CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CIVIL SOCIETY CONSULTATIONS AT
REGIONAL CONFERENCES TO THE GSF FIRST DRAFT
Draft version prepared by the CSM Task team on GSF (May 8, 2012)
Introduction
The following 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.
Despite the limited knowledge on the CFS and the GSF at national and regional levels,
and the subsequent need to use part of the available time for information sharing civil
society hold substantial debates on governance and policies issues related to food
security and nutrition and came up with collective positions as expressed in the final
declarations and statements of CSO consultations.
Several of these documents, or parts of them, were brought to the attention of the Multistakeholder Dialogues on the GSF, organized on the first days of regional FAO
conferences under the guidance of the CFS.1 Additionally, the synthesis is
complemented by some contributions of civil society organizations, which are part of
the CSM Working Group on GSF, and, in part, have delivered their comments also
directly to the online consultation (see annexes 1-9).
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).
1
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.
1
1. Does the First Draft present key issues of food security and nutrition on
which there is broad regional and international consensus?
a) It is important to note, and to start with this observation, that civil society
consultations on the regional level expressed full support to the CFS reform
process, the new model of inclusive governance and the GSF as such. The
degree of trust and credibility the CFS now enjoys among civil society
organizations, is remarkable and an asset that shows that participatory
approaches to governance for food security and nutrition, and especially the
recognition of the fundamental role of small scale food producers on decision
making on all levels, is highly appreciated by civil society groups worldwide.
The declaration of the African CSO consultation states: “We recognize the
relevance and importance of the CFS and its inclusive method of work, and we
request this approach be put into practice at all levels.”
In this sense, it is appreciated that the first draft of GSF integrates the more
comprehensive vision of the CFS as the foremost inclusive forum for global
governance of food security and nutrition, and the GSF as the overarching
framework, as established in the CFS reform document (paragraphs 6-9).
b) Equally, there is a broad international support from CSO on the Human
Rights approach to food security and nutrition, and particularly the
importance of the promotion and protection of the human right to adequate
food on all levels, as an essential part of the CFS vision that strives towards a
world free from hunger where countries implement the Right to Food
Guidelines, as the CFS reform document states.
In this sense, it is appreciated that the GSF first draft refers broadly to the
definition, including States Obligation (paragraphs 14 – 16), on the right to
adequate food and makes efforts to mainstream this concept within the
document. It also refers to the Right to Food Guidelines and proposes a seven
step approach to the implementation of the right to food in national policies and
programs. However, in order to ensure coherence with the CFS vision statement,
the full realization of the Right to Food should be defined as the ultimate goal of
the GSF and this should be explicitly stated.
c) Role of different actors must be better identified in the GSF, and
particularly reference to other policies affecting food security and nutrition
must be stronger.
Considering that civil society organizations reaffirm the CSF as the foremost
inclusive platform for coordination and coherence on food security and nutrition,
and that they see the GSF as the overarching framework, it is clear that national
and international policies outside the food security and nutrition field, but with
high impact on food security and nutrition, such as policies regarding trade,
2
investment, finance, energy, climate change, among others, must be brought into
coherence with the CFS vision and decisions.
In this sense, the current wording of paragraph 4 refers in a too general way to
decision and policy makers in countries and focuses on those government
ministries responsible for food security and international development assistance
only. Yet, achieving coordination and coherence towards food security and
nutrition requires the GSF to address all decision makers in developing and
developed countries, as well as other actors at national and international levels
working on policies which impact food security and nutrition. Therefore, the
GSF should be addressed to all UN member countries and make stronger
references to all policies affecting food security and human right to adequate
food. Furthermore, the GSF should identify the roles and responsibilities of the
wide range of actors influencing food security and nutrition, including
international and regional intergovernmental organizations and the private
sector.
In this context, it is important to emphasize that international organizations,
including the UN HLTF on the food crisis, should adhere to the principles,
recommendations and policies stipulated in the GSF, rather than the other way
round. In that sense, the wording on the relation of GSF and UCFA should be
corrected in a way that expresses that UCFA will be adjusted according to the
final version of the GSF, adopted in October 2012 (see paragraph 12). Similarly,
and in an effort to ensure coherence among various policies it would be useful
for the GSF to list the mandates and value added of the various
intergovernmental organizations that are working on food security and nutrition,
assess their gaps, overlaps, incoherencies, and effectiveness and make
recommendations for improvement and convergence, when appropriate.
d) The concept “Food Sovereignty” must be retained in part C on definitions
Food sovereignty for all people, as defined in the Nyeleni Declaration, 2 has been
the most important demand of civil society actors since 1996 and has been part
of the food security discourse for over a decade. It entails the notion of food as a
human right, recognizes the role of small holder food producers and defends
2
“Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through
ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture
systems. It puts those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies
rather than the demands of markets and corporations. It defends the interests and inclusion of the next
generation. It offers a strategy to resist and dismantle the current corporate trade and food regime, and
directions for food, farming, pastoral and fisheries systems determined by local producers. Food
sovereignty prioritises local and national economies and markets and empowers peasant and family
farmer-driven agriculture, artisanal - fishing, pastoralist-led grazing, and food production, distribution and
consumption based on environmental, social and economic sustainability. Food sovereignty promotes
transparent trade that guarantees just income to all peoples and the rights of consumers to control their
food and nutrition. It ensures that the rights to use and manage our lands, territories, waters, seeds,
livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those of us who produce food. Food sovereignty implies
new social relations free of oppression and inequality between men and women, peoples, racial groups,
social classes and generations (Declaration of Nyéléni, 27 February 2007, Mali)
3
locally oriented and ecologically sustainable food systems. Not only civil society
organizations and social movements demand to include these elements to
achieve food security. Currently this concept has been integrated in the national
and regional debate, especially in Latin-America where several countries have
already included it in their legal national frameworks and related public policies.
In this sense, it is fundamental to recognize the validity and importance of food
sovereignty retaining the concept in section C on definitions. In the Zero Draft
the concept food sovereignty was included but subsequently relegated to major
existing gaps for further discussion in this first draft (paragraph 74).
e) Small scale food producers instead of “smallholder farmers” must be the
focus of policy recommendations
Policies recommendations in the GSF should be focused on supporting for small
holders including farmers, fisher-folk, indigenous producers, and pastoralists,
particularly women, protecting these from conflicting interests, especially those
of large corporations. If the CFS wants to realize its mandate of ensuring “that
the voices of all relevant stakeholders – particularly those most affected by food
insecurity – are heard (CFS: 2009/2: Parag.7) the term “smallholder farmers”
must be replaced by “small scale food producers” in paragraph 17 and
throughout the GSF to guarantee an holistic approach in the understanding of
right holders who are involved.
Especial treatment must be given to indigenous people. Indigenous people are
among the most affected by hunger and malnutrition, and have been on the
forefront of those movements that have fought for justice and their rights against
long traditions of discrimination and repression. Their right to produce food
should be protected, including their right to secure tenure of territories and other
resources. The GSF should recognize the UN Declaration on Rights of
Indigenous People (UNDRIP), adopted by the General Assembly in September
2007, and the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 169
(Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989) as the most comprehensive
international standards that defend their most important rights; and include the
FAO Policies on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, as a framework for ensure
that needs and concerns of indigenous people are effectively considered.
Fisheries sector is of significant importance in many regions around the word.
They must be included as right holders and promote their food sovereignty. Food
security strategies must consider this sector and its social, economic and
nutritional contributions. GSF must strengthen traditional fishing at local,
national and international level, bearing in mind the right of accessibility to their
territory and water resources. The GSF should build in this context on the
Voluntary Guidelines on responsible Governance on Tenure of Land, Forests
and Fisheries, as well as on the ongoing standard setting process on the proposed
FAO Guidelines on Small Scale Fisheries (VG SSF).
4
f) Agroecology must be recognized as the main method for achieving
sustainable food production
GSF must support small holder based, diverse and sustainable models of
production. The first draft recognize in paragraph 21 on past experiences and
lessons learned that “agroecological practices have proved to be key to
improving agricultural sustainablility as well as the incomes of food producers
and their resilience in the face of climate change”. Nevertheless, there is no
concrete mention to the agro-ecological approach in section F (paragraphs 57 –
59) even tough recommendations should be considered in the light of the
findings of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge (IAASTD)
report as stated in paragraph 36.
The GSF must use more positive wording in paragraph 13 to refer to the
IAASTD, highlighting its scientific rigor as a result of a thorough evidence
based research which included transparent, representative and legitimate
processes involving a wide range of actors.3 The GSF must include in part F on
increasing agricultural productivity/production and sustainability the scientific
based analysis referred in the IAASTD Report, i.e. the need to enhance
sustainability while maintaining productivity in ways that protect the natural
resource base and ecological provision of agricultural systems. It is fundamental
to draft in the GSF concrete options mentioned in the report, such as supporting
agroecological systems, improving nutrient, energy, water and land use
efficiency, improving the understanding of soil-plant water dynamics; increasing
farm diversification, enhancing biodiversity conservation; promoting the
sustainable management of livestock, forest and fisheries, among others.
Given the challenges posed by climate change and the continued depletion of
natural resources, models of production that emphasize resilience will become
increasingly critical.
g)
Defending secure land tenure
and condemning landgrabbing and its adverse effects on food security and
nutrition
We welcome the fact that last bullet point of paragraph 70 includes now policies,
legal instrument and mechanism to support ecologically sustainable use of land
and natural resources. In this line, the title of Chapter IV, section E (Tenure of
land, fisheries and forest) should be changed to cover both tenure and use.
Alternative title could be: “Secure and equitable access to and sustainable use of
natural resources or food producing resources”.
3
The text could include following information. The objective of the IAASTD was to assess the impacts
of past, present and future agricultural knowledge, science and technology on the reduction of hunger and
poverty, integrating scientific information on a range of topics that are critically interlinked, but often
addressed independently, i.e., agriculture, poverty, hunger, human health, natural resources, environment,
development and innovation. It was an open, transparent, representative and legitimate process involving
a wide range of actors. Its results are evidence based and the report presents options rather than
recommendations that can be used by a range of stakeholders, i.e., government policy makers, private
sector, NGOs, producer and consumer groups, international organizations and scientific community.
Governments from 58 countries approved the executive summary of the synthesis report.
5
It is also welcome that the first draft includes in paragraph 69 a reference to
ICARRD principles and the need to promote appropriate agrarian reform
processes. Civil society believes that government must maintain their
commitments to implement a genuine agrarian reform respecting the right to
prior, free and informed consultation of folks and communities in consonance
with the ICARRD. In addition, the text should be complemented by key
principles as negotiated within the VGRGTLFF process, especially those
regarding redistributive reforms (paragraph 15 of VGRGTLFF), promoting the
implementation of this important tool together with the participation of social
movements of small scale food producers to monitor and evaluate its impacts in
the implementation of the right to food.
The GSF must furthermore call on governments to stop and condemn
“landgrabbing”, as a process that is expelling people from their territories. Civil
society consultations in all regions have highlighted the need to stop land
grabbing, as one of the main threats to food security and nutrition around the
world. The GSF should reflect this warning.
The GSF should include direct measures to stop and retrieve land annexed due to
illegal settlements in occupied territories, in order to ensure that illegal land
expropriations, as they happen in Palestine, are ruled out. .
h) Defending women’s human rights
A stronger right based approach needs to be included in section D on Addressing
gender in food security and nutrition. In line with the Convention for the
Elimination of any Form of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW),
discrimination should be addressed as a structural form of violence and of
reproduction of inequalities in access to productive resources, to markets, to
jobs, to wages, to public services, to justice in the context of the denial of equity
in relation to the realization of all human rights,
In this sense, the GSF should refer explicitly to Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and mention that women as active
food producers face many forms of structural violence and discrimination,
depriving them of their rights to self-determination. Girls and adolescent women
induced or forced into child marriage and adolescent pregnancy, suffer the
consequences of double or triple work burden and being deprived of their
children´s, adequate nutrition and education rights. The GSF should also include
the right of women to breastfeed, labour rights, including the right to maternity
leave, land tenure and inheritance rights, equal access, control and ownership of
resources and decision making within the food producing, processing and
distribution process (paragraph 43).
6
i) Highlighting the relation between right to food and living wages
