February 2014
GISA position
(French Inter-Ministerial Food Security Group – GISA)
http://www.gisa-france.fr/
Response to the electronic consultation on the Zero Draft of the Principles for Responsible
Agricultural Investment
GISA would first like to recall the work which it has already carried out on this issue (see the June
2010 position paper “Large-scale land-acquisition and responsible agricultural investment: for an
approach respecting human rights, food security and sustainable development”), the principles
of which remain relevant. In particular:
 respect for land users’ rights, whether formal or informal, must be a precondition for
investments
 compatibility of private uses with the general interest must be ensured as food security is
deemed to be a global public good.
The preliminary draft (“Zero Draft”) raises the following general points:
Document structure: Several interesting proposals to restructure the document were made during
consultations (EU, International Food Security and Nutrition Civil Society Mechanism (CSM), Oxfam).
GISA agrees that the structure should indeed be reviewed to help make the document easier to
read and use. The new structure should focus on the following two areas:

place greater emphasis on the stated principles, which should be more explicit

and define more clearly the actors’ roles and responsibilities, not by detailing them
according to each principle but based on the different categories of actors.
Implementation and accountability aspects must be featured, including the monitoring by the
Committee on World Food Security (CFS). It would also be useful to include some definitions,
especially those used in the Voluntary Guidelines.
The stated principles: The language used is often too weak compared to other texts which have
already been approved (VGGT, United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises). The text must be strengthened in terms of its level
of language by directly including where necessary the language used in the reference texts
(human rights, VGGT):

The preliminary draft does not explain sufficiently clearly for each principle what
responsible investment “should not do”: For example, responsible investment

should not harm the rights of local populations, in particular the right to food
and legitimate land rights.

should not negatively impact natural resources (ensure long-term food
security)

should not fuel conflicts

should not use tax and legal havens

A principle must clearly focus on respecting land users’ rights, whether formal or
informal, as a precondition for investments. For this essential issue, we should recall the
principles agreed in the VGGT - particularly in point 3.2 and throughout section 12 regarding
investments - i.e. :
 Recognize and respect all legitimate land rights holders and their rights.
 Ensure the transparency of negotiations and contracts as well as access to
1/3
February 2014



investment-related information
Assess the positive and negative impacts of investment via impact studies
Propose introducing extra safeguards such as a parliamentary vote for all
investments exceeding a certain scale
Put in place consultation based on free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) (and
ensure that the FPIC principle is observed for indigenous communities)

We should include the principles included in the new standards created in 2010 regarding
the responsible conduct of economic actors.
◦ in particular, all the texts (both public and private standards) agree on the notion of due
diligence, i.e. companies' duty to identify, prevent and resolve the real or potential impacts
of their activities.
◦ The UN, OECD and ISO go even further, including the notion of “business relationship”
and “sphere of influence”: these principles instil co-responsibility in companies in the
event of human rights or environmental violations caused by another entity but linked to the
company's activities.
◦ We must also highlight the appeal in international texts for States to play a full role in
protecting their citizens from abuse which can arise from private-sector activities, including
by adopting legislative texts aiming to impose sanctions and the necessary measures to
ensure that victims have access to justice.

The preliminary draft, in accordance with the terms of reference, should go further and provide
advice on the extra objectives which "responsible" investments should pursue, i.e.
beyond economic profitability, contributing to food and nutritional security, social and economic
development, respecting the ILO’s labour standards, encouraging investments which promote
gender equality.

In the same vein, responsible investments must enable innovative models and
alternatives which meet all these issues to be distributed.
As regards agricultural production, agro-ecology should to this end be encouraged and
explicitly mentioned in this document.
Similarly, we should introduce the idea of contractual arrangements, emphasizing the need to
secure balanced contracts between farmers (or their professional organizations) and the
other operators, in particular those downstream, in order to limit the power of the market and
spread the risks among the various actors: a responsible investment should not make
farmers dependent on investors, nor make them carry the full weight of the risks themselves.

We should make clearer appeals to create an environment which is conducive to
responsible investments, which is both regulated, secure and stable: safeguarding and
stability of legal frameworks, suitable public policies (in particular agricultural, tax, training,
capacity building, etc.). In that way, the text should place more emphasis on the importance
of legal safeguards, including the transparency and stability of legal procedures, which
are essential to encourage responsible investments, as well as the fight against corruption.
The creation of an environment conducive to responsible investments and the stability and
safeguarding of legal frameworks must not, however, lead to maintaining the status quo but rather to
the inclusion of an investor responsibility framework in national legislation. We should also
highlight that encouraging investments should not lead to the establishment of relaxed legislative
frameworks (tax, land, etc.) for the benefit of certain actors, which would ultimately call into question
the rights of local populations and the principles of equity.

More attention should be paid to taxation: economic tax-incentive frameworks must also
produce tax revenue for States and ensure equity. Tax transparency is also essential.

As regards principle 5, the Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment (RAI) should very
2/3
February 2014
clearly state the principle of "Policy Coherence for Development".
Actors’ roles and responsibilities

The preliminary draft does not sufficiently distinguish between the roles and relative
responsibilities of the various actors. In particular, we should include a differentiation of the
different types of investors (public, private, differentiation among the private ones). The
international texts today recognize different categories of actors within the "private sector":
◦ Multinationals (with their specific UN and OECD Guiding Principles and Guidelines)
◦ Smallholders (see the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) 2013 Policy Roundtable
on Investing in Smallholder Agriculture for Food Security and Nutrition, whose specific
recommendations for these actors could fuel this part).

Similarly, the preliminary project sidesteps the issue of linking investments (especially public
and private, and between private investments of different types and sizes). One of the
objectives should thus be to promote approaches ensuring that the investment contributes to
the food security of local populations: the different types of investors can effectively link
and coordinate their work (e.g. the State needs companies, farmers, service agencies,
training, etc. and they in turn need the State).
Direct investment in production by family producers can benefit from investments from larger
actors in other parts of the value chain (provision of inputs, processing, etc.) which, provided
that they are part of a clear accountability framework, can help to provide openings or limit
losses. Not all types of investment should be encouraged in the same way. The role of family
farms must be duly recognized and they must be encouraged as the primary actors in food
security.

States should be asked to establish secure legal frameworks and suitable policies. The State
thus has an essential role to play as a regulator and public investor.

The role of the banking sector (credit, in particular for the benefit of small investors). It is also
important to note the role which this sector can have as regards irresponsible investment
(including investment funds speculating on farmland, tax and legal havens, etc.).

The importance of actors responsible for training/outreach is not sufficiently highlighted.
3/3