
whole". Its reformulation would be appreciated.
 Paragraph 68: : As pointed out in previous comments, we understand that the GSF
should not address the Voluntary Guidelines, as this text has been already agreed in
the FAO framework (following the meeting held on the 5-9 March 2012) and will be
presented on May 11th at the CFS.
 Paragraph 70: As pointed out in previous comments, we understand that the GSF
should not address the Voluntary Guidelines, as this text has been already agreed in
the FAO framework (following the meeting held on the 5-9 March 2012) and will be
presented on May 11th at the CFS.
 Paragraph 74: The following modifications are suggested:
1) Item 1: It is not completely clear. Especially, the concept of "international trading
systems” needs to be clarified.
We suggest rewriting this tem as follows:
"The international trade systems; the lack of agreement in the agricultural
negotiations of the Doha Development Round of international trade negotiations,
according to the mandate, along with the need of the complete incorporation of
agriculture in the preferential trade agreements for a better inclusion of food security
Proceedings | 74
issues, through the elimination of import tariffs and any other non-tariff barrier
affecting agro-industrial products trade".
2) Item 2: The concepts of "food sovereignty" and "green economy" lack a multilaterally
agreed definition, and therefore deleting the second bullet of paragraph 74 is
suggested.
Moreover, regarding "green economy", it is being negotiated in the context of
sustainable development and poverty eradication at the competent forum, the
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), and so these
discussions should not move forward in the field of the CFS.
3) Item 3: The concept of "value chain" is not clear. Further details are requested to
submit an opinion.
4) Item 8: Replacing it by the following item: "Solving the problems related with the
restrictions to the international transfer and access to technology and its utilization
in agriculture, fisheries and forestry, especially in developing countries”.
5) Adding the new following item: "Removing the barriers to the utilization and
dissemination of biotechnology in those countries that do not adopt decisions based
on science and its impact on international trade and food security".
 Paragraph 76: We suggest amending the first sentence as follows: "The economic
crises and the excessive volatility of food prices have shown the fragility of global
food security mechanisms".
 Paragraph 84. Item 3: Including after the word convergence “or coordination”.
 Paragraph 86: We would like to highlight that the item related to climate change is
not clear. Firstly, the use of the term "rational" is not considered to be appropriate
and, therefore, we suggest removing it. The approach envisaged in the document
with respect to the relationship between scientific information and measures to be
adopted by the countries is also considered to be inadequate. In this regard it is
noted that, as scientific information is one of the inputs for the policies design, the
priority for developing countries is strengthening national capacities and international
cooperation for the development and transfer of technologies that improve the
adaptive capacity and efficiency of production systems.
It is essential to bear in mind that the agricultural sector faces significant challenges
regarding climate change as it is highly vulnerable to this phenomenon. Therefore,
the relationship between agriculture and climate change should be addressed
holistically, taking into account the local conditions and national specific capacities,
especially of developing countries. Therefore, considering the present and future
effects of climate change on the sector, the priority should be reducing the
vulnerability of developing countries, which involves strengthening the agricultural
sector development and its overall contribution to social welfare.
21) Deputy Permanent Representation of Switzerland to FAO, Christina
Blank, Member States
Proceedings | 75
French original
La Suisse remercie de la possibilité de prendre position sur le projet préliminaire de Cadre
stratégique mondial (GSF). Les réponses, suggestions et commentaires figurent en regard
des questions posées:
1.Ce premier texte préliminaire aborde-t-il des aspects essentiels de la sécurité alimentaire
et de la nutrition sur lesquels il existe un large consensus à l’échelle régionale et
internationale ?
Dans l’ensemble, le projet de texte aborde en effet les aspects essentiels de la sécurité
alimentaire et de la nutrition sur lesquels un consensus large existe. Des propositions
concrètes d’ajustement figurent sous II ci-après.
2.La liste de domaines devant encore faire l’objet d’efforts de convergence et être inclus
dans de futures versions du GSF est-elle suffisante ou doit-elle être amendée ?
Pour la Suisse, le GSF doit faciliter une compréhension commune et la collaboration entre
toutes les parties prenantes, tout en reconnaissant la responsabilité première des
gouvernements dans la mise en place de stratégies, politiques, projets et programmes ciblés
et efficaces. La participation à ces efforts par le secteur privé, dans toute sa diversité, doit
être saisie comme une opportunité.
Le domaine de la lutte contre les effets du changement climatique devrait figurer au nombre
de ceux qui méritent d’être insérés dans le GSF. De même, l’impact des régimes de
propriété intellectuelle sur l’agriculture, la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition dans les pays en
développement est largement passé sous silence dans le projet préliminaire.
3.Le document est-il suffisamment pertinent sur le plan pratique à l’échelle régionale et
nationale ? Pouvez-vous suggérer des améliorations ?
A notre sens, le document, dans son contenu actuel, a une portée pratique limitée à l’échelle
régionale et nationale. Un mécanisme innovatif et flexible de responsabilisation et de suivi,
incluant des indicateurs communs permettant de suivre les progrès accomplis, devra être
identifié et, le cas échéant, mis sur pied et ajusté sur une base constante.
4.Comment établir l’association entre le GSF et les stratégies et cadres nationaux et
régionaux de sécurité alimentaire et de nutrition, ainsi qu’avec les mécanismes de
responsabilisation et de suivi, de façon à favoriser la coordination et la convergence
mutuelles ?
En fonction des besoins, des ressources et des compétences disponibles, des plateformes
multipartites régionales pourraient assurer un lien effectif et adapté entre le niveau mondial
et celui des pays.
Proceedings | 76
II. Commentaires additionnels
La Suisse souhaite par ailleurs apporter les commentaires suivants au projet préliminaire de
GSF:
Le projet doit refléter l’adoption – le 11 mai 2012 -- des « Directives volontaires pour une
gouvernance responsable des régimes fonciers applicables aux terres, aux pêches et aux
forêts dans le contexte de la sécurité alimentaire nationale ». Il devra aussi être en mesure
d’intégrer les résultats de la Conférence des Nations Unies sur le développement durable
«Rio+20 ». De même, au chapitre IV.E concernant l’action en faveur de la sécurité
alimentaire et de la nutrition en périodes de crises prolongées, il convient d’attendre les
résultats du « forum d’experts de haut niveau » de septembre 2012 avant de formuler des
recommandations en la matière.
En outre, nous proposons d’ajouter les mentions suivantes :
-
-
-
-
la pénurie croissante des ressources naturelles (eau, sol, biodiversité) et la nécessité
qui en découle d’une utilisation durable des ressources (chapitre II B « Les nouveaux
défis »)
les «macro tendances» (tels que la crise financière, l’augmentation du chômage
structurel en particulier chez les jeunes, etc.) qui sont susceptibles d’avoir des
répercussions sur la sécurité alimentaire (chapitre II.B) ;
une référence explicite au Cadre global d’action actualisé des Nations Unies (UCFA
est présentement abordé au para.12 du chapitre I), à la Déclaration du Millénaire
ainsi que spécifiquement aux Objectifs 1,3 et 7 du Millénaire pour le développement
(chapitre III « Bases de référence et cadre généraux ») ;
un encadré sur le partenariat mondial sur les sols / Global Soil Partnership
(http://www.fao.org/nr/water/landandwater_gsp.html) (chapitre IV.F)
le texte suivant -- en anglais -- relatif au Mouvement « Scale Up Nutrition » (chapitre
IV.E)
QUOTE
The Scale Up Nutrition Movement (SUN) was initiated in September 2010 to encourage
increased political commitment to accelerate reductions in global hunger and under-nutrition,
within the context of the right to adequate food security for all. The Movement is advancing
rapidly: governments from 27 countries with high levels of under-nutrition have committed to
scale up nutrition. They are supported by a broad range of domestic stakeholders from
multiple sectors and global networks of donors, civil society, businesses, research bodies
and the United Nations system.
Governments, and their partners in the Movement are increasing resources for nutrition and
better aligning their financial and technical support with these national priorities. They are
helping countries implement their specific nutrition interventions and their nutrition-sensitive
Proceedings | 77
development strategies. They are working with SUN countries in a whole of Government
approach that seeks to ensure improved nutrition outcomes across multiple sectors such as
agriculture, health, social welfare, education or environment. Those in the Movement are
working together to reduce fragmentation at the national, regional and global levels,
stimulate coherence and alignment around food security and nutrition policies, and support
the realization of results.
UNQUOTE
English transition
Switzerland is grateful for the opportunity to take a stance on the draft project for the Global
Strategic Framework (GSF). The answers, suggestions and comments are presented with
respect to the questions raised:
1. Does the First Draft present key issues of food security and nutrition on which there is
broad regional and international consensus?
On the whole, the draft text does tackle the essential aspects of food security and nutrition
over which there is a broad consensus. Some concrete proposals for adjustments are
presented under II below.
2. Does the list of areas where there are gaps in policy convergence that may be addressed
in the future versions of the GSF need to be amended?