In many regions around the word, many small-scale producers and waged
agricultural workers, especially seasonal workers are excluded from social
protection and have difficulty surviving cold winters without income. The
current crisis, especially in Europe and Central Asia, has also led to generalised
austerity programmes; new segments of the population now suffer from poverty
and hunger. The most vulnerable groups are the aged, youth, migrant workers
and small-scale food producers. Food is unaffordable for many waged
agricultural workers, but aid should not replace wages. Albeit the sentence
“Many agricultural and food workers and their families suffer from hunger and
malnutrition because the basic labor laws and minimum wage policies do not
cover rural workers” is quoted once, the position needs to be strengthened in the
GSF. In 2008, the International Labour Conference has recognized the decent
work deficit in rural areas and ILO statistics show that many agricultural
workers receive 1 USD per day.
In this sense, the GSF should include the basic workers rights, as stated in the
core ILO conventions, which cover also rural areas, so that rural workers can
negotiate a living wage and feed themselves and their families (paragraph 35).
Furthermore, the GSF must ask governments to the immediate implementation
of 184 Covenant of ILO on health and safety of the rural workers and of the
international Convention on the protection of the rights of all the migratory
workers and of his relatives, adopted as the General Assembly of United Nations
in his resolution 45/158, of December 18, 1990.
j) Recognition of the human rights dimension of social protection
The human right to social security, as laid down in the UDHR was recognized
and reiterated by the International Labour Conference (ILC) in 2011, and the
ILO’s commitment to achieving adequate social security for all. In addition the
ICESCR enshrined the right of everyone to social security. States are obliged to
progressively ensure the right to social security to all individuals.
In this sense, the GSF should recognize the human right dimension of social
protection. Basic social protection should not be reduced to safety net programs,
and needs to be extended to rural areas. Today, not all countries are able to
afford a complete range of social security, but universal protection should be
stated as a clear objective based on contributory and non-contributory methods
in order, to prevent rural people and their children from falling into hunger.
k) Frame nutrition policies from a human rights perspective
A human rights perspective on nutrition would mean that nutrition security is
based on the production of diverse foods, and ensuring that all people have
access to these diverse foods to meet their nutritional needs adequately.
Nutrition security needs to be re-emphasised with greater focus on the key social
determinants of malnutrition, including universal access to potable drinking
water, maternal and child care, sanitation and quality health care.
7
In this sense, the paragraphs 63 to 65 should be revised and amended, and
paragraph 66, as it implicitly refers to the implementation of the SUN, should be
deleted, as there is clearly no international consensus on SUN (this was
recognized by the UN HLTF already in the context of discussion of GSF Draft
Zero).
l) The role of free trade (Doha Round) and role of private investment
throughout the whole document
The assumption that free trade as defended by neoliberals is positive for food
security and nutrition is as simple and biased as the claim that the conclusion of
the Doha Development Round, with what is currently on the table, would help to
achieve a transparent and predictable international trade in food and reduce
excessive price volatility (paragraph 42) In fact, some would argue that it is
precisely the structure and function of an economic model which favors “free”
trade which is causing impediments to achieving food security.
In this sense, regional CSO consultations demand that any reference to the
conclusion of the Doha round should be removed. Rather than calling for a
conclusion of the WTO Doha round, the second draft on GSF should maintain
the need of further discuss within the CFS on the relationship between trade and
security (paragraph 74 as there is clearly no consensus in this area). The
definition on the role of markets and trade in relation to food security and
nutrition, as well as private sector actors (and its regulation) must be congruent
throughout the whole document. Hunger should not be seen as a business
opportunity. The right to adequate, safe and nutritious food cannot be realized in
the world where TNCs are dominating local markets and crippling local
production, and in which the rights of these corporations are protected more than
the rights of local communities.
.
m) Bio-energy and agro-fuels
The GSF first draft refers to the need of a balanced science based assessment to
evaluate the opportunities and challenges for implementing agro-fuels
(paragraph 42). The impact of subsidies and mandates for agro-fuels on price
volatility and the right to food should be assessed. However, as the negative
impacts of agro- expansion are so evident, especially taking into account the
land grabbing phenomenon and its impact on employment, that the GSF has to
depart from the current stage of discussions.
Regional CSO consultations strongly demand a moratorium on agrofuels
expansion as long as the noted negative effects cannot ruled out.
The GSF should take this demand into account, even if there is no full
international consensus on it. But GSF can mention that many CSOs have
requested such moratorium and others request the elimination of all mandate,
subsidies and tariffs that promote biofuels.
The CSO declaration of the African Regional Meeting in Brazzaville states:
“Our assembly firmly condemns land grabbing and calls for a moratorium on the
8
industrial production of agrofuels on the continent, which is strongly linked to
this deplorable phenomenon.”
The development and use of agrofuels maintains the model of production and
patterns of consumption of the modern, urban and industrial lifestyles with
negative consequences to the food security of many communities.
n) Climate change
Erratic climatic patterns and the increase of frequency and intensity of extreme
weather events are a grave concern to all the regions and the issue emerged at
the CSO regional consultations as an issue that should be tackled very urgently.
The topic needs to be further discussed within the ongoing process of the HLPE
study and the next CFS policy round table. It should be included as an important
challenge in the GSF, but the debate will only take place on the 38 meeting of
the CFS.
Given the increased frequency and intensity of disasters related to climate
change it is important that the GSF provides clear guidance for food assistance
and foster better links between relief, rehabilitation and development, as outlined
in section C of the document.
o) Protracted crisis and conflicts
Governments from rich countries and international institutions must provide
appropriate and adequate responses in both emergency situations and protracted
crises, to fulfill the right to adequate nutritious food, the right to shelter,
sanitation and basic health services, allowing the transition from short term
emergency food assistance into longer term food and peoples sovereignty. It is
incumbent upon the UN and its bodies to promote better coordination of actors,
especially donors, in the development and implementation of country led,
comprehensive plans of action to deal with crisis situations to ensure that food of
food related transfer do not undermine other aspects of food security and
ultimately contribute to food sovereignty. Measure should be taken to ensure
coherence among the twin tracks as to ensure rapid recovery, strengthen
resilience and national capacities and avoid dependence. Haiti, for instance, was
highlighted in the Buenos Aires Regional Conference as urgently needing
measures to restore its national food system as a means of recovering its
autonomy.
The New Food Aid Convention, as the new treaty framing global food
assistance, 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?
9
2. Does the list of areas where there are gaps in policy convergence that may
be address in the future versions of the GSF need to be amended?
Regarding the proposed topics on for further discussion of the CFS (paragraph 88)
CSOs have suggested to include:
a) Ensure that the role of trade and private investment and its impact on
food security and nutrition will be subjects of broad and in-depth debate
within the CFS. It is unfortunate that the first draft of GSF calls for a
conclusion of the WTO Doha round. The relationship between trade and
security needs further discussion within the CFS.
b) Ensure that the impact and regulation of bio-energy and agro-fuel
expansion will be subject of open debate within the CFS. The negative
impacts of biofuel expansion on food security and nutrition have become so
evident, especially taking into account the land grabbing phenomenon. There
is a need to consider a moratorium on agrofuels expansion as long as the
negative effects cannot be ruled out.
c) Delete or reformulate the topic “Exit Strategy for Small-Scale Farmers”
– the term is unfortunate and misleading, as 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 significance of the
agricultural sector to national development and people’s well being cannot
be overestimated. For many countries, particularly the poorest, LDCs,
agriculture is the obvious, historically tested for improving opportunities for
all.
d) Food Reserves for Resilience – much of the earlier discussion of food
reserves focused 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,
and supply shocks, the role of food reserves as an essential tool for resilience
in the national food supply needs 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.
e) Discussion on the definition of “Forest”. Within civil society, there are
severe concerns about the definition of “Forests “established by the FAO. In
light of the important role forests play in ensuring food security for the
population living in these areas, including rural and indigenous communities,
CFS could discuss a revision on this definition with the participation of small
scale food producer who live in or depend upon these ecosystems.
10
f) Discussion on the role of industrial production of feed crops, and its
implications on food security and nutrition. Globally 33% of the world's
cereal harvest and 97% of the world's soymeal is used as animal feed.
Feeding cereals and soy to animals is inefficient as much of their food value
is lost during conversion from plant to animal matter. Worldwide the
increasing demand for feed crops is leading to intensification of crop
production. This has led to soil degradation as farmers abandon traditional,
sustainable methods of ensuring soil quality. The growing demand for feed
crops is also leading to an expansion of the land used for feed crop
production which pushes small farmers and pastoralists into forest and
marginal lands.
g) Role of the private sector and public private partnerships
The document as it stands right now makes reference to the private sector
and the role of public private partnerships without questioning the possible
impact that these actors have had and can continue to have on food
insecurity. Indeed we must not forget that the corporate control of the
agricultural sector and its inputs, as well as resource grabbing is being
undertaken by private actors without safeguards to protect communities. It
would be irresponsible if the GSF only reflected the potential for good
behind private sector engagement without recognizing the vast interests of
the sector and the potential for harm.
Furthermore, public private partnerships must not only be discussed
bilaterally between states and the private sector. It is necessary that CSOs
and the affected communities be privy to any plan or action which affects
society and the environment. As the CSO document form Brazzaville states:
“Resources are targeted towards industrial agriculture adopting the
Public/Private Partnerships (PPP) approach which is not an appropriate
instrument for supporting the family farms that are the foundation of African
food security and sovereignty”;
The food prices, profits of food traders and TNC increased during the food
crisis period, while income of workers in both rural and urban areas and
income of many small-scale holders dropped. Private sector should not see
hunger as a business opportunity, but must act responsibly and produce its
products under decent working conditions; pay workers living wages and
small-producers fair prices.
11
3. Does the GSF have sufficient practical regional and country level
relevance?
The document thus far is general enough to be applicable according to the needs
and realities of different regions. But there is a need to strengthen the monitoring
and accountability sections to ensure that whatever is therein outlined will
actually be implemented. There is a need to strengthen the inter-ministerial and
multi-stakeholder mechanisms at country and regional levels which would be to
the benefit of the implementation of the GSF.
Civil society agreed on the need that the GSF should be flexible enough to allow
for implementation of policies adjusted to local realities whilst providing a
baseline for rights based food governance. GSF should call governments to
establish CFS-like civil society participation mechanisms on national and
regional levels in order to improve the governance work in implementing CFS
decisions and social movement’s demands and proposals at national and regional
level. CSOs will autonomously organize to participate to such mechanism. A
wide and significant debate together with the civil society on the functioning and
the central recommendations of the CFS and his implications for the national
governments is needed and must be clearly stated in the GSF.
A regional example for this need is the CSO assessment of CAADP: the CSO
meeting calls for “governments speed up the proactive participation of smallscale producers and other members of civil society in the decision-making
mechanisms of CAADP, as is the case in the CFS.”
A best case practice on the national level, which should be included in the GSF,
is certainly the Brazilian experience of the CONSEA (see box below):
Box 1: A participatory and human rights based governance model for food
security and nutrition - The Brazilian case 4
Even though the human right to food was only recognized in the Federal
Constitution of Brazil in 2010, this country has a long experience in creating and
strengthening public policies to improve the social conditions of people affected
by food insecurity and malnutrition. The Zero Hunger program was launched in
2003 to combat hunger and poverty. In 2006, this public policy was
institutionalized with the sanctioning of the organic law LOSAN, the main
national law related to food and nutrition.
LOSAN created the National Food and Nutrition Security System (SISAN) to
formulate and implement food and nutrition policies and plans, encourage the
integration of all efforts among government and the civil society and promote
4
Plano Nacional de Seguranca Alimentar e Nutricional 2012/2015
12
the follow up, monitoring and evaluation of food and nutrition security in the
country. This process was possible with the implementation of a social
participation mechanism, assumed by the National Council on Food and
Nutrition Security (CONSEA), which guarantees the wide participation of
representatives from government and civil society. The implementation of these
policies is coordinated by the Inter-ministerial Food and Nutritional Security
Chamber (CAISAN).
The presidential decree 7.272/2010 charged CAISAN, in 2010, with formulating
the first National Food and Nutrition Security Plan (PLANSAN 2012-2015). The
National Food and Security Plan:
- contextualizes the present food and nutritional security in the country,
analyzing the main determinants (food production, food availability, income
and living conditions, access to adequate food and water, health and nutrition
and access to related services, education), discussing the programs and
actions related to food and nutritional security (support to small farmer
agriculture, agrarian reform and access to the territory, minimum price
guarantee, measures to face food crisis, promotion of sustainability and
biodiversity, income transfer, food assistance programs, access to drinking
water and for production, health and nutrition, right to adequate food).
- Identifies the challenges for the proposed period of the plan, among them:
consolidation of the intersectoral and participatory approach; eradication of
poverty and food insecurity; reversion of growth of overweight and obese;
strengthening the role of the State in the promotion of small scale production
and the agroecological model; consolidation of the Agrarian Reform;
establishment and implementation of a national food supply policy;
confronting the ethnic, gender and socio-economic inequities.
- Reaffirms the need to consolidate the national food and nutritional security
system, inter-sectoral and participatory, under the coordination of CAISAN,
and following the guidance of the National Food and Nutritional Security
Conferences, and CONSEA, clearly identifying related priorities, goals,
activities, responsibilities, timeline, budgetary allocation and indicators.
- Defines the specific work plan to carry out the 8 directives of the National
Food and Nutritional Security Policy, with the identification of goals,
activities, responsibilities, timeline, budgetary allocation and indicators, in
line with the monitoring of the promotion of the realization of the right to
adequate food for all.
- Finally, the plan also establishes an ongoing monitoring mechanism, using
the indicators and information existing in sectoral systems, and carried out
by a multi-stakeholder technical committee, defined by CAISAN, with the
participation of governmental civil society representatives, from CONSEA,
and periodically reporting to CONSEA and other governmental bodies.
End Box 1.
13
4. How can the GSF be related to regional and national food security and
nutrition frameworks and strategies, including mechanisms for
accountability and monitoring of agreed recommendations and practices,
suggesting ways to promote two way coordination and convergence?
The Brazilian case shows how the interaction of governance models on
national, regional and global level can work. The focus of this interaction
should be at creating and promoting coherence of food security and nutrition
policies from both perspectives, from the national and the global level.
CFS like inclusive governance structures should be promoted at all levels,
and most relevant proposals for policies on food security and nutrition should be
brought by the national level to the regional and global attention.
One extremely important issue of common interest and mutual benefit is the
challenge to foster monitoring and accountability, from a human rights
perspective, at all levels. Civil Society networks have gathered experience in
this field for more than two decades, which has led to the creation of the Right to
Food and Nutrition Watch tool as described in the box 2 below. This is a best
practice example which might be included as well in the GSF, as it shows how
in practice monitoring of public policies, based on human rights accountability,
can be realized on local, national, regional and global level.
Certainly, the key to this challenge will be debate on the implementation of the
respective part of the CFS reform document:
“(ii) Promote accountability and share best practices at all levels. The
CFS should help countries and regions, as appropriate, address the
questions of whether objectives are being achieved and how food
insecurity and malnutrition can be reduced more quickly and effectively.
This will entail developing an innovative mechanism, including the
definition of common indicators, to monitor progress towards these
agreed upon objectives and actions taking into account lessons learned
from previous CFS and other monitoring attempts. Comments by all CFS
stakeholders will have to be taken into account and new mechanisms will
build on existing structures.”
CSO consultations have stressed the need to improve accountability at all
levels. Notably, the GSF should recognize the need to set up a CFS Monitoring
Mechanism that will fill existing gaps in human rights based monitoring of the
performance of duty bearers, and empowerment of rights holders to hold duty
bearers accountable in case of non-compliance. In that sense, the promotion of
effective monitoring and accountability mechanisms is needed on national,
regional and global levels. A global monitoring mechanism is specifically
needed within the CFS and to be included in the GSF. In the current version of
the GSF, provisions on monitoring and implementation are particularly weak
(paragraph 94-98)
14
Our suggestion is that GSF should include principles on both, monitoring
processes and accountability mechanisms, for the national, regional and
global level. Among these general orientations and principles, the following
could be pointed out, as elements of a preliminary proposal:
-
A monitoring mechanism is established within the CFS that is mandated
and equipped with the necessary political authority, independence and
financial resources to monitor, on the basis of agreed upon
methodological guidelines, the implementation of CFS decisions,
standard setting and overarching frameworks by the different actors,
especially governments, intergovernmental institutions and transnational
companies.
-
The methodological guidelines of such monitoring mechanism allow for
holding examined actors accountable for their performance regarding
implementation of CFS decisions, standard setting and overarching
frameworks and include a specific human rights impact assessment of
the verified performance.
-
By exercising its mandate, the monitoring mechanism will have
contributed significantly to increase the human rights based
accountability of actors within the CFS, to stop specific policy failures
and policy incoherence and uncoordinated responses at national, regional
and international level, and to strengthen the CFS as foremost inclusive,
influential and effective international platform for food security and
nutrition.
-
In this sense, the monitoring process and accountability mechanisms
could be guided by the following orientations.
o It should be based on the human rights approach.
o It should be a monitoring mechanism that delivers accountability
of all actors, especially of governments, intergovernmental
organizations and the private sector.
o The mechanism should have strong political impact in terms of
addressing and stopping verified policy failures, policy
coherences and uncoordinated responses.
o The mechanism should create a dynamic that led of strong and
tough reports that express criticism if needed and propose clear
and strong recommendations to improve their policies and
actions. The credibility and evidence based “criticizing capacity”
of the mechanism should be high.
o It should fully involve CSOs and promote a multi-stakeholder
dynamic and dialogue at national, regional and international level
o At a first stage any mechanism should be built on existing
structures.
o It should be able to be deliver also a dynamic that enable different
actors to learn from good/bad practices.
15
Box 2: The Right to Food and Nutrition Watch: A Civil Society Initiative to
Improve Accountability
The Right to Food and Nutrition Watch is a civil society initiative from many
organizations and social movements,5 which monitors, since 2008 the implementation
of the right to food worldwide. Since then, a yearly report has been published presenting
an analysis of major issues such as the food price crisis of 2007-2008, the reform of the
world food governance system, land grabbing, nutrition and accountability in addition
to a worldwide overview of the implementation of the right to food in more than 50
countries.
The Watch uses different types of monitoring methodologies to screen national, regional
and global compliance with the right to food, such as the case’s documentation of right
to food violations provided by the threatened or affected communities, fact finding
missions’ reports, parallel reports to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (CESCR), and policy monitoring tools based on the FAO Right to Food
Guidelines to assess structure, processes and results of State actions from the right to
food perspective. Applying a human rights-based approach, violations of the right to
food are always linked to the State obligation that it failed to comply with according to
the international human rights law. Reports from the field are highly important to share
best practices, to understand the struggle of the peoples and to voice their claims.
The Watch is not only a tool for civil society in their advocacy work, but also for policy
makers to implement appropriate policies in accordance to their human rights
obligations. The Watch also offers international organizations to harmonize and bring
coherence of international policies with human rights standard. David Nabarro,
Coordinator of the UN High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis and
Special Representative of the UN Secretary Secretary General on Food Security and
Nutrition stated “The case studies that the report explores provide powerful reasons why
we must continue in our efforts to ensure that policies and actions are built around the
Right to Food, ensuring a comprehensive approach to food security ... It is only by
drawing on the rich experience of national authorities and civil society that we can
strengthen and coordinate our policy responses”
End Box 2.
5
The Watch is published by the African Network on the Right to Food (ANoRF/RAPDA), Brot fuer die
Welt (Bread for the World), , Centro Internazionale Crocevia, DanChurchAid (DCA), Ecumenical
Advocacy Alliance (EAA), FIAN International, Habitat International Coalition (HIC), Interchurch
Organization for Development Cooperation (ICCO), Inter-American Platform for Human Rights for
Democracy and Development (PIDHDD), International Indian Treaty Council (IITC), Observatory
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ODESC), Peoples Health Movement (PHM), US Food
Sovereignty Alliance (USFSA), World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action (WABA), World Organization
Against Torture (OMCT)
16
Annex 1:
Key Remarks from the Asian Pacific CSO Consultation on GSF (Hanoi 10th and
11th March)
KEY REMARKS FROM THE ASIAN CSO CONSULTATION ON THE
GLOBAL STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
Following the food price crisis in 2007/8 several initiatives emerged from the growing
recognition on the need of a new and stronger governance system on food and nutrition
security. After the food price crisis, it has become clear that there is an urgent need to
improve policy coherence and ensure coordinated action by governments, international
organizations and other actors in order to eradicate hunger and malnutrition, achieve the
Right to Food for all as well as ensure peoples’ food sovereignty. The most important
initiative was to reform the Committee on World Food Security (CFS). After its reform,
the CFS is on the way to become the most inclusive, central and most legitimate
body of the global governance on food security, agriculture and nutrition. In
addition, the CFS plays a crucial role as it is the only place where a wide range of
actors, including notably the most affected by hunger, especially the social movements
of small scale food producers, have a voice and it is the only place where decisions on
food and nutrition issues are taken in an inclusive, participatory and transparent way.
CSOs have stressed the importance of the development of a Global Strategic
Framework since the CFS reform. In fact, without a strong GSF the ability of the
CFS to improve policy coherence and coordination will be weakened. The GSF is
the critical tool that should ensure that actors’ coordination is enhanced and policy
convergence is achieved. Both are needed to eradicate hunger and malnutrition. The
GSF will be the overarching document that will guide governments and all actors in
their decisions, policies, actions, programs and strategies at all levels. The GSF should
guide all decision-makers, including those responsible for issues that have a strong,
even if indirect, impact on peoples food and nutrition security, as for example, ministers
of trade, finance and economic policies, in both poor and rich countries. The GSF, to be
adopted at the next ordinary CFS plenary in October, should be a living document
that will evolve toward the far higher level of ambition and commitment that we need to
eradicate hunger and malnutrition.
The current draft of the GSF provides a constructive start to develop this crucial CFS
tool. However, the current draft falls short in a number of key areas and needs to be
improved in order to ensure that it will contribute to progress as fast as possible toward
a world free of hunger. Through the Civil Society Mechanism CSOs have developed a
working document with their vision on what should be part of the GSF. Based on this
working document and document and having seen the current draft version of the GSF,
we urge governments to ensure that the adopted version of the GSF will6:
 Reaffirm the CFS as the foremost inclusive platform for coordination and
coherence on food security and nutrition, and the GSF as the overarching
framework.
6
The following position should be seen as a preliminary view of CSOs. Following regional level
consultation, where we will consult as broad as possible within the wide range of CSOs working together
through the CFS Civil Society Mechanism, this position will be further developed.
17
 Stress the fundamental role of civil society participation, especially of small scale
food producer and consumer organizations, through the Civil Society Mechanism.
 Fully recognize Peoples’ Food Sovereignty which is defined as the right of
peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically
sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and
agriculture systems – as a key framework to tackle hunger and malnutrition. Food
sovereignty for all people, as defined in the Nyeleni Declaration, has been the most
important demand of civil society actors since 1996 and therefore, should be a
guiding principle of the GSF.
 Reflect the growing evidence-based consensus that in order to feed the world
without wrecking the planet a shift of investments toward small scale
sustainable resilient agriculture is decisive. The GSF should clearly state that this
will imply that: All governments as well as international and regional organizations
should support and promote agroecology;
 Recognize that the IAASTD7 (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology for Development) provided very clear science-based
recommendations that need to be fully implemented as soon as possible by all
governments and intergovernmental organizations. Action is urgently needed to
shift toward a more sustainable and resilient agriculture where small scale food
producers, and in particular women, are put at the center.
 Be fully grounded on human rights obligations and standards and contribute to
progress in ensuring the achievement of the Right to Food. In particular, it is
crucial that the agreed GSF will mainstream the right to food as the basis for
assessment, action and accountability, by strictly applying human rights standards
and the Right To Food Guidelines thoughout the document.
 Recognize the fundamental role of secure and equitable access to and sustainable
use of food producing resources, particularly land, fisheries and forests. The GSF
should clearly identify the ongoing land grabbing as one of the most dangerous
threats to food security and nutrition worldwide. In this context, the GSF, needs to
fully include the commitments coming out from the International Conference on
Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICCARD) and the ongoing process
towards Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Land, Fisheries and
Forests Tenure.
 Defend women’s rights and gender justice. The GSF should mention that women
as active food producers face many forms of structural violence and discrimination,
depriving them of their rights to self-determination. Girls and adolescent women
induced or forced into child marriage and adolescent pregnancy, suffer the
consequences of double or triple work burden and being deprived of their children´s,
adequate nutrition and education rights. The GSF should also include the right of
women to breastfeed, labour rights, including the right to maternity leave, land
tenure and inheritance rights, equal access, control and ownership of the entire
agriculture chain.
 Recognize the crucial importance of living wages. Food is unaffordable for many
waged agricultural workers. Many agricultural and food workers and their families
suffer from hunger and malnutrition because the basic labor laws and minimum
wage policies do not cover rural workers. The GSF should include the recognition
7
http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Global%20R
eport%20%28English%29.pdf
18