For Switzerland, GSF should facilitate common understanding and collaboration among all
parts involved, recognizing the prime responsibility of governments in the establishment of
targeted and efficient strategies, policies, projects and programs. The participation by the
private sector, in all its diversity, in these efforts, should be taken as an opportunity.
The fight against the effects of climate change should be among those areas which need to
be inserted in the GSF. Likewise, the impact of intellectual property regimes on agriculture,
food security and nutrition in the developing countries is hardly addressed in the preliminary
draft.
3. Does the document have sufficient practical regional and country-level relevance? Can
you suggest improvements?
In our view, the document, in its present form, has limited practical significance at regional
and country-level. An innovative and flexible mechanism of empowerments and follow-up,
targeted and including common indicators which allow for a follow-up of the progress
achieved, should be identified and, as appropriate, put in place and adjusted on a constant
base.
Proceedings | 78
4. How can the GSF be linked to regional and national food security and nutrition
frameworks and strategies, and accountability and monitoring mechanisms, in ways that
promote two-way coordination and convergence?
According to the needs, resources and competences available, regional multiple
stakeholders platforms could assure an effective and convenient link between the global and
the national levels.
II. Additional comments
Switzerland wishes, furthermore, to contribute the following comments on the GSF
preliminary draft:
The draft should reflect the adoption – on 11 May 2012 -- of « Voluntary Guidelines on the
Responsible Governance of Land Tenure, Fisheries and Forests in the context of national
food security». It should also be able to integrate the results of the United Nations
Conference on Sustainable Development «Rio+20 ». Likewise, in Chapter IV.E concerning
action in favor of food security and nutrition during prolonged periods of crisis, it will be
appropriate to wait for the results of the « high level expert forum » of September 2012
before making any recommendations on the matter.
Furthermore, we propose that the following observations should be included:
-
-
-
-
the growing shortage of natural resources (water, soil, biodiversity) and the
consequent need for the sustainable use of resources (Chapter II. B "Emerging
Challenges")
the «macro trends» (such as the financial crisis, the increase in structural
unemployment in particular among the young, etc.) which could have an impact on
food security (Chapter II.B);
an explicit reference to the United Nations Updated Comprehensive Framework for
Action (UCFA is presently discussed in para.12 of Chapter 1)),and to the Millennium
Declaration along with specifically the Millennium Objectives 1, 3 and 7 for
Development (Chapter III «The Foundations and Overarching Frameworks»);
a box on the global partnership of soils / Global Soil Partnership
(http://www.fao.org/nr/water/landandwater_gsp.html) (chapitre IV.F)
the following text - in English - related to the Movement «Scale Up Nutrition»
(Chapter IV.E)
QUOTE
The Scale Up Nutrition Movement (SUN) was initiated in September 2010 to encourage
increased political commitment to accelerate reductions in global hunger and under-nutrition,
within the context of the right to adequate food security for all. The Movement is advancing
rapidly: governments from 27 countries with high levels of under-nutrition have committed to
scale up nutrition. They are supported by a broad range of domestic stakeholders from
multiple sectors and global networks of donors, civil society, businesses, research bodies
and the United Nations system.
‫‪Proceedings | 79‬‬
‫‪Governments, and their partners in the Movement are increasing resources for nutrition and‬‬
‫‪better aligning their financial and technical support with these national priorities. They are‬‬
‫‪helping countries implement their specific nutrition interventions and their nutrition-sensitive‬‬
‫‪development strategies. They are working with SUN countries in a whole of Government‬‬
‫‪approach that seeks to ensure improved nutrition outcomes across multiple sectors such as‬‬
‫‪agriculture, health, social welfare, education or environment. Those in the Movement are‬‬
‫‪working together to reduce fragmentation at the national, regional and global levels,‬‬
‫‪stimulate coherence and alignment around food security and nutrition policies, and support‬‬
‫‪the realization of results.‬‬
‫‪UNQUOTE‬‬
‫‪22) Syndicat des agriculteurs de Tunisie "SYNAGRI", Tunisia, Civil society and non‬‬‫‪governmental organizations‬‬
‫‪Arabic original‬‬
‫الدورة الحادية والثالثون‬
‫اإلطار اإلستراتيجي العالمي لألمن الغذائي والتغذية‬
‫المسودة األولى‬
‫مالحظات حول‬
‫ّ‬
‫ص‪ 9‬التحديات الناشئة‪:‬‬
‫إضافة ‪:‬‬
‫‪ ‬تطوير وبحث مالئمة التكوين واإلرشاد واألحاطة بالمزارعين لإلستفادة من المستجدات‬
‫التكنولوجية‪.‬‬
‫‪ ‬توفير حدّ ادنى لهامش ربح المزارعين حفاظا على الدورة اإلنتاجية وإلستقطاب األجيال القادمة‬
‫نحو العمل الزراعي‪.‬‬
‫ص‪ 15‬زيادة اإلستثمارات الخاصة بأصحاب الحيازات الصغيرة في الزراعة‪:‬‬
‫إضافة ‪:‬‬
‫‪ ‬إيالء المنتجات المحلية مكانتها باإلستثمار في التكييف والتعليب ومراجعة القوانين المنظمة‬
‫للعالقات التجارية‪.‬‬
‫ص‪ 16‬مواجهة تقلب أسعار األغذية‬
‫إضافة ‪ :‬في السطر الثاني ‪" :‬بما في ذلك الشفافية في المعامالت في مسالك التزويد والتوزيع في جميع‬
‫األسواق"‪.‬‬
‫إجرءات للحد من تقلب األسعار‬
‫إضافة ‪ :‬في النقطة الثالثة‪" :‬إدخال تحسينات على الشفافية وتنظيم ومراقبة مسالك التزويد‬
‫والتوزيع ومراقبة أسواق المشتقات الزراعية"و إرساء قواعد الحوكمة الرشيدة‬
‫إجراءات للتخفيف من التأثيرات السلبية لتقلب األسعار‬
‫إضافة ‪ :‬في النقطة األولى‪" :‬الدولة في تخفيف التأثيرات السلبية لتقلب األسعار بما في ذلك عن طريق‬
‫وضع استراتيجيات وطنية تشاركية مع المهنة مستقرة وطويلة المدى للحماية اإلجتماعية وشبكات لألمان‬
‫وتوجيه اهتمام خاص لفئات السكان الضعيفة‪".....‬‬
‫ص‪ 17‬إجراءات للتخفيف من التأثيرات السلبية لتقلب األسعار‬
‫إضافة ‪:‬‬
‫‪ ‬تطوير آليات الخزن اإلستراتيجي للمواد األساسية‪.‬‬
‫‪Proceedings | 80‬‬
‫ص‪ 19‬النقطة ‪ 52‬إضافة ‪ :‬بحث السبل الكفيلة بتوفير إنتاج محلي لهذه البلدان حسب خصوصيتها‪.‬‬
‫النقطة ‪ 53‬إضافة ‪ :‬دعم الميكنة الفالحية‪.‬‬
‫ص‪ 21‬النقطة ‪ 57‬إضافة ‪:‬في الجملة األخيرة‪" :‬ويجب إعطاء أولوية اإلعتبار لدور المؤسسات العامة‬
‫للبحث الزراعي في إيجاد حلول لزيادة اإلنتاجية الزراعية ومواجهة التغيرات المناخية وكذلك لمؤسسات‬
‫التكوين واإلرشاد لتبسيط البحوث لفائدة المزارعين"‪.‬‬
‫النقطة ‪ 59‬إضافة ‪":‬دعم تطوير منظمات المنتجين والجمعيات ومجامع التنمية الناشطة في القطاع‬
‫الزراعي القائمة وتعزيز قدراتها لضمان المشاركة الكاملة للمزارعات"‪.‬‬
‫ص‪ 23‬إضافة ‪:‬النقطة ‪ 69‬السطر ‪ 7‬إضافة ‪ :‬وينبغي أن يتحقق ذلك عن طريق برنامج قائم على سياسات‬
‫متكاملة تقوم على مبادئ تشاركية و تراعي الجوانب األخالقية واإلجتماعية ‪......‬‬
‫ص‪ 24‬النقطة ‪ 70‬النقطة الرابعة إضافة ‪":‬النظر في إمكانية وضع آليات قانونية وغيرها من اآلليات‬
‫لإلسراع بإستصالح األراضي وزيادة فرص حصول ضعاف الدخل والنساء على األراضي وينبغي أن‬
‫تعمل مثل هذه اآلليات أيضا على تشجيع المحافظة على األراضي واستخدامها المستدام وتفادي تشتت‬
‫الملكيات وينبغي إيالء اعتبار خاص لحالة المجتماعات األصلية"‪.‬‬
‫ص‪ 28‬النقطة ‪ 81‬إضافة ‪....." :‬وهي تلبي الحاجة إلى إدارة مشتركة للموارد العابرة للحدود مثل األنهار‬
‫وأحواض األنهار وطبقات المياه الجوفية والغابات واألراضي الرعوية والموارد البحرية‪"...‬‬
‫ص‪ 31‬النقطة ‪ 93‬إضافة ‪" :‬ويمكن إشراك أو إنشاء المصارف الزراعية المحلية والوطنية‬
‫بصورة ناجعة في استراتيجيات األمن الغذائي‪".....‬‬
‫ّ‬
‫‪English translation‬‬
‫‪Observations on the first draft‬‬
‫‪P.9, The emerging challenges‬‬
‫‪Addendum:‬‬
‫‪ Development and probe of the suitability of formation, and guidance of farmers to‬‬
‫‪benefit from technological advances‬‬
‫‪ Provision of a minimum margin of profit for farmers to maintain the production cycle‬‬
‫‪and attract young generations to work in the agricultural field.‬‬
‫‪P.15, The increase of smallholders’ investment in the field of agriculture‬‬
‫‪Addendum:‬‬
‫‪Focusing on local products through investment in cooling, packing and revising the laws‬‬
‫‪regulating commercial relations‬‬
‫‪P.16, Facing the fluctuation of the food prices‬‬
‫‪Addendum: In the second line: “Including transparency in transactions related to supply and‬‬
‫”‪distribution channels in all markets‬‬
‫‪Measures for curbing fluctuation of prices‬‬
‫‪Addendum: In the third item: “Provision of improvements related to transparency, regulation‬‬
‫‪and supervision of the supply and distribution channels as well as control of agricultural‬‬
‫”‪by-product markets and establishment of good governance.‬‬
‫‪Measures for alleviating negative impact of price fluctuation‬‬
Proceedings | 81
Addendum: First item: “The state in alleviating the negative impact of the price fluctuation,
including developing national strategies that are interactive with the profession; they
should be stable and long-term for social protection; safety nets should be established and
special interest should be given to the vulnerable sectors of the population….”
P.17, Measures for alleviating the negative impacts of price fluctuation
Addendum:
Development of strategic storage mechanisms of basic commodities
P.19, Item No. 52, addendum: Discussing means of increasing local production in those
countries taking into consideration that each country has a specific nature.
Item No.53, Addendum: boosting farming machinery.
P.21, Item No.57, Addendum: last sentence: “Priority should be given to the role of general
institutions of agricultural research in reaching solutions related to the increase of the
agricultural productivity and facing the climate change; priority should also be given to the
role of Institutions of formation and guidance for the simplification of researches for
farmers”.
Item 59, Addendum: “Boosting the development of producers' organizations and active
development societies and organizations in the agricultural sector as well as boosting
their capabilities to guarantee the full participation of women farmers.”
P.23, Addendum: Item 69, line 7, addendum: “This should be achieved through the
implementation of a program based on integrated policies which, in turn, are based on
interactive principles, taking into consideration the ethical and social aspects…..
P.24, Item 70, line 4, Addendum: “Considering the possibility of setting up legal and other
mechanisms for expediting the implementation of land reclamation and boosting the chances
of the low-income people and women to get plots of land. Such mechanisms should also
focus on encouraging retention of land, their sustainable usage and avoiding the
fragmentation of land holdings. Special emphasis should be given to the condition of the
original communities.”
P.28, Item 81, Addendum: “….is to satisfy the need for joint management of transboundary
resources such as rivers, river basins, underground water, forests, pastures, and marine
resources….
P.31, Item 93, Addendum: “Local and National agricultural canals can be dug and they can
be included with old ones, in a useful way, in the food security strategies.”
23) Australian Embassy, Emily Collins, Member States
General comments
The GSF attempts to collate existing frameworks on food security, highlight action required
at country, regional and global levels, and outline the next steps to take. It thus positions
itself as the ‘top of the tree’ in terms of action on food security and nutrition.
Proceedings | 82
However, we note that the GSF is supposed to be a short, flexible and overarching
document, outlining areas of agreement and consensus. Yet as it stands, this document is:



More than 30 pages.
contains references to a range of issues with which we don’t agree and where there
is clearly no consensus
gives little indication that this process will add value on what is an already congested
issue
The document should be shorter, more succinct and less repetitive.
The GSF appears to be a time and resource intensive project. Australia encourages the CFS
to conclude it as soon as possible and move on to other substantial work projects
Australia also has some specific comments that we would like to make.
The GSF recommendations for action are broken into two sections; those to which
consensus has been reached, and areas where there are gaps in policy convergence.
In the consensus section on Actions to Reduce Price Volatility, the following actions (among
others) are recommended;


Improvements in market transparency, regulation and supervision of agriculture
derivative markets.
Relevant international organisations, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, to
further assess the constraints and effectiveness of creating and maintaining local,
national and regional food reserves.
We note that appropriate (ie minimal) regulation and supervision of agriculture derivative
markets was agreed in the G20 context.
Australia does not support inward-looking policies such as the maintenance of food
reserves, as they are market distorting and, importantly, not effective. A landmark FAO
paper from 2011 on Food Security in Volatile Global Markets (on page 225) concludes:
“[T]here is little evidence that buffer stock stabilisation did result in any significant reduction
in price volatility.”
Australia notes that we only support well managed food reserves strictly for humanitarian
purposes, not as a tool for price control.
In the gaps in consensus on policy convergence section, the following is noted;

Seeking consensus on the definitions of the concept of “food sovereignty” and the
“green economy”, and their implications for stakeholders
Proceedings | 83

Australia notes that we would object to any definition of “food sovereignty” that
explicitly or implicitly restricted trade or promoted protectionism. The remainder of the
GSF appears to be quite pro-trade, and this remains in the ‘to be agreed’ section, so
is less of a concern.
24) IBON International, Amy V. Padilla, Philippines, Civil society and nongovernmental organizations
IBON International welcomes the inclusive approach of the Committee on World Food
Security (CFS) in the development of the Global Strategic Framework (GSF) and forwards
initial comments on the first draft:
Section III: The foundations and overarching frameworks

A rights-based approach to food security as expressed in the right to food is
indispensible. To this aim, it is positive that the Voluntary Guidelines to support the
progressive realisation of the right to adequate food in the context of national food
security is included as an overarching framework. However, we recommend that the
GSF go further to include food sovereignty as part of the foundations to achieving the
right to food. Food sovereignty is a widely recognised concept, which has already
been adopted in several countries’ legislative frameworks including Bolivia, Ecuador,
Mali, Nepal, Senegal and Venezuela. It would provide for the structural causes of
poverty and hunger to be rectified by providing for national and peoples community
ownership of sustainable food production and distribution. The UN Special
Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier de Schutter, endorses local production and
self-sufficient in food production which is a key element of food sovereignty.20
Section IV. H: Tenure of Land, Fisheries and forests (para 68 – 70)
 Between 2000 and 2010, 203 million hectares of land have been subject to foreign
land acquisitions.21 These land acquisitions only fuel further food insecurity as
agricultural production is primarily intended for export and for biofuel production.
Local populations are also displaced from the targeted areas and their agricultural
"States [...] must maintain the freedom to adopt measures that protect their local
markets from the price volatility of international markets. [...] it is essential that States
have all the necessary flexibility to protect their market against sudden explosion in
importations. Supply management programs as well as other mechanisms organizing the
markets have in this perspective, an important role to play."
20
Olivier De Schutter, Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Organization on the Right
to Food, excerpts from "Le Cycle de Doha n’empêchera pas une autre crise alimentaire,
Résumé du rapport de mission auprès de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce
présenté au Conseil des droits de l’homme", Geneva, March 2009
21
W. Anseeuw, et al. 2012“Land Rights and the Rush for Land” International Land Coalition
Proceedings | 84



productivity for local markets is erased as well as increasing the number of poor and
food insecure. Ancestral domains of indigenous communities are also severely
impacted. Given the significance of these foreign land acquisitions and negative
impact on domestic food production, the absence of acknowledgement of foreign
land acquisitions in the GSF is stark.
We recommend that para. 70 on the recommendation for countries to consider
establishing legal and other policy mechanisms that advance land reform to include a
specific reference against large-scale land acquisitions which may have severe
ecological, social and economic impacts, and for those countries which already have
these mechanisms in place, a recommendation to review these policies and institute
strong regulatory mechanisms on their impact on local communities and the
environment.
Legal frameworks in the countries in question should also be strengthened to rein in
the unchecked commodification of communal natural resources.
There should also be included a recommendation that states involved in foreign land
acquisitions should review all their foreign land acquisition deals to guarantee that
there are no ecological, social and economic impacts in the country.
Section IV. I: Major Gaps in Consensus on Policy Issues




While it is of great benefit to focus on policies that can be introduced to achieve food
security, it is also necessary to consider policies that must be removed to achieve a
real balance. We thus propose that par. 73 should be amended to include the need
to remove all trade and production competition food subsidies in Northern Countries.