of basic workers’ rights, as stated in the core ILO conventions, which cover also
rural areas.
Recognize the human rights dimension of social protection: Basic social
protection should not be reduced to safety programs, and need to be extended to
rural areas. Today, not all countries are able to afford a complete range of social
security, but universal protection should be stated as a clear objective based on
contributory and non-contributory methods in order, to prevent rural people and
their children fall into hunger.
Frame nutrition policies from a human right perspective. A human right
perspective on nutrition would mean that nutrition security is based on the
production of diverse foods, and ensuring that all people have access to these
diverse foods to meet their nutritional needs adequately. Nutrition security needs to
be re-emphasised with greater focus on the key social determinants of malnutrition,
including universal access to potable drinking water, maternal and child care,
sanitation and quality health care.
Ensure that the role of trade and private investment and its impact on food
security and nutrition will be subjects of broad and in-depth debate within the
CFS. It is unfortunate that the first draft of GSF calls for a conclusion of the WTO
Doha round. The relationship between trade and security needs further discussion
within the CFS.
Ensure that the impact of bio-energy and agro-fuel expansion will be subject of open
debate within the CFS. The negative impacts of biofuel expansion on food
security and nutrition have become so evident, especially taking into account the
land grabbing phenomenon. There is a need to consider a moratorium on agrofuels
expansion as long as the negative effects cannot be ruled out.
Provide clear and specific guidance on how international coordination to tackle
hunger and malnutrition should be improved. The GSF should look at different
intergovernmental organizations value added, and mandates as well as their
mechanisms to work together and assess where the gaps are and how they can
improve their collective impact from local to global level, while being aligned and
supporting national and regional country-led plans.
Stress the need to improve accountability at all levels. Notably, the GSF should
recognize the need to set up a CFS Monitoring Mechanism that will fill existing
gaps in human rights based monitoring of the performance of duty bearers, and
empowerment of rights holders to hold duty bearers accountable in case of noncompliance. In that sense, the promotion of effective monitoring and accountability
mechanisms is needed on national and global levels. A global monitoring
mechanism is specifically needed within the CFS and to be included in the GSF.
In the current version of the GSF, provisions on monitoring and implementation are
particularly weak. This shows that existing processes and mechanisms are far too
weak to ensure all actors deliver and that there is mutual learning. The GSF should
also look into CFS implementation mechanisms such as a suggested interagency
mechanism where International Organizations, led by Rome based agencies, will
come together to implement CFS decisions.
It is imperative that the GSF be flexible enough to allow for local realities to shape the
operationalization of policies whilst providing a baseline for rights based food
governance. As a result of the Asian CSO consultation on the GSF we would like to
emphasize the following in our context:
19
 The need for stronger monitoring mechanisms tied to already existing local
systems. Accountability is an important added value of the GSF and we call for
stronger binding commitments
 Indigenous People are of crucial importance in the Asian region and their rights
to produce food should be protected, including their rights to secure tenure of
land and other resources.
 We call for a focus on food sovereignty, food diversity and the rights of small
scale food producers, including guaranteeing their access to resources and
protection
 The GSF should be based on human rights. It should focus on the human rights
dimension of social protection and the right to food. It should also protect the
right of farmers and social movements to organize and the rights of indigenous
peoples and women and children.
 We would like to make a strong statement against the corporate control of
agriculture and call for strong accountability mechanisms and regulations for
transnational corporations; including curbing their role in agro-fuel production
and the displacement of food crops.
 The GSF should remove any reference to the conclusion of the Doha round. The
role of trade needs to be further discussed within the CFS to ensure that it does
not further compromise the right to food
 The fisheries sector is of significant importance for the Asia region and any food
security strategy in the region should consider the sector and its contribution,
social, economic and nutritional;
 We would like to see better linkages between the twin tracks; Sustainable food
security strategies must have better linking between short term emergency and
medium and long term development;
 Climate change is of grave concern to the region and we urge the CFS to ensure
that the results of the HLPE study and the ensuing discussions at the 38th session
on the issue are incorporated into the GSF
 Food price volatility has gravely affected the region and we urge the GSF to
seriously consider the promotion of price stabilizing measures, such as strategic
food reserves
20
Annex 2:
III Civil Society Special conferences on Food Security Declaration (Buenos Aires,
22nd – 25th March)
DECLARACION
III CONFERENCIA ESPECIAL PARA LA SOBERANÍA ALIMENTARIA DE
LOS MOVIMIENTOS Y ORGANIZACIONES SOCIALES DE AMERICA
LATINA Y EL CARIBE
“POR LOS DERECHOS Y POR LA VIDA”
Buenos Aires, 22 al 25 de marzo de 2012
Introducción y memoria
En Buenos Aires, Argentina, entre los días 22 y 25 de marzo de 2012, el Comité
Internacional para la Soberanía Alimentaria-Coordinación Regional América Latina y
El Caribe, CIP-ALC, organizó la III Conferencia Especial para la Soberanía
Alimentaria, por los Derechos y por la Vida que antecedió a la 32ª Conferencia
Regional de la FAO.
Provenientes de 20 países, nos reunimos mujeres y hombres representantes de
organizaciones campesinas, de la pesca artesanal, la agricultura familiar, trabajadores
rurales, jóvenes, Pueblos Originarios, afrodescendientes, la Agroecología,
ambientalistas, redes y ONGs, comprometidas con la Soberanía Alimentaria y el
Derecho a la Alimentación, para analizar el modelo industrial de agricultura, ganadería
y pesca y sus efectos sociales, económicos, políticos, culturales y climáticos, y las
alternativas basadas en la Soberanía Alimentaria.
Abrimos nuestros sentimientos para ofrendar esta III Conferencia a la memoria de
Egidio Brunetto, compañero brasileño del MST, de tantas luchas y forjador de tantas
esperanzas: tus ideas y reflexiones y tu compromiso, Compañero, estuvieron presentes
en estas jornadas.
Como parte del proceso articulador que los movimientos y organizaciones sociales de
América Latina y El Caribe impulsamos desde 2003, la III Conferencia Especial tuvo
como objetivos construir un Plan de Acción de la Sociedad Civil para la Soberanía
Alimentaria, fortalecer y ampliar las alianzas estratégicas y elaborar nuestras propuestas
y recomendaciones para la 32ª Conferencia Regional de FAO.
Reafirmación y solidaridad
Refirmando que la Soberanía Alimentaria es un principio, una visión y un legado
construido por los Pueblos Indígenas, campesinos, agricultores familiares,
pescadores artesanales, mujeres, afrodescendientes, jóvenes y trabajadores
rurales, que se ha convertido en una plataforma aglutinadora de nuestras luchas y
en una propuesta para la sociedad en su conjunto.
21
El día 24 de marzo, Día de la Memoria en este país, nos honramos de marchar junto a
cientos de miles de argentinos, a 36 años del comienzo de una de las dictaduras
militares más sangrientas del continente, para exigir Memoria, Verdad y Justicia, por las
que aún lucha el pueblo argentino. Nos emocionó la fuerza y la convicción de esa lucha,
simbolizada por la tenacidad de las Madres de Plaza de Mayo, a quienes
simbólicamente abrazamos.
Nuevamente nos solidarizamos, y llamamos a los pueblos de América Latina y el
Caribe y el mundo, a reforzar la solidaridad con la extrema situación que enfrenta el
hermano pueblo haitiano. Exigimos el retiro de la fuerza de ocupación multinacional en
Haití (MINUSTAH), que ahonda la crisis y genera aún más problemas como cólera,
abusos sexuales, miseria, violación de la soberanía nacional y migración forzada,
represión contra las fuerzas democráticas. La fuerza de ocupación multinacional allana
la llegada masiva de empresas transnacionales del Norte y del Sur que –con estrategias
agresivas de pillaje– quieren tomar el control de los bienes estratégicos del país,
aumentando la miseria y socavando aún más las posibilidades de conquistar la
Soberanía Alimentaria y la justa reparación de las deudas sociales, ambientales,
financieras e históricas de las que el pueblo haitiano es acreedor. Se debe respetar la
voluntad y la autodeterminación del Pueblo haitiano para crear las condiciones mínimas
de reconstrucción de su país, en una trágica coyuntura después del devastador terremoto
del 12 de enero 2010.
Saludamos y nos solidarizamos con la Marcha Indígena, Campesina y Popular en
Guatemala, conformada por miles de mujeres, hombres, jóvenes y niños que se
movilizan hacia la capital para exigir al gobierno que atienda sus demandas de resolver
la problemática agraria que les afecta y en rechazo a los desalojos violentos que se han
dado en el país, generado muertos, hambre y pobreza en las comunidades.
Demandamos la solución inmediata a los conflictos por la tierra en el Bajo Aguán, en
Honduras, y exigimos frenar los abusos y asesinatos contra campesinos y campesinas
que exigen una Reforma Agraria Integral.
Esta Conferencia manifiesta su solidaridad con todos los hombres y mujeres del mundo,
que por sus luchas se encuentran perseguidos y/o encarcelados.
Denuncia y rechazo
La III Conferencia Especial denuncia y rechaza, una vez más, al modelo de
producción y consumo hegemónico que continúa generando hambre y pobreza
crecientes en el mundo y la región. Estas no son producto ni de la casualidad ni de la
falta de alimentos, sino de un modelo que viola el derecho a la vida digna de las
personas y los pueblos, acrecienta la subordinación de la mujer, invisibilizando su rol
determinante en la producción de alimentos y en la construcción de la Soberanía
Alimentaria.
Un modelo que explota al máximo a los trabajadores y trabajadoras, tanto en el campo
como en la ciudad; precarizando las relaciones e incumpliendo las legislaciones
laborales, devaluando salarios mínimos en el campo, aumentando el trabajo temporal y
22
generando migración interna e inmigración en búsqueda de trabajo, y especial
vulnerabilidad las zonas de frontera.
Un modelo que expone a la Pesca Artesanal a un conjunto de problemas tales como