These subsidies fuel poverty and hunger in developing countries as subsidised
excess food is ‘dumped’ in Southern Countries at below market prices; subsidised
fishing fleets harvest all available fish stocks in national waters using unsustainable
methods that local fisherfolk cannot compete with. Harmful food subsidies need to be
expressly condemned and there should be a recommendation for their removal.
Policies which facilitate uncontrolled foreign land acquisitions should be removed.
This includes the creation of enabling legal and political environments where foreign
investors can invest in countries without any checks and balances. The unregulated
foreign investment in Southern Countries has led to excessive depletion of natural
resources including water, for example the Niger River is decreasing by 10% every
decade due to intensive agricultural practices on its banks.22
It is important to explicitly address these issues in the GSF as many Southern
Countries’ governments face strong pressure from International Financial Institutions,
International Development Agencies and foreign Governments which limit their power
to object to these policies.
Small-holder farmers are rightly recognised as an integral part of agricultural
production and should be supported. However, it is suggested that with the role of
small-holder farmers in mind there should be a stronger regulatory regime on private
investors in agriculture. This is in the context that private investors are the primary
cause of displacement of small-holder farmers, for example in major land acquisitions
and in competition for natural resources such as water.
Oakland Institute, 6 December 2011 “Understanding Land Investment Deals in Africa”,
http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/Oakland%20Institute%20Land%20Grab
%20FAQs%20EMBARGOED.pdf
22
Proceedings | 85

On price volatility, the causes of food price volatility are not adequately addressed
and this is reflected in the following actions to reduce price volatility. The factors
influencing the food price hike of 2008 were multiple but there are clear links to wild
speculation in food prices, increasing demand for grains for biofuel production and
reduced productions from the increasing frequency of extreme weather conditions. 23
Opening trade flows as suggested in para 42. is unlikely to be of any benefit to
national food production systems and it is more probable that this will have a
negative impact on local food producers who need more protection of local
production systems. Furthermore, the recommendation on biofuels should be
stronger as there are clear linkages in the food prices hikes with biofuel production.
Section V. D: Making it happen: linking Policies and Programmes with resources



Paragraph 91: International development assistance should not be premised on
conditionalities to develop national ownership as enumerated in the Paris Declaration
on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action.
Paragraph 92: loans and investments by International Financial institutions (IFIs)
should not be subject to policy conditionalities. IFIs structural adjustment
conditionalities have deepened existing food crises and in some cases caused food
crises where previously there were none. Technical assistance provided should be
demand driven and premised on selection and management of the developing
country as the primary beneficiary and all recommendations should be subject to
public consultations prior to approval in order to ensure that public interest is held
above all.
In order to achieve food security and develop sustainable agricultural systems, it is
widely accepted that there must be adequate investment into agriculture. But
previous experiences indicate that investment is limited. Public investment should
take the lead and create interest and confidence for broader agriculture investment
promotion.
Section V. E: Monitoring and Follow-up


As it is explicitly stated in par. 95, ‘accountability for results is crucial.’ However, the
approach recommended in paragraphs 95 to 101 emphasise monitoring and
evaluation but lack sufficient accountability mechanisms. Mention of accountability
systems is vague. Monitoring and evaluation strategies are useful in their own right
but are insufficient to replace accountability mechanisms in which a state must
answer to its citizens such as through public hearings and consultations. This section
could give more country and regional level examples of accountability mechanisms
including adopting legislation on the right to food and strengthening courts and other
relevant adjudicating bodies where individuals and representative bodies can further
hold the state accountable.
The GSF should include a provision recommending that all states adapt their
legislative frameworks to incorporate the right to food. This is a key step to ensuring
that states are accountable for realising citizens’ right to food.
Capacity building and awareness raising
23
IBON, 2011 “The Future of Food,” IBON EDM, Vol 10, 1, Jan – Feb 2011
Proceedings | 86

The Global Strategic Framework is unlikely to be achieved without strong support
and advocacy from civil society organisations and citizens. This requires awareness
beyond specialised government and international agencies and a more general
awareness and understanding of food security, the global strategic framework and
mechanisms for its realisation at the national level. To achieve this aim, it is
recommended that the GSF incorporate a section addressing capacity building and
awareness raising as well as mobilization of public participation at the national and
local levels.
25) Near East Civil Society Consultation on Food Security 2012, Beirut, Lebanon, Civil
society and non-governmental organizations
ّ‫ّأهمّالتوصياتّالمتعلقة‬2012ّ‫ّأيار‬5-4ّ‫لبنان‬-ّ‫الورشةّاالستشاريةّللمجتمعّالمدنيّالعربيّحولّاألمنّالغذائيّوالتغذيةّبيروت‬
ّ5-4ّ‫لبنان‬-ّ‫باالطارّاالستراتيجيّالمنبثقةّعنّالورشةّاالستشاريةّللمجتمعّالمدنيّالعربيّحولّاألمنّالغذائيّوالتغذيةّفيّبيروت‬
ّ‫ّاعتمادّمبدأ‬.1ّ:‫ّوّأجمعّعليهاّالمشاركونّالذيّبلغّعددهمّأكثرّمنّخمسّوّثالثينّمشاركّمنّستةّعشردولةّعدة‬2012ّ‫أيار‬
ّ‫ّالتأكيدّعلىّمبدأّالتنوعّالزراعي‬.3ّ.‫ّإزالةّالتوصياتّالخاصةّبتطبيقّاتفاقاتّتحريرّالتجارة‬.2ّ.ّ‫السيادةّعلىّالغذاءّكمبدأّأساسي‬
ّ‫ّتعتبرّاألزماتّوالحروبّمن‬.5ّ.‫ّتبنيّمفهومّتخضيرّاالقتصادّوليسّاقتصادّجديدّاخضر‬.4ّ.ّ‫فيّمقابلّالزراعةّاألحادية‬
ّ‫ّتبنيّمفهومّالحياديةّوّالعدالةّفيّالتعاطيّمع‬.‫ّأ‬:‫األسبابّالرئيسيةّلتدهورّاألمنّالغذائيّوالتغذيةّفيّالمنطقةّوعليةّفإنناّنطالب‬
ّ‫ّضرورةّإشراكّمؤسساتّالمجتمعّالمدنيّالمتخصصةّوقطاعاتّاألخرىّالمتأِثرةّبطريقةّمنهجيةّفيّمرحلةّوضع‬.‫ّب‬.‫األزمات‬
ّ‫ّعدمّتضمينّالدعمّالتنمويّعلىّشروطّتمتهنّكرامةّاإلنسانّفيّظلّالحصارات‬.‫ّت‬.‫األولوياتّوّالتحليلّووضعّالمعاير‬
ّ‫ّواعتبارّموضوعّالحروب‬،"‫ّالفصلّبينّالكوارثّالطبيعيةّوبينّالتيّهيّمنّصنعّاإلنسانّ"كالصراعاتّوالحروب‬.‫ّث‬.‫والحروب‬
ّ‫ّتضمينّاالطارّاالستراتيجيّبنداّيحثّعلىّالبحثّعنّاألسبابّالجذرية‬.‫ّج‬.‫والصراعاتّموضوعّمنّضمنّاألزماتّالممتدة‬
.‫ّمعّالزامّالجهةّالمسببةّللضررّالتبعاتّالقانونيةّوّتبنيّمبدأّالتعويض‬،ّ‫للحروبّوالصراعاتّوصوالّاليجادّحلولّعادلهّلها‬
English translation
Key recommendations related to the strategic framework issued by the consultative
workshop of Arab civil society on food security and nutrition, Lebanon 4-5 March 2012.
The 35 Participants from 16 countries unanimously agreed on:
1- Ratification of the principle of food sovereignty as a key principle.
2- Abrogation of the recommendations related to the application of the trade
liberalization agreements.
3- Stressing the principle of agricultural diversification versus one-crop agriculture.
4- Adopting the concept of greening the economy instead of adopting a new green
economy.
5- Crises and wars are some of the main reasons of the deterioration of food security
and nutrition in the region. Therefore, we demand the following: A- Being neutral and
fair in dealing with crises. B- The necessity of the involvement of the specialized civil
society institutions and other relevant sectors in a systematic way in the stage of
prioritization, analysis and setting up criteria. C- The development subsidy should
not entail conditions that humiliate individuals under siege or wars. D- Separation
between natural disasters and man-made disasters such as “conflicts and wars” and
Proceedings | 87
considering wars and conflicts as extended crises. E- Inclusion of an item in the
strategic framework to stress on the idea of looking for the key roots of wars and
conflicts so as to be able to find fair solutions to them, while obligating the party
causing damage to bear the legal consequences and incur the compensation.