falta de acceso a las regiones de pesca, competencia con otras flotas, falta de un marco
legal adecuado, y condiciones socio-económicas precarias que afectan la
comercialización de sus productos. La sobrecapacidad de las pesquerías industriales, la
sobrepesca de los bienes tradicionales y la acuicultura industrial, generan un escenario
de conflictividad creciente y amenazan al medio de vida de este sector: los ecosistemas
marino costeros y sus pesquería. Estas problemáticas se perpetúan ante la ausencia de
políticas pesqueras que establezcan reglas claras para todos los actores; las fallas en el
sistema de administración, control y fiscalización; la falta de transparencia y
participación en la toma de decisiones; y la sobre-capitalización de la industria.
Un modelo que fomenta el avance acelerado del acaparamiento de la tierra en todo el
continente. Entre las causas que lo explican se encuentran el brutal avance del
agronegocio en todo el continente, el mismo agronegocio que ha llevado a la humanidad
a la inédita cifra de más de mil millones de hambrientos. Otra causa la constituye el
avance de la minería a gran escala en países como Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Perú,
Ecuador, Costa Rica, México y Guatemala, así como los mega proyectos hidroeléctricos
y los grandes emprendimientos turísticos que se apropian de espacios comunes; y las
falsas soluciones al cambio climático, como los proyectos REDD (Reducción de
Emisiones por Deforestación y Degradación), REDD+, REDD++ y las plantaciones de
monocultivos para la producción de biomasa con fines energéticos.
La concentración de la tierra, bosques y cuerpos de agua de los Pueblos en manos de las
transnacionales, conduce a una guerra por los alimentos y abre la posibilidad del control
político sobre las naciones. La mercantilización de la tierra promocionada por el Banco
Mundial ha seguido impulsando la concentración y la extranjerización de la tierra y la
pérdida de territorios, constituyendo una de las mayores causas de expulsión de
campesinos, afrodescendientes y Pueblos Indígenas de sus tierras y comunidades.
Asimismo, los pescadores y pueblos del Manglar son expulsados de las zonas costeras y
sus derechos son limitados sobre las zonas marítimas.
Un modelo responsable de las crisis climática y de la biodiversidad, cuyos efectos
ponen en riesgo, como nunca antes en la historia de la humanidad, a los ecosistemas que
mantienen la vida, afectando con especial violencia a los afrodescendientes,
campesinos, pueblos originarios y pescadores artesanales. Mientras tanto, sus
responsables, las transnacionales y los países del Norte, se benefician de las soluciones
de mercado establecidas en el marco de las negociaciones de la Convenciones de
Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático y sobre Diversidad Biológica. En tanto, y a
través de falsas soluciones a las crisis que han generado, intentan avanzar aún más sobre
los territorios, mercantilizando y privatizando la naturaleza y la vida. Rechazamos a la
denominada “Economía Verde” como salida a las crisis climática y alimentaria.
Este modelo –industrial, intensivo, a gran escala, concentrador, dirigido a la exportación
de productos primarios, liderado por las transnacionales y altamente dependiente de
insumos químicos– destruye y remplaza los sistemas que alimentan a los pueblos al
23
transformar los alimentos en meras mercancías importadas y exportadas alrededor del
mundo, a cambio del precio más alto y la mayor tasa de ganancia del capital.
Un modelo que especula a gran escala con los alimentos, lo que sumado a la
concentración de la comercialización, redunda en el alza injustificada de los precios
esencialmente vinculada a la búsqueda de beneficios de las empresas transnacionales y
el sector financiero.
A pesar de la amplísima evidencia sobre los nefastos efectos del modelo neoliberal en
todo el mundo, el sistema internacional, los gobiernos y las transnacionales continúan
sometiendo al planeta a un desarrollo que agota las posibilidades mismas de la vida,
convirtiendo a las personas en meros agentes productivos, sin rostro y sin historia. La
liberalización económica y la arquitectura legal internacional sobre inversiones
extranjeras están directamente relacionadas con el crecimiento de la pobreza y el
hambre en la región.
Un modelo que reprime con violencia a los pueblos que resisten la ocupación de sus
territorios para la producción dirigida a la exportación de productos primarios
(minerales, madera, alimentos, agrocombustibles, entre otros), constituye un síntoma
evidente de un problema estructural, que si no es encarado de manera inmediata por los
gobiernos, a través de políticas públicas adecuadas, puede transformarse en una
situación explosiva.
Por lo tanto, la disyuntiva actual es, o promover un modelo basado en los agronegocios,
los agrocombustibles y en la pesca de gran escala, orientados todos a la exportación y
para lucro de unas pocas trasnacionales, o bien impulsar la Agroecología –expresión
cultural, política, económica, social, ambiental y técnico-productiva de la agricultura
campesina, familiar e indígena– y la pesca artesanal, basados en la diversidad de
sistemas productivos, relaciones de género justas y en la enorme riqueza de
conocimientos y prácticas ancestrales acumuladas por generaciones que garantizan la
producción de alimentos y el bienestar de los Pueblos y la Biodiversidad.
La tierra y los océanos y demás cuerpos de agua, además de ser medios de
reproducción, son espacios y ambientes de vida, de culturas y emotividad, de
identidad y espiritualidad. Por lo mismo, no son mercancías ni sumideros de
carbono, sino componentes fundamentales para la vida, a los cuales se accede por
derecho, de manera inalienable e imprescriptible. Los Estados deben entender que
el no ejercicio de la Soberanía Alimentaria compromete gravemente su propia
soberanía.
Creemos que la reforma del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial (CSA),
resultado del proceso político organizado de los movimientos sociales que luchan por a
Soberanía Alimentaria, permite que tengamos la posibilidad de hacer escuchar nuestra
voz en la toma de decisiones. Es sin duda un paso importante en la búsqueda por
alcanzar un sistema coherente con los derechos de los Pueblos y de la Madre Tierra, la
Soberanía Alimentaria y el Derecho a la Alimentación Adecuada.
Para ello, debemos fortalecer la participación de los compañeros y las compañeras
representantes de campesinos, sin tierra, trabajadores rurales, pescadores artesanales,
24
Pueblos Originarios, afrodescendientes y demás productores de alimentos a pequeña
escala, en el Mecanismo de la Sociedad Civil (MSC), en la incidencia y presión a
nuestros gobiernos para implementar los acuerdos tomados por el CSA y dar
cumplimiento a nuestras demandas y propuestas, implementando políticas nacionales y
regionales de Soberanía Alimentaria.
Señalamos como uno de los primeros resultados de este avance el proceso de las
Directrices Voluntarias de la FAO relativas a la Tenencia de la Tierra, las Pesquerías y
los Bosques en el Contexto de la Seguridad Alimentaria Nacional. Después de un
proceso participativo de cerca de tres años, el pasado viernes 9 de marzo de 2012 el
CSA concluyó las negociaciones intergubernamentales sobre las Directrices,
demostrando tener capacidad para convocar al debate a múltiples actores sociales y
buscar soluciones a una de las problemáticas más delicadas de la actualidad. Más de 45
personas representando a 20 organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil de todas partes del
mundo participaron en esta última ronda de negociaciones.
Las Directrices contribuirán al fortalecimiento de las organizaciones en su larga lucha
por asegurar el uso y control de los Bienes Naturales, con el fin de producir alimentos
sanos, contribuyendo así a erradicar el hambre en el mundo y sus causas profundas.
Asegurar el acceso a la tierra, las pesquerías y los bosques es crucial para permitir a los
productores de pequeña escala alimentar al mundo, pero también es cuestión de
dignidad, y de vida o muerte, para millones de comunidades de campesinas, de pastores,
de Pueblos Indígenas, de pescadores, afrodescendientes y de Pueblos del Manglar.
Sin embargo, manifestamos nuestro desacuerdo con las conclusiones del reporte final
“Dinámicas en el mercado de la tierra en América Latina y el Caribe” que, elaborado
por la FAO-ALC, plantea que “el fenómeno del Land Grabbing [acaparamiento de
tierras] se encuentra en sus fases iniciales y restringidas sólo a dos grandes países:
Argentina y Brasil”. Estas conclusiones surgen de aplicar los criterios de acaparamiento
en un sentido muy limitado: adquisición de grandes extensiones destinadas a la
producción de alimentos, en la que dentro de los agentes/actores que intervienen hay por
lo menos un Gobierno extranjero. Además, dicho documento propone como orientador
del debate al documento titulado “Informe del Panel de Expertos de Alto Nivel del
Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial (CSA) sobre Tenencia de la Tierra y las
Inversiones Internacionales en la Agricultura” de Julio de 2011, que pasa de la simple
denuncia del “acaparamiento de tierras” y reconoce potencialidades en las inversiones
extranjeras en tierras.
Si bien los documentos incluidos en el reporte de la FAO-ALC muestran un panorama
gravísimo sobre la situación de la tierra en América Latina y El Caribe y el proceso de
extranjerización y acaparamiento que está ocurriendo tanto para la producción de
alimentos básicos, como de agrocombustibles, producción forestal, turismo, minería o la
conservación, entendemos que estas conclusiones son sumamente peligrosas, ya que
ocultan y desdibujan –detrás de una supuesta rigurosidad científica y de utilización de
términos– un problema de dimensiones espectaculares a nivel de superficies acaparadas,
impactos en las economías locales y sobre la vida de millones de campesinos,
afrodescendientes, Pueblos Originarios, agricultores familiares y pescadores.
25
Desde las organizaciones y movimientos sociales que luchamos contra el acaparamiento
de tierras en todo el mundo demandamos que la FAO-ALC replantee urgentemente esta
posición, escuchando las voces de los pueblos y sus reclamos, y acompasando su
accionar con el proceso implementado por la FAO a nivel internacional. Lo
fundamental no es encontrar la definición adecuada al “acaparamiento de tierras” sino
poner fin de manera urgente a un proceso que está expulsando a los pueblos de sus
territorios cada día.
En ese sentido, también rechazamos la definición de “Bosques” establecida por la FAO,
ya que fomenta el acaparamiento de tierras para establecer grandes extensiones de
monocultivos. Al permitir que éstos sean definidos como “bosques”, legitiman un
monocultivo en escala industrial, responsable por innumerables impactos negativos,
incluyendo la expulsión de comunidades campesinas e indígenas.
La III Conferencia Especial para la Soberanía Alimentaria, por los Derechos y por
la Vida, manifiesta que:

La Soberanía Alimentaria es el Derecho de los pueblos a controlar sus propias
semillas, tierras, agua y la producción de alimentos, garantizando, a través de una
producción local, autónoma (participativa, comunitaria y compartida) y
culturalmente apropiada, en armonía y complementación con la Madre Tierra, el
acceso de los pueblos a alimentos suficientes, variados y nutritivos, profundizando
la producción de cada nación y pueblo.

Los sistemas tradicionales de producción de alimentos, constituyen un Derecho
Humano y son patrimonio de nuestros pueblos pescadores, campesinos,
afrodescendientes, indígenas y del manglar y están al servicio de la Humanidad.

La recuperación de la autonomía y la Soberanía Alimentaria, cultural y política para
los pueblos requiere de políticas y programas que fomenten la agricultura
campesina, familiar e indígena, y la pesca artesanal, como garantías para acceder a
alimentos saludables, nutritivos, suficientes y culturalmente apropiados, y como un
aporte económico fundamental en el sostenimiento de las sociedades actuales. Es
necesario valorar y promover a la Agroecología como único modo de producir
alimentos de alta calidad, respetando los ecosistemas y reconociendo los
conocimientos de mujeres y hombres campesinos, indígenas, agricultores
familiares, pescadores artesanales y pastores.

Reconociendo el avance en la Política de la FAO sobre Pueblos Indígenas y
Tribales, exigimos que la misma sea implementada en todos sus componentes,
particularmente en lo relacionado a bosques, agricultura, pesca y desarrollo
sustentable, por todas las instancias y programas de la FAO y por los gobiernos de
todo el mundo y en especial de América Latina y El Caribe. Los recursos para su
implementación deben ser garantizados.

Es necesario consolidar a la Pesca Artesanal en el escenario pesquero local,
provincial, nacional e internacional, tomando en cuenta el derecho de accesibilidad
a sus recursos y defendiendo al sector, a través del fortalecimiento de su
organización e instituciones, basados en principios de gestión transparente y
26
participativa, que facilite una actividad pesquera ambiental, social, económica y
políticamente sustentable.

Rechaza enérgicamente la generación, desarrollo y uso de agrocombustibles y toda
la generación de energía a través de la biomasa, tal como viene siendo promovida
por gobiernos, corporaciones, agencias de ayuda, las Naciones Unidas, las
instituciones financieras internacionales y demás agentes interesados en su
producción a gran escala y en su comercio internacional. El desarrollo y uso de
agrocombustibles no cambia, sino que perpetúa el modelo de producción y
consumo de la civilización moderna, urbana e industrial.

Del mismo modo, rechaza al desarrollo e imposición de organismos genéticamente
modificados (OGM) que, acompañados de un paquete tecnológico basado en
agrotóxicos, vuelven cada vez más precaria y dependiente la vida de los Pueblos.
Caben también responsabilidades a los medios masivos de comunicación y
multimedia empresariales hegemónicos que manipulan, falsean, ocultan o
tergiversan la información promoviendo este tipo de desarrollo.

La denominada “Economía Verde” significa la comercialización global del aire, los
mares, las tierras, territorios y demás bienes naturales.
La III Conferencia Especial demanda:

Detener la criminalización de los movimientos sociales y terminar con la
militarización de los territorios de los pueblos y comunidades.

La inmediata ratificación por parte de los gobiernos del Convenio 184 de la OIT
(Organización Internacional del Trabajo) referente a la salud y seguridad de los
trabajadores rurales por los derechos y por la vida, y de la Convención internacional
sobre la protección de los derechos de todos los trabajadores migratorios y de sus
familiares, adoptada por la Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas en su resolución
45/158, del 18 de diciembre de 1990.

Que los gobiernos de la región y la FAO adopten medidas urgentes para restablecer
los sistemas alimentarios nacionales de Haití, permitiendo al pueblo de dicha
nación recuperar su autonomía. Menos armas, menos tropas y más alimentos
soberanos para Haití.

Detener y condenar el acaparamiento de la tierra y otros bienes naturales e impulsar
la implementación de las Directrices relativas a la Tenencia de la Tierra, las
Pesquerías y los Bosques junto a las organizaciones sociales y de productores de
alimentos a pequeña escala, estableciendo plataformas o mesas nacionales
participativas para su implementación, monitoreo y evaluación del su impacto en la
realización del Derecho a la Alimentación Adecuada.

Que la FAO y los gobiernos mantengan los compromisos adoptados en la
Declaración de la Conferencia Internacional de Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo
Rural, CIRADR, concretando una Reforma Agraria integral, radical, con la debida
27
consulta y el consentimiento libre, previo e informado de los Pueblos y las
comunidades.

Que los Gobiernos, reconociendo a los y las jóvenes como agentes estratégicos para
el fortalecimiento de la Agricultura Familiar, Campesina e Indígena y del
Desarrollo Rural Sostenible, destinen recursos para generar políticas y programas
de Juventud Rural, diferenciados y articulados en el ámbito de acceso a la tierra, la
comercialización, la financiación y asistencia técnica, que posibiliten el arraigo de
la juventud en el campo, en regiones costeras y de Manglar.

Que los gobiernos implementen urgentemente medidas políticas concretas para que
en el 2014 expresemos con fuerza el Año de la Agricultura Familiar decretado por
la ONU, dando visibilidad mundial a la importancia de esta actividad familiar,
campesina e indígena para alcanzar la Soberanía y Seguridad alimentarias.