26) Concern Worldwide, Thompson Jennifer, Ireland, Civil society and nongovernmental organizations
Concern Worldwide welcomes the development of the Global Strategic Framework. It is a
central component and tool to realizing the vision of the Committee on World Food Security
(CFS) as well as to ensure achievement of its mandate. The First Draft of the Global
Strategic Framework (GSF) outlines the comprehensive vision of the CFS as the foremost
inclusive forum for global governance of food security and nutrition, with the GSF providing
an overarching framework to guide and enhance coordination and coherence. As such, it is
important that the GSF clearly states that it should serve as a guide for ALL stakeholders
that have a role in ensuring food and nutrition security. This includes the private sector,
multilateral institutions and international organizations and civil society.
1. Does the First draft present key issues of food security and nutrition on which there
is broad regional and international consensus?
i) The first draft contains a much greater focus on nutrition than previous iterations, which is
very welcome and highlights the growing recognition within the CFS of the importance of
nutrition and its integration within a comprehensive approach to realising the right to food for
all. As such, Concern feels it would be important to make reference to the Scaling Up
Nutrition (SUN) movement (potentially in both section III and V). Over 100 agencies and
organisations have endorsed the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Framework and roadmap. SUN
represents an unprecedented global consensus and effort to improve maternal and child
nutrition during the window of opportunity, from a woman’s pregnancy to a child’s second
birthday. It incorporates and embodies a number of the components that are already
highlighted in the First Draft, such as a twin track approach, and the need to address
nutrition concerns through both direct interventions and through the adoption of nutrition
sensitive approaches. The SUN focuses on implementing evidenced-based direct nutrition
interventions and aims to address the underlying causes of food security and nutrition by
integrating nutrition goals into broader efforts in critical sectors such as health, social
protection, and agriculture.
In addition, as a movement, SUN brings organizations from across all relevant sectors
together to support national plans to scale up nutrition. Central to the SUN Framework is the
recognition that the real work will take place, and needs to take place, at the country level.
Emphasis is given in the First Draft to the importance of strengthening multi-stakeholder and
inter-ministerial mechanisms, establishing networks of stakeholders and accountability
structures to take responsibility for nutrition commitments and objectives, as well as to high
level political commitment to ensuring sustainable efforts to address malnutrition. The SUN
Proceedings | 88
provides an example of how stakeholders are combining efforts to realise and maintain
these crucial elements.
ii) More emphasis and clarity should be given to the social determinants of
malnutrition, including access to safe water and sanitation, maternal and child care, and
quality health care, reflecting the multiple and connected causes of malnutrition as laid out
for example in the UNICEF causal framework on malnutrition. Gender equality is also
imperative in making progress on undernutrition. The health and social aspects as well as
gender inequality in relation to nutrition status should be brought out more in section II. It
would add clarity for the GSF to state that the scope of the framework is to look at food
security and nutrition, and in this context it will help ensure that nutrition includes these
social determinants.
iii) The World Health Assembly is shortly to adopt an implementation plan on Maternal,
Infant and Young Child Feeding (at the end of the WHA in May). Several global targets will
be included in the plan. It would be useful to refer to this initiative underway.
iv) Sustained political commitment and reporting against these commitments will be
imperative to tackle the scourge of food and nutrition insecurity facing the world today.
Commitments on food security were made at the G8 summit in L’Aquilla in 2009,
Sustainable Development Goals will be discussed at the Rio +20 conference in June, and
discussions are already underway in relation to a post 2015 framework when the deadline
for achievement of the MDGs is reached. The failure of donors to deliver on their past
commitments needs to be addressed (this issue could potentially be addressed and reflected
in section V C). Given the various initiatives underway, it is important that food security
and nutrition remains a priority on the political agenda, that donors recognise the
need, and seize the opportunity for, a new multilateral commitment on food security
and nutrition.
v) It has become increasingly recognised that there is lack of coordination and flow between
interventions and funding for emergencies and longer term development measured against
food and nutrition security targets. The recurrent use of food aid with insufficient
attention given to how this undermines or reinforces local agricultural resilience and
local initiative serves to exacerbate and cause food insecurity. Much greater attention
and resources should be given to ensuring effective post-emergency rehabilitation to ensure
that local agricultural resilience and local initiative are strengthened. The continuing use of
donor sourced food aid can undermine these efforts and should be avoided in these
situations. When relief activities are tied to development objectives, development
programmes can serve to protect people’s assets more effectively and reduce the need for
relief in response to shocks.
In addition, emergency food assistance should be carefully integrated into national food and
nutrition security plans to ensure that food or food-related transfers do not undermine
other aspects of food security and take account of the importance of ensuring nutritional
Proceedings | 89
status of women and children is protected and considered in emergency as well as
development contexts.
The GSF should further consider the type and quality of emergency interventions
such as food transfers, as well as the modalities of interventions (vouchers/cash/direct
food, reserves), recognizing the potential and preference for a move towards cash where
there are functioning markets in order to strengthen local markets.
These above points should be stressed particularly in section V covering uniting and
organising to fight hunger.
vi) Concern welcomes the recognition of social protection as a key pillar in addressing the
underlying causes of nutrition and food security, as well as the acknowledgment of the need
to move from adhoc, stand alone, donor-driven programmes towards social protection
systems. Also welcome is the recognition to move from emergency transfers to long term,
predictable assistance with a focus on vulnerable groups. The GSF appears to focus mainly
on social assistance however. The CFS should in addition, explore the opportunities and
potential of social insurance mechanisms such as weather-index micro-insurance for
small holder farmers. Linked to this – it would be important to emphasise social protection
in light of the increasing frequency and severity of shocks related to a changing climate. The
opportunity that the GSF presents should be used to emphasise the protective,
preventative, promotive and transformative benefits of social protection, and the
importance of policy linkages to ensure these benefits are leveraged (e.g. social
protection plus policies supporting vocational training and employment to enable realisation
of ‘promotion’ (i.e. cash transfers support households to increase their productive or
economic potential).
vii) We welcome the point on social protection scale-up in an emergency. For this to happen
smoothly there is a need for delivery systems to be accessible to the poorest. Electronic
payment systems are proven effective but their reach remains limited in many rural areas. It
would be good for the CFS to recognise this and to make comment as to if and how they
could have a role in leveraging for systems development.
Cash transfers are proving to be a more appropriate modality than food aid for achieving
food security. Many donors and humanitarian agencies are increasingly using cash transfers
as a form of food assistance in times of humanitarian emergency24. Under the right
conditions and with functioning markets, cash can assist extremely poor and vulnerable
households to meet basic needs, and prevent negative coping strategies, such as selling
assets, removing children from school, or pursuing risky ways to earn money. A review of
cash transfers by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) shows that
households receiving cash transfers are likely to spend it on improving the quantity and
24
Harvey P. et al, Food Aid and Food Assistance in Emergency and Transitional Contexts: A Review
of Current Thinking, Overseas Development Institute: London, 2010
Proceedings | 90
quality of food consumed25. In Zimbabwe and Malawi, Concern also found that cash transfer
recipients consistently consumed higher-quality diets than those who received in-kind food
aid26. While the evidence is mixed for improving nutrition through cash transfers in
emergency contexts, results from Concern’s interventions in Niger indicate that cash plus
other interventions, such as Community Management of Acute Malnutrition may be more
likely to be successful since they address the multiple underlying causes of malnutrition.
viii) Throughout the document social protection is used interchangeably with ‘safety nets’.
This should be removed. It has connotations of emergency assistance and of protection only
– whereas social protection is more than just a safety net.
ix) In relation to past experiences and lessons learned, this section would be enhanced by
making it more evidence-based, with footnotes to illustrate where data and statements have
been used. Great examples from Brazil, Mexico and Ghana are missing here where
governments have successfully reduced food insecurity and undernutrition.
2. Does the list of areas where there are gaps in policy convergence that may be
addressed in future versions of the GSF need to be amended?
i) Throughout the document the terms ‘food security and nutrition’ are continuously used.
However, while a definition for ‘food security’ is provided, there is no clear definition for
‘nutrition’ ‘undernutrition’ or ‘nutrition security’. The interlinkages and distinctions between
the terms are not clear and each term contains differing meaning. At the 37th Session of the
CFS, called on the Bureau to propose options on the meaning and different uses, if any, of
the terms "Food Security", "Food Security and Nutrition", "Food and Nutrition Security" and
"Nutrition Security" to the CFS Session for the standardization of the official terminology that
the Committee should use.' (CFS/37, 2011). Reference should be made to this ongoing
discussion and upcoming decision on nutrition terminology. This will be necessary for
ensuring that the agreed standardised term will be used in subsequent versions of the GSF
as well as in other policy documents stemming from the work of the CFS.
ii) The First Draft highlights a number of areas where there has been insufficient attention
given to creating an environment conducive to robust food security. Among this list, the lack
of integrated programming and approaches that persists, should be added, which serves to
limit holistic responses to food security and nutrition.
An additional area that would be important to include under this section would be the role of
the private sector and multilateral organisations in addressing food security and nutrition,
25
UK Department for International Development, Cash Transfers Evidence Paper, DFID: London,
2011
Devereux S. et al., An Evaluation of Concern Worldwide’s Dowa Emergency Cash Transfer Project
(DECT) in Malawi 2006/2007, Concern Worldwide: Dublin, 2007 and E.R. Roman, Zimbabwe
Emergency Cash Transfer Pilot Program (ZECT): Monitoring Consolidated Report, November 2009 to
March 2010, Concern Worldwide and the World Food Program, 2010
26
Proceedings | 91
recognising that the private sector is a heterogeneous group, and the need for regulation to
ensure that private sector investments and actions have optimum positive effect, are
conducted in a transparent way, and ensure any potential negative impacts are avoided.
26) APRODEV working group on Trade, Food Security and Gender, Gunnel Axelsson
Nycander, Sweden, Civil society and non-governmental organizations
1. Does the First Draft present key issues of food security and nutrition on which
there is broad regional and international consensus?
In broad terms yes, the First draft presents the key issues in a good way. I especially
welcome the reference to IAASTD, along with other important documents (para 11 and 13)
and the list of lessons learned (para 21). Para 32 on medium/long term actions to address
the root causes of hunger is short but still captures the key actions that are needed.
However, there are also some important gaps. First, to the list of structural causes of hunger
(para 19), not enough attention is paid to environmental issues such as degraded soil,
reduced biodiversity and degradation of several other ecosystem services on which
agricultural production is dependent. As for now, degraded eco-systems are only mentioned
in the context of climate change, not as a cause in its own right.
Likewise, in the list of emerging challenges (para 20), I would like to see the following
challenges added:
- The loss of soil fertility, as well as several other ecosystem services on which agricultural
production is dependent.
- The need to reduce GHG emissions from agriculture.
Similarly, the paras on increasing agricultural productivity in a socially, economically and
environmentally sustainable manner (para 57-58) lack a recognition and analysis of the
severe environmental problems resulting from current (unsustainable) agricultural practices.
Second, to the list of lessons learnt (para 21) we would like to add that cash transfers in the
context of social protection systems have proved to be effective in reducing malnutrition and
poverty.
Third, the recognition that “agro-ecological approaches have proved to be key to improving
agricultural sustainability as well as the incomes of food producers and their resilience in the
face of climate change” (para 21, lessons learned) should be reflected in the
recommendations. I therefore suggest
- A direct reference to agro-ecological approaches in the second bullet point of para 39 (list
of actions needed to increase smallholder-sensitive investment in agriculture).
- add an extra bullet point in para 59: “Promote the use of agro-ecological approaches that
are key to improving agricultural sustainability as well as the incomes of food producers.”
Proceedings | 92
Finally, the recognition of the potential of agro-ecological approaches, as well as of IAASTD
findings about the need for more inclusive and participatory agricultural research and
development, should be reflected in the recommendations on agricultural research and
innovation. I therefore suggest that in the context of research and development (para 39, last
bullet point and para 40, second bullet point) it is stated that there is a need for increased
research about agro-ecological approaches, and that in order to be relevant for farmers and
local conditions, research and development need to involve farmers to a greater degree than
previously.
Similarly, in para 59 it should be added (fifth bullet) that publicly funded research and
extension services need to prioritise the development and promotion of low external input
technologies that are environmentally sustainable and profitable for the individual farmer, but
where there are few companies that have a business interest in promoting the technologies.
Along the same lines, in para 86, we suggest the following addition: “…capacity
development and transfer of technology, especially low external input sustainable agriculture
and agro-ecological approaches”.
2. Does the list of areas where there are gaps in policy convergence that may be
addressed in future versions of the GSF need to be amended?
I would suggest the following areas to be added to the list:
- The relative priority that should be put on research, development and extension on low
external input and agro-ecological approaches vis a vis high input, conventional industrial
farming models.
- Whether agricultural production based on agro-ecological approaches would be sufficient
to feed the world population today and in the future.
- Whether dietary habits, especially as regards meet consumption, will have to be changed
in order for the future challenges of climate change mitigation, increasing competition for
land and other natural resources, and food security to be met.
- The degree to which unfair trade rules, unfair trade practices and unethical business
practices contribute to hunger.
A few specific comments:
Para 35. In the para on social protection, a reference to the Social Protection Floor Initiative
should be made.
Para 52 (first bullet): “Improved analysis and understanding of countries’ and local
populations’ need will be instrumental….”
Proceedings | 93
Para 53 (third bullet): “…e.g. through conservation agriculture and agro-ecological
approaches”
Para 93. I suggest the following addition: “Local and national bank, including microfinance
institutions may be usefully involved…”
Ms Gunnel Axelsson Nycander, May 11th
Policy Adviser on food security, Church of Sweden
Chair of APRODEV working group on Trade, Food Security and Gender
Member of Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance (EAA) Food Strategy Group
27) Kwesi Atta-Krah, Bioversity International, Italy, International Agricultural Research
Institution
I do share the view that the Global Strategic Framework on Food Security and Nutrition
needs to build upon previous work done in context of CFS and other sources of relevance to
global food and nutrition security. However, there needs to be a balance in how these
existing instruments are mainstreamed into the GSF. The current version of the GSF looks
more like a compilation of key decisions and recommendations of existing initiatives and
programmes. This appears to be in line with the guideline (bullet 1) that the “… the first
Version (of the GSF) should therefore focus on the most important agreed decisions
and frameworks”. Unfortunately, this way, the GSF becomes a summary of various
decisions and CFS instruments on food security and nutrition, rather than a central cohesive
framework.
My problem is that the document, as it presently stands doesn’t seem to have a ‘heart’. It
has a lot of hands and legs – and probably also a stomach; but I am missing the heart! The
heart of the framework must be the central frame, to which relevant existing instruments and
initiatives could be aligned. Without such a central ‘frame’, the draft document does indeed
look like a compendium of food and nutrition security agreements and documents, with
diverse foci and recommendations. The closest the document comes to producing a ‘heart’
is Section IV on “Policy, Programme and other Recommendations”. These programmes and
recommendations are organized according to a number of selected studies and existing
instruments (VGRtF, RAI, Food Price Volatility, Gender in Food Security and Nutrition,
Tenure of Lands, Fisheries and Forests, etc.). These are all useful for the GSF, but I think
they need to be structured differently, such hthat key elemnst from these may contribute or
align with the framework. Merely listing them and providing summaries of what they consist
of, does not amount to a framework, in my opinion.
I must apologize for putting things in such a blunt manner; but let me go on and attempt to
make some suggestions. First I will suggest a slight modification (rearrangement) in the
structure of the document. Subsequently, I would attempt to answer the specific questions
that have been requested to be answered:
PART 1
With regard to the overall flow of the document, I would like to propose some changes in the
current content flow:
Proceedings | 94
Section 1 on Introduction and Background – This should consist of
 CFS: should begin with the CFS and its reform outcomes (as indicated in
paragraphs 6-9), and leading to the need for a GSF
 GSF: Introduce the GSF (as currently attempted in paras 3,4 and 5; and also in
para 10 and first line of para 11). The section should also answer the question “What
is the GSF?” - I do not see that clearly in these sections. Perhaps one could say
something like: The GSF is a holistic multi-stakeholder framework of agreed
priorities, programmatic components and implementation strategies, for ensuring
effective policies and programmes in support of global food and nutrition security at
all levels.
Section 2:
Food Security and Nutrition
It is important to give adequate visibility to this as it is the principal theme of the GSF
document.
 This section should introduce the Food Security concept and its association with
Nutrition. It will include some of the content under heading of “Definitions” in current
document.
 It could also borrow content from the very useful historical trend analysis done by the
CFS Food Security Terminology Task Team (not in terms of their recommendation,
but the factual and historical account given)
 The root causes of hunger and challenges ahead: This should reflect the three
aspects indicated in current Section II, but with each of them critically reviewed to
reduce overlaps and make them more targeted and much fewer than current listing.
Section 3:
Overarching Frameworks related to Food and Nutrition Security
 This is currently covered in section III, and in part, also in section IV. There needs to
be some discussion on which frameworks need mention and introduction in this
section. My suggestion is that it is useful to mention a broad number of frameworks,
with a brief introduction of each, but not getting into the details of principles, actions,
recommendations, etc.
 I suggest that the UN HLTF Comprehensive Framework for Action could also be
added
 These frameworks are to be presented as building blocks taken into account in the
development of the GSF. None of the frameworks by themselves provide “an overall
framework for food security and nutrition” as indicated for the VGRtF (see para 23).
The GSF when put together will provide the overall framework on food security and
nutrition – and it will be influenced by a number of existing frameworks and initiatives.
Section 4:
The Elements of the GSF
(Sections 4 and 5 constitute the ‘heart’ of the framework. Section 4 describes the vision,
purpose and principles of the GSF; while section 5 will deal with the programmatic frame for
the GSF)
 Statement/Description of the GSF vision on:
o The state of global food and nutrition security that we expect to see (2020?