Que los gobiernos continúen garantizando la participación activa de la Sociedad
Civil en las Naciones Unidas y la FAO, para que ésta sea un agente activo en la
lucha contra el hambre y la pobreza e impulse el mantenimiento y la recuperación
de los modos tradicionales de producción de alimentos, comprometiéndose de
manera prioritaria con la realización del Derecho a la Alimentación, en el marco de
la Soberanía Alimentaria y creando un entorno propicio para un diálogo eficaz de
alto nivel entre los gobiernos y los movimientos y organizaciones sociales a través
de la formulación de acuerdos vinculantes.

Garantizar un amplio y significativo debate conjuntamente con la Sociedad Civil
sobre el funcionamiento y los cometidos centrales del CSA y sus implicancias para
los gobiernos nacionales.

Garantizar la inclusión de la posición de la Sociedad Civil en las consultas
multisectoriales, especialmente sobre un Marco Estratégico Mundial (MEM) que
incluya a la Soberanía Alimentaria como la reivindicación más importante de los
movimientos sociales y principio rector de dicho Marco.

Que los gobiernos aseguren que en el proceso de reforma de la FAO prime una
arquitectura de género igualitaria y permanente, con presupuesto suficiente y con
los debidos mecanismos participativos, de consulta y toma de decisiones.

Que la FAO inicie un proceso de revisión de su definición de “Bosques”, con la
participación efectiva de los pueblos campesinos e indígenas que viven o dependen
de dichos ecosistemas.

Que la FAO cree y ponga en funcionamiento un departamento o unidad dedicada a
la implementación de su Política sobre Pueblos Indígenas y Tribales con presencia
en cada estado de América Latina y El Caribe.

Que en la Cumbre de Naciones Unidas sobre Desarrollo Sustentable (“Rio + 20”
cuya realización está prevista desde el 20 al 22 de junio de 2012) los Estados de
América Latina y El Caribe impulsen un desarrollo debidamente sustentable,
reconociendo la contribución de la Agricultura familiar, campesina e indígena al
28
desarrollo sustentable y contribuyendo a que los países formulen agendas
nacionales al respecto; y no una “Economía Verde” global basada en el libre
comercio y el mercado global. Esta privatización y mercantilización de la vida y la
naturaleza está probada como profundamente destructiva e insustentable.
Agradecimientos
Finalmente, la III Conferencia Especial para la Soberanía Alimentaria, por los
Derechos y por la Vida expresa públicamente su agradecimiento al Gobierno
Argentino, en especial a la Sub Secretaría de Agricultura Familiar, y a la Oficina
Regional de la FAO, por su apoyo para la realización de esta Conferencia. Sin esa
colaboración hubiera sido imposible llevar adelante nuestros debates, perdiéndose un
mecanismo político imprescindible para el diálogo entre los gobiernos y los
movimientos y organizaciones sociales.
POR LOS DERECHOS Y POR LA VIDA
POR UN PRESENTE Y UN FUTURO SIN HAMBRE,
ES TIEMPO DE SOBERANIA ALIMENTARIA
29
Annex 3:
Civil Society Consultation for Europe and Central Asia Statement (Baku 15th-17th
April)
Regional FAO/NGOs-CSOs Consultation for Europe and Central Asia, Baku
(Azerbaijan), 15-17th of April 2012
CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT
Global Strategic Framework
Hunger is increasing in all parts of ECA. The root-causes are agricultural policies that
are not used to support local small-scale producers. Agricultural production is linked to
the International Financial Insitutions, international trade and speculation. Increasing
informal and casual labour, the loss of social protection in rural areas and low wages are
pushing more waged agricultural workers into poverty and hunger.
In the ECA, many small-scale producers and waged agricultural workers, especially
seasonal workers are excluded from social protection and have difficulty surviving cold
winters without income. The current crisis has also led to generalised austerity
programmes; new segments of the population now suffer from poverty and hunger. The
most vulnerable groups are the aged, youth, migrant workers and small-scale food
producers
Public legislation and civil society must jointly protect the Commons and the public
provision of goods and services. There is a decrease in land available for local food
production, due to increased property speculation in urban areas, land-grabbing for
industrial food and agro-fuel production. Water must remain a common good, with
guaranteed free access and sanitation for private households and small-scale agroecological production. It must be protected from big privatised projects such as dams.
Family farmers also need access to local market places. Big agri-business products are
pushing small-scale producers out of their traditional market space. This is aggravated
by international dumping and WTO rules. We support the regulation of food production
to guarantee fair prices for small-scale producers in local and national markets.
Many urban young people have lost the habit of cooking for themselves. They often
buy « convenience foods » in supermarkets. Diets are changing and becoming less
nutritious and less healthy due to increased consumption of highly processed foods and
reduced consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables. There is a need to raise awareness of
consumers and to strengthen local food nets and access to healthy locally grown
traditional foods as well as supporting educational cooking and nutrition courses. This
should be linked to national legislative instruments, including safety nets.
Traditional seed breeding and participatory methods should be prioritised over hybrid
or GMO crops and seed patenting by the multinational seed companies. Traditional,
local indigenous seeds and landraces should be protected by farmers saving and resowing their seeds. This guarantees the preservation of biodiversity, and is an integral
part of traditional sustainable organic agriculture. Farmers should be supported to
30
produce their own seeds from the local regional varieties. The dimension of Food
Sovereignty in the GSF needs to be strengthened to achieve this.
CSOs should participate in monitoring at all levels and governments should provide
them with the political space to do so. This is particularly important in spatial planning,
to preserve land for small-scale production and support access to land for young
farmers, allotments and community gardens. Clauses that favour the access of smallscale local producers and producers groups to public tenders should become the
accepted norm. Governments should also extend the minimum coverage of social
protection to all rural workers and ensure the workers core ILO Conventions, including
the right to negotiate a living wage, are fully implemented in practice.
Land
Farmers, fishers, pastoralists and other smallholder food producers and local
communities are facing a huge lack of fair, adequate and secure access to land,
water, fisheries and forests. This significantly undermines their livelihoods, national
and regional food security, food sovereignty, poverty eradication, preservation of
biodiversity and natural resources, climate change mitigation and adaptation to global
warming. This is essentially the consequence of insufficient responsible governance
of tenure of land and other related natural resources. Concrete issues faced by
relevant communities include land- water- fisheries- and forest- grabbing practices,
inducing expropriations that violate legitimate tenure and human rights, gender
inequity, unsustainable uses of land and other natural resources (such as
agricultural practice that causes water pollution and soil degradation). Youth face
difficulty gaining access to land. Spatial planning policies are not consistent with
sustainable development. The lack of active participation of CSOs in decision
making-processes affects access to land and other natural resources, and
consequently the livelihoods of local populations.
We call upon all Member-States, in close consultation and with the active participation
of CSOs and especially of organisations representing the most vulnerable and
marginalized groups to:
 Take immediate actions to improve land, water, fisheries and forests tenure and
governance, especially through the effective implementation at national level of the
CFS Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and
Forests in the Context of National Food Security.
 Ensure the adoption, during a specific session of the 38th Session of the CFS in
October 2012, of a consistent methodological approach to implement these
Guidelines, involving the CSM in the preparation of that specific session;
 Take immediate actions to stop the short-term land- water- fishery- and forestgrabbing practices, based on definitions adapted to national and local contexts.
States should seriously consider the possibility of implementing national moratoria
on investments involving large-scale land, water, fishery and forest transfers of
legitimate tenure rights;
 Support Community Land Trusts
 Ensure that the upcoming CFS consultation on the principles of responsible
investments in agriculture examines how public and private investments in
agriculture can best support food sovereignty, small-scale production and
especially women’s and agricultural workers’ rights. The CFS consultation on
31


RAI should examine the successful experiences of networks of self-organized CSOs
such as local food councils;
Adopt coherent approaches from a responsible land- and other natural resourcesgovernance perspective in engaging the RIO+20 UN Summit, and avoid using the
mainstream “green economy” concept for promoting the commodification or the
creation of financial speculative markets of the Commons.
Pay specific attention to closing the gender gap in agriculture, with particular
regard to equal and secure access to land and other resources.
Fisheries
The social and economic role of European and all small-scale fishers of the world must
be defined and recognized nationally and internationally. Small-scale fishers face
many challenges, including some that require immediate action before irreparable
damage occurs. Pollution from industrial agriculture and extractive industries
continues to increase and threaten fish stocks. “Trash islands” in the oceans now occupy
space equivalent to big countries. Hunger for oil is so great that experiments are
underway to extract oil from deep-sea areas. Technology is too limited to guarantee
protection from catastrophes or deal with the pollution that harm fish stocks and
threaten the livelihoods of fishers and artisinal activities in large coastal areas.
Land-grabbing is seen as an imminent threat to small-scale farmers. But sea-grabbing
through the enforcement of fishery management systems that put fishing rights up for
bids just like any other commodity is a threat to the very existence of small-scale
fisheries world-wide. Sea-, water- and land-grabbing has many faces. The Aral Sea
and Lake Urmia are examples where serious damage has already occurred.
For land-locked populations inland seas and lakes need to be preserved.
Sustainable fish-farming and aquaculture require new regulation and legislation
that protects both fish farmers and consumers. There is a need for clarification as to
whether this field falls under scope of fisheries or agricultural legislation, as this
currently varies from country to country.
The effect of different fishing gear on the marine environment should be considered
and included in the implementation of fishery management systems. The huge
difference of fossil fuel consumed by small-scale and industrial should be taken into
consideration. The fundamental link between coastal communities and coastal fisheries
is perceived as "old fashioned" thinking. These are the greatest challenges and threats
that small-scale fishers are facing today.
Management systems should always be created in close co-operation between
fishermen and scientists. The traditional knowledge of fishermen is constantly
overlooked and in many cases, science spends time, energy and funds on reinventing the
wheel.
Building management systems where these stakeholders work hand-in-hand will lead to
success. -Management systems where environmentally friendly fishing-gear and low
energy-consuming vessels are rewarded will lead to co-operation and trust.
Small-scale fishermen are the farmers of the ocean. ECA States should implement laws
and regulations that guarantee rights and obligations including the moral duty to
cooperate with scientists to find the path to a sustainable harvest of the marine
environment.
32
The current path is a blind alley. Small-scale fisheries are not a problem, but a big part
of the solution for a sustainable future.
Solidarity economy
Social and Solidarity Economy allows organised civil society to develop and
implement sustainable social and economic innovation in cultural and locally
participatory adapted ways. Local economies thrive, and wealth is redistributed
within the community. An increasing, significant number of people at global level are
jointly working in sustainable local economy networks. These networks are a nonState public space that is connected at regional, national and international level.
These CSO actors are a resource that should be empowered to promote local
sustainable food nets based on organic, agro-ecological production aimed at building
a more resilient society.
Social and solidarity economy can strengthen all the actors in local food webs through a
systemic and participatory approach to local economies, based on Food Sovereignty,
including Community Land Trusts, Community Supported Agriculture, alternative short
food distribution systems, ethical finance, local currencies, housing, and other essential
services for all the actors.
ECA countries should look to Latin American countries such as Ecuador, Bolivia or
Brazil for inspiration in their constitutional promotion of Food Sovereignty, Solidarity
Economy and sustainable local food webs.
Regional and Local Authorities
Regional and Local Authorities do not determine national agricultural policies, but are
key decision-makers in spatial planning. They should guarantee privileged access
for small-scale producers to land, local markets and public procurement of food for
canteens, and all local food- and socially-related policies.
They should be considered and identified as key actors In the process of building
successful global governance of agri-food systems. They link the general framework
of agri-food policies to territorial implementation.
In global governance, Regional Governments and Local Authorities should support
Local Food Councils to promote, manage and evaluate:
 Spatial planning with sufficient agricultural land for small-scale producers
and civil society to produce, distribute and sell fresh, local, organic food in
urban and peri-urban areas, including allotments and community gardens,
avoiding use of agricultural land for energy production (biomass, solar energy
fields);
 Appropriate planning of housing that includes adequate storage and cooking
facilities;
 Local and territorial economy that facilitates local small-scale producers’
networks;
 Privileged access for small-scale producers to local procurement for public
canteens (schools, hospitals, etc.);
33




Public water management that guarantees access to water for households and
small-scale producers;
The respect of workers rights and equality-based jobs;
Participatory budgeting;
Local currencies to decommodify food and to develop local economies
decoupled from international trade.
Annex 4:
Civil Society Declaration on regional civil society consultation for Africa
(Brazzaville 21st – 22nd April)
FINAL DECLARATION OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS
Regional Civil Society Consultation for Africa held in Brazzaville April 21-22, 2012
We, African civil society organizations - including small-scale farmers, pastoralists,
fisherfolk, consumers, women, young people, NGOs, human rights movements, trade
unions, academics, artisans, indigenous peoples – meeting in Brazzaville from 21 to 22
April 2012 in the context of the 27th FAO Regional Conference, having discussed the
situation of agricultural development and food security in Africa, make the following
observations :
1. Food insecurity affects more than 40% of the African population, of which 65%
are small-scale producers, despite the variety of projects that have been
implemented in Africa and the strong economic growth rate over the past few
years highlighted by the authorities ;
2. Lack of coherence among policies, programmes and projects at different levels
(local, national, regional et continental) continues to be a problem ;
3. Governments look to external resources to fund African agriculture yet, we
maintain, our agriculture can only develop if it receives adequate national
resources as a priority ;
4. Resources are targeted towards industrial agriculture adopting the Public/Private
Partnerships (PPP) approach which is not an appropriate instrument for
supporting the family farms that are the foundation of African food security and
sovereignty ;
5. Despite the expectations that CAADP inspired at the outset, civil society notes
that the process of its implementation is not inclusive and that the modalities of
its funding are oriented towards external aid that is often not adapted to the
national context ;
6. Government accountability regarding the various types of investments that have
been put in place before and after the 2008 food crisis is progressively
weakening;
7. There is a communications deficit among the various actors of food security;
8. The needs of small producers – women in particular – are increasingly
highlighted in programme proposals as means for successfully mobilizing
financial resources, yet these resources do not reach the small producers in
whose name they were sought.
34
In order to address these preoccupations, which we discussed in detail, we make the
following requests :
1. Regarding the Global Strategic Framework (GSF)
- The adoption of coherent agricultural policies that take into account the impact of
climate change in Africa as well as the principles of agro-ecology and of food
sovereignty.
- The establishment, within the framework of the CFS, of a mechanism of
monitoring and evaluation adopting a human rights approach in order to verify that
the various actors respect, protect and fulfill the right to food according to their
respective obligations.
2. Regarding the Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of
Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests
- In the African context, the Voluntary Guidelines should be harmonized with
the AU Land Initiative and should support the implementation of this existing
initiative.
- Once the Guidelines have been adopted, governments should apply them to the
national context adopting an inclusive approach. A formal dialogue space should
be established including all the concerned actors, with particular attention to
small-scale producers, in order to identify gaps and ensure the effective
implementation of the Guideline at all levels.
- Our assembly firmly condemns land grabbing and calls for a moratorium on
the industrial production of agrofuels on the continent, which is strongly linked
to this deplorable phenomenon.
3. Regarding agricultural investments
- The existence of agricultural policies formulated with a participatory approach
should be the pre-condition for the formulation of national investment plans.
- States should be accountable for ensuring that agricultural investments are
useful and relevant and that they are coherent with the visions of the agricultural
policies.
- Agricultural investments should be directed towards family farms, and
particularly towards women and young people and other marginalized groups.
We request that :
-
-
governments, FAO, the G8, the World Bank and the GAFSP reconsider
their promotion of Public/Private Partnerships which, as they are now
conceived, are not suitable instruments to support the family farms which
are the very basis of African food security and sovereignty.
governments speed up the proactive participation of small-scale
producers and other members of civil society in the decision-making
mechanisms of CAADP, as is the case in the CFS.
35
-
-
agricultural research be financed by the public sector and that it take
local knowledge into account.
FAO and governments provide Technical Cooperation Programme
(TCP) resources to support capacity building and the establishment of
multi-actor platforms in the context of consultations on principles of
responsible agricultural investment and the implementation of the
Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land,
Fisheries and Forests.
governments and FAO support the preparation of the International Year
of Family Farming foreseen for 2014 according to the declaration of 22
December 2011 of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
governments, regional integration institutions, the African Union and
FAO support the communication efforts of civil society at all levels.
We recognize the relevance and importance of the CFS and its inclusive method
of work and we request that this approach be put into practice at all levels.
We support the decentralization process of FAO and recommend that this
process be inclusive and transparent.
We also request greater coherence in Africa and that the programmes of the subregional and regional offices be defined through dialogue spaces involving all
concerned actors.
We, civil society organizations, are ready to undertake lobbying, advocacy and
social accountability action in order to bring our requests to actors at all levels.
Brazzaville, 22 April 2012
Participants of the African Civil Society Consultation from the Central Africa, East
Africa, West Africa and Southern Africa regions
Annex 5:
CSO statement to the multistakeholder dialogue on GSF, Brazzaville:
« Suite à deux jours de travaux intenses de la société civile, et en particulier au terme
d'une demi-journée de discussion sur le Cadre stratégique mondial pour la sécurité
alimentaire et la nutrition (CSM), j'ai le plaisir de partager avec vous notre analyse de
la première version du CSM:
Selon la société civile africaine, la première version du CSM contient des éléments très
positifs et reflète de manière adéquate l'analyse des causes de la faim et de la
malnutrition partagées par nos organisations.
36
Notamment, nous saluons la définition du CSA comme le forum le plus inclusif en
matière de gouvernance mondiale de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition. En effet,
l'établissement du Mécanisme de la société civile au sein du CSA lui donne une
légitimité renforcée. La participation active de la société civile au fonctionnement du
Conseil et à l'élaboration du CSM est la condition nécessaire pour appréhender la
problématique de la faim et de la malnutrition dans toute sa complexité.
La société civile africaine et le Réseau africain pour le droit à l'alimentation (RAPDA)
dont je suis la Coordinatrice Régionale, saluent l'intégration du droit à l’alimentation
et de l'approche basée sur les droits humains dans la première version du CSM. Le
concept du droit à l'alimentation est central dans la lutte contre la faim et la malnutrition
qui comme nous le savons ne sont pas exclusivement liées aux pénuries alimentaires
mais bien plus à la discrimination des groupes marginalisés vivant majoritairement en
milieu rural et dont les droits sont quotidiennement violés.
Il est positif que les obligations des Etats de respecter, protéger et donner effet au
droit à l'alimentation soient rappelées dans le CSM. De plus, le document propose
une approche en sept étapes pour la mise en œuvre effective du droit à l’alimentation
dans les programmes et politiques à l’échelle nationale qui s'inspire des Directives de la
FAO sur le Droit à l’alimentation qui ont été adoptées en 2004.
Cependant, le CSM doit également prévoir la mise en place d'un organe de suivi et de
reddition de compte basé sur les droits humains pour évaluer le niveau d'application
des décisions et recommandations du CSA. C'est une condition pour plus de cohérence
et d'efficacité. Tous les acteurs doivent assumer leurs responsabilités pour un vrai
changement de politiques. C'est le manque de responsabilisation et de volonté politique
qui est la cause de nos échecs précédents.
Par ailleurs, il nous est apparu que certains éléments n'ont pas la place qu'ils méritent
dans cette première version CSM et doivent être soulignés. Je veux parler du concept de
souveraineté alimentaire et de la reconnaissance des savoirs-faires locaux
constituent les revendications les plus importantes des acteurs de la société civile et
devraient par conséquent être un principe directeur du CSM.
De plus, la société civile insiste pour que le document identifie l’accaparement des
terres actuel, majoritairement par des acteurs extérieurs à l'Afrique, comme l’une des
menaces les plus sérieuses à la sécurité alimentaire et à la nutrition à l'échelle planétaire
et particulièrement en Afrique compte tenu de l'ampleur de ce phénomène sur ce
continent.
La défense des droits fonciers des petits producteurs et productrices et l'utilisation
durable des ressources doivent être une priorité pour le CSA et tous ses pays
membres. Pour y parvenir, il est nécessaire que le CSM inclue pleinement les
Directives volontaires pour une gouvernance responsable des régimes fonciers
applicables aux terres, aux pêches et aux forêts qui seront adoptées le mois prochain.
37
La société civile demande également que la FAO recommande à ses membres de
déclarer un moratoire sur la production industrielle d'agrocarburants qui est
fortement liée au phénomène de l'accaparement des terres.
Il est également indispensable que le rôle des petits producteurs et surtout des
productrices de l'agriculture familiale et les méthodes agro-écologiques soient
reconnus comme le principal moyen d'atteindre une production durable de denrées
alimentaires. Les droits des femmes et les nombreuses formes de violence structurelle
et de discrimination qui les privent de leurs droits d'accès aux moyens de production et à
l'autonomisation auxquelles