2050?)
o The role and contribution of CFS and its contribution to global food security
 The nature and purpose of the GSF (points below are just examples, for illustration):
o To be a living and strategic instrument to guide policy and programming in
food and nutrition security at country and global levels
Proceedings | 95
o

To provide guidance on elements for incorporation in national and regional
food and nutrition security strategies
o To guide the functioning and the monitoring of CFS food security activities
Principles and Lessons Learnt
o These would include underlying principles driving the GSF as well as Lessons
Learnt from previous experience
o The principles section should borrow from some of the overarching
frameworks, described in sections III and IV of the current draft. They could
include issues like:
 Nutrition as core part of food security; there cannot be food security
without nutrition
 Attaining FN security involves more than just agriculture; it requires
multi-sectoral approach at all levels
 Sustainability should be a key component in agriculture and food
security programs, at all levels (smallholder and large scale initiatives)
 Etc., etc.
Section 5:
o
o
o
o
Programmatic Components of GSF
The twin-track approach:
 Direct immediate action
 Medium / Long term action
Production at multiple levels/systems
 Smallholder systems
 Medium/Large scale intensive production systems
Crosscutting elements with relevance at all scales of production:
 Dealing with nutrition
 Sustainability / environment al health
 Resilience of systems and livelihood options
 Productivity and production /
 Loses and wastage in agriculture and food systems / IPM,
postharvest, etc.
 Value chain / markets / processing
 Policies; Etc., etc.
Implementation Issues
 Smallholder farmers
 Gender and women
 Youth in agriculture
 Etc., etc.
Section 6:
Uniting and Organizing to Fight Hunger (based on section V of current draft)
PART 2
In the second part of my commentary, I wish to do what we were requested to do in the first
place: focus comments on the specific questions posed.
Question 1: Does the First Draft present key issues of food security and nutrition on
which there is broad regional and international consensus?
Yes, I think it does. However, as explained above, I am uncomfortable with the way it has
been packaged, simply as a compilation of various decisions and study recommendations
from past CFS documents.
Proceedings | 96
Question 2: Does the list of areas where there are gaps in policy convergence that may
be addressed in future versions of the GSF need to be amended?
Yes. I believe gaps in policy convergence implies that there are opposing positions on those
issues. An example would be the role of biotechnology, or more specifically GMOs, in
contributing to food security. However the listing in the document includes a number of
issues on which there is no gap in policy convergence, but rather lack of implementation, or
a gap in implementation. Some examples of the latter are ‘need for a value-chain approach’,
the ‘need to boost rural employment’, ‘finding ways to improve effectiveness of regional
organizations’ etc. I do not think these fit under GAPS IN POLICY CONVERGENCE. They
are probably areas requiring more efforts in implementation or in policy action!
Question 3: Does the document have sufficient practical regional and country-level
relevance? Can you suggest improvements?
Yes. All the issues raised have practical regional and country level relevance. Additionally
the paragraph 78 of the draft document “Core actions at country level” provides a set of
recommendations that could be considered by countries. Similar set is developed for the
regions in paragraphs 79-84. The two sets would need to be further refined to make them
come out as proposals for action, upon which monitoring could be done in the fute.
Question 4: How can the GSF be linked to regional and national food security and
nutrition frameworks and strategies, and accountability and monitoring mechanisms,
in ways that promote two-way coordination and convergence?
If the GFS is successful in highlighting key priorities of relevance to countries and regions,
and also providing strategic direction in support of food and nutrition security development, it
will be actively sought and used by countries as reference document and as model and
guide. The usefulness of the GSF would be defined on the basis of its use by countries.
The GSF could also include some indicators that could be used to assess the value and
usefulness of the instrument.
Conclusion
The Task Team has done a good job at highlighting the key issues and putting it all together
into this Draft. I believe that comments received from various sources will add even more
value to the document and orient it towards becoming a holistic framework on Food and
Nutrition Security for the CFS.
28) CSM Working Group on GSF, Martin Wolpold-Bosien, Germany, Civil society and
non-governmental organizations
Best greetings again from the CSM Task Team on the GSF. Please find enclosed the final
version of the Contributions from CSO consultations at regional conferences on the GSF
First Draft.
The document is a synthesis from civil society contributions to the questions raised by the
CFS Secretariat on the GSF first draft online consultation. A Draft version was already
posted on this platform by Natalia Landívar on May 9.
Proceedings | 97
It is the result from contributions compiled during civil society consultations held in the frame
of FAO regional conferences in March and April. A range of civil society actors had the
opportunity to hold regionally specific discussions in Hanoi, Buenos Aires, Baku and
Brazzaville on the main aspects of the GSF first draft based on a summary assessment
prepared by the CSM Working Group on GSF. The contributions from the Beirut meeting
were posted directly to the online consultation website, in Arabic language.
The purpose of this synthesis is to support the CFS secretariat with a precise and
comprehensive document, by:
a) Identifying the main common points of concern and joint proposals of civil society
organizations gathered at the regional consultations regarding the GSF, along the lines of
the four questions raised by the secretariat (Page 2-16);
b) Compiling in the annexes of this document the different documents that have been
elaborated by members of the CSM working group on GSF or by the regional consultations
of civil society, with particular relevance for the GSF draft two (page 17-52).
http://km.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CFS_consultation/file_comments/CONTRIBUTIONS
%20FROM%20CSO%20CONSULTATIONS%20TO%20THE%20GSF%20FIRST%20DRAF
T-%20FINAL.pdf
29) Berne Declaration, Biovision – Foundation for Ecological Development, Bread for
All, Swissaid, Michael Brander, Switzerland, Civil society and non-governmental
organizations
In line with the “Guidance Note for the review of the First Draft of the Global Strategic
Framework for Food Security and Nutrition (GSF) at the 2012 FAO Regional Conferences”;,
the undersigned Civil Society Organizations from Switzerland, bring the following messages
to your attention. We broadly support the “Summary assessment of GSF first draft from a
civil society perspective”, developed by the Civil Society Mechanism available online. In
addition to these more detailed messages, we would like to invite you to consider inclusion
of these aspects in your position as appropriate.
Please follow below link for detailed comments.
http://km.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CFS_consultation/file_comments/Reaction%20to%2
0GSF%20of%20the%20CFS%20First%20Draft_Updated_Version.pdf
30) International Agri-Food Network on behalf of Private Sector Mechanism, Robynne
Anderson, Private sector associations and philanthropic foundations
Proceedings | 98
Dear Moderator,
Important gains have been made on coherence on global process regarding food security.
The Global Strategic Framework is an effort to bring those agreements together in one
place. There is an emerging consensus on the need to redirect efforts to farming and fill the
gap of many years of neglect for the sector in development assistance and national budgets.
Thank you to all for their efforts to compile this document
1- As per its mandate stated in paragraph 1, the International Agri-Food Network would
like to re-emphasise that the role of the Global Strategic Framework is to provide a
compilation of existing decisions. In that light, we would recommend that it references
existing UN agreed language, rather than language from non-agreed documents. For
instance, paragraphs 69 and 70 should be replaced by language from the Voluntary
Guidelines on Land Tenure, which the CFS just finalised.
2- In the same vein, reports and documents referenced in the text should be those that
represent consensus among UN members. There are several mentions of reports,
such as the ICARRD and IAASTD in paragraphs 11, 13, 36, 69 and 70, which are not
UN consensus documents. In addition, the reference to these documents excludes
mention of several other useful reports – such as the Foresight Report or the World
Bank Development Report of 2008 – which should also be considered if those other
reports are mentioned.
3- Furthermore, we would suggest that in the interest of ensuring the Global Framework
does fulfil its purpose as stated in paragraph one, that it is to compile agreed
decisions, the section on ‘gaps’ (paragraphs 71-74) is not appropriate. Listing nonagreed items does not help achieve consensus or build a strong framework focused
on action.
4- The Network suggests that further emphasis on building long-term resilience, with
particular focus on women farmers, and on restoring and strengthening knowledge
sharing mechanisms such as extension services, would be positive and should be
taken up more fully in the text.
Line by line comments were submitted last month to the secretariat during the course of the
regional meetings.
Best regards,
Robynne Anderson
Secretariat to the International Agri-Food Network
31) Deputy Permanent Representation of Ireland to FAO, Jarlath O’ Connor, Member
States
Proceedings | 99
Ireland welcomes the publication of the first draft of the Global Strategic Framework for Food
Security and Nutrition, which is to become the single reference for core priorities in relation
to food and nutrition security. It is important that this document be a dynamic instrument that
reflects the changing nature of global challenges. It is also important to include civil society
in the formulation of this document. This is one way that future editions of the GSF will add
value. We would like it to become a useful tool for decision-makers and policy makers in
donor countries and development agencies. An executive summary and a concluding
chapter that prioritises recommendations and expands on the required next steps would also
help to add value and to make the document more user-friendly.
Nutrition
There is much in the current draft in support of the right to adequate nutrition (e.g. in
paragraphs 34, 44, 47, and 63). We note, however that the definitions of the right to
adequate food used in paragraphs 14 and 15 do not include any mention of nutrition. The
CSF definition is broader than this and there is currently a discussion process to re-define
the terminology. Nutrition security includes the right to an adequate diet or to nutritionally
adequate foods, providing all the nutritional elements an individual requires to live a healthy
and active life, and the means to access them.
Precise definitions are required in the definitions section for the terms ‘food security’
‘nutrition security’ (paragraph 63) and ‘food and nutrition security’ (paragraphs 26 & 38)
‘malnutrition’ (paragraphs 1, 5, 18-21, 31, 35, 46, 61, 72, 75-77, 94 & 98) and ‘undernutrition’
(paragraphs 12, 63 & 90).
Malnutrition in children leads to many other problems, including stunted growth, poor
educational attainment and lower future labour productivity. The CSF definition of food
security recognises the role played by nutrition. However, we would like to see this role
given a more prominent position by the use of the term ‘food and nutrition security’. ‘Food
and nutrition security’ is, therefore, a broader and more holistic term than food security and
adds the aspects of caring practices and health services and healthy environments to the
food security definition and concept. In other words, as stated in paragraph 65, we want to
“give the nutrition dimension more visibility”. In this context we welcome the work of the CSF
in analysing the terminology and we look forward to a suitable definition in the near future.
Dealing with the causes
The GSF sets out clearly (in paragraph 19) the main causes of hunger and malnutrition.
Many of these are being addressed by the CFS. The Voluntary Guidelines on Land Tenure
will increase security for smallholders, particularly women farmers. The reform of the FAO
will tackle some of the lack of coherence in policymaking. But there is still insufficient
attention paid to the role of women and the many forms of legal and cultural discrimination
they suffer. A lack of purchasing power, political instability, weak institutions and nutrition
insecurity are also serious challenges. The Rapid Response Forum will seek to address
some of these issues in areas of natural hazard or disaster. But Ireland also holds strongly
to the principle that ‘prevention is better than cure’. For this reason the ‘Scaling Up
Nutrition’ (SUN) initiative is critical to eliminating the many consequences of nutrition deficits.
We also recognise the importance of access for smallholder farmers, especially women, to
well-functioning markets and trade. This should include training and investment to reduce
the high levels of post-harvest losses and food waste. And of course local communities
must be closely involved in the design, planning and implementation of programmes.
Smallholder farmers, many of whom are women, play a central role in producing most of the
food consumed locally. The FAO report on the role of women in agriculture shows clearly
Proceedings | 10
0
that assisting women farmers could substantially increase the amount of locally-available
food.
Education
Ireland believes that helping smallholders to help themselves is a vital part of any food and
nutrition security strategy. Smallholders need assistance in implementing technology,
preserving the environment, eliminating food and post-harvest waste and finding routes to
market. Such training can include dealing with food markets, transportation, processing and
the formation of partnerships and farmer cooperatives. Ireland has unique experience in
building cooperatives and in this year of the cooperative we would like to promote this model
as a dynamic way for smallholders to meet the challenges of harvesting, storing, processing
and marketing their produce.
Increasing agricultural productivity
Paragraph 59 should highlight the need for biofortification and encourage smallholder
farmers to diversify to more nutritious crops and to use climate-smart techniques such as
drip-irrigation. We welcome the prominence given in this first draft to the need to support
agricultural research. However, more emphasis should be placed on putting agricultural
research outputs into practice through building partnerships between smallholder farmers
organisations/associations, research organisations, non-governmental organisations and the
private sector.
Economic impact
A new paragraph could be inserted before the current paragraph 60 to explain the economic
case for investing in nutrition. This should emphasise the fact that nutrition plays a
fundamental role in economic growth and development. Many countries lose 2-3% of their
gross domestic product to undernutrition. Children achieve less at school and their
productivity and health in adult life is affected. Adults affected by undernutrition earn up to
20% less. Up to one in three people are estimated to suffer from ‘hidden hunger’ in some
regions, resulting in impaired mental development, disease and death Therefore, in global
terms, billions of dollars are lost in forgone productivity and avoidable health care spending.
Reducing volatility
Ireland supports the AMIS and Rapid Response Forum initiatives agreed by the G20 last
year. These initiatives will help in planning for shortages and targeting aid where it is most
needed. Ireland is concerned about price volatility and its impact on food production.
Farmers will not produce if they don’t know whether they can sell their products. They are
suffering from high input costs, for feed, fertilizers, pesticides and energy. These high costs
mean that farmers are not benefiting from high commodity prices. If prices are volatile,
farmers cannot plan their costs and their production. Sustainable input prices and less
volatile agricultural commodity markets are essential for food and nutrition security. In
addition, high input costs will particularly affect women farmers where they have difficulty in
accessing credit.
Gender in food and nutrition security
The FAO estimates that the undernourishment in developing countries could be lowered by
12-17% if the gap between men and women in access to inputs was eliminated. In addition,
Women generally suffer more from undernutrition than men. But a women’s nutritional
status is critical not just to her own health and ability to maintain a secure livelihood. Babies
in the womb must be properly nourished and the first 1,000 days of a child’s life are critical in
terms of nutrition. Ireland strongly supports measures to improve nutrition and to ensure
equal access to productive resources for women. Laws are not enough in this regard
Proceedings | 10
1
without compliance monitoring. In addition there are indicators that could be used to monitor
progress, such as improvements in nutritional outcomes, gender impact assessments,
targeting education programmes to the needs of women, ensuring access to credit and
supporting cooperatives with female involvement at all levels. We encourage the use of
consistent references throughout the document to both “access and control of” resources
such as land and credit as we know that although women may formally have access to a
resource, in reality they might not have a role in decision-making on how that resource is
used.
Core actions
Although the GSF provides recommendations for governments, Ireland believes that Civil
Society must also look to this section for guidance as to best practice. In particular, the
recommendation to “incorporate…. objectives, targets, benchmarks and timeframes as well
as actions to formulate policies, identify and mobilize resources, define institutional
mechanisms, allocate responsibilities, coordinate the activities of different actors and provide
for monitoring mechanisms” could also apply to NGO’s, who are after all partners with
governments in the CSF. Providing assistance is only half of the battle. Monitoring
outcomes to improve future projects is also essential. Indeed, the same recommendation
could be made in relation to gender assessment, given that sex-disaggregated data is so
scarce.
Improving global support
It is envisaged that the GSF will highlight other issues of importance where currently no
universal or broad consensus exists as yet, where further work is needed and where there
are gaps in policy convergence. Ireland believes that the SUN initiative should be included in
paragraph 86 as a key element to ensure food and nutrition security. Suggestions for
wording could include:


Scaling Up Nutrition: Countries with high burdens of undernutrition should join the
SUN movement, commit to scale up their efforts to combat undernutrition, and raise
the profile of nutrition within their respective national strategies and programmes,
aligning their resources accordingly. Donor governments and other relevant
stakeholders should also become actively involved in the SUN movement, to
coordinate their efforts to respond to country requests for support to scale up
nutrition, and to increase their financial and technical support.
Cross-cutting measures: Countries should adopt a multi-sector approach that
integrates nutrition across multiple sectors - including agriculture, health, water and
sanitation, social protection and education - to achieve improved nutrition outcomes
at household level; and
In this regard, Ireland strongly advocates for the inclusion of a paragraph on the SUN
movement in that part of the GSF which highlights other issues of importance on which no
universal consensus exists as of yet. There are already 30 countries supporting the SUN
initiative and the broad principles of the initiative– finding successful ways to end world
hunger - are the same as that of the GSF.
Achieving results
We are happy to see, in paragraph 95, the statement that “Accountability for results is
crucial” and also that “objectives to be monitored should include nutritional outcomes”. The
principles set out in the following paragraphs are helpful. The need for sex-disaggregated
data is also mentioned in paragraph 96. We are also happy that results-based management
principles are seen as an important element and that evaluation should be included. Once
Proceedings | 10
2
again, however, this should be portrayed as applying not just to Governments and
international agencies, but rather to all stakeholders, including NGO’s that are our partners
in the CFS process.
Summary
Ireland is pleased that the process of formulating a Global Strategic Framework for Food
Security and Nutrition is underway. We would like to see:
 Less reliance on stating previous reports and clear statements on how the GSF will
add value;
 A more user-friendly document that includes an executive summary and a concluding
chapter that includes recommendations and next steps;
 A focus on action-oriented collaborative projects involving all stakeholders, i.e.
putting research into use;
 A focus on outcomes and result-based monitoring and feedback rather than on
inputs;
 The inclusion of a paragraph on the SUN initiative, perhaps in paragraph 86 of the
first draft of the GSF;
 Continued efforts to ensure that the role of women smallholders is recognised and
their rights defended; and
 Strong support for AMIS and the Rapid Response Forum in the fight to prevent
excessive price variability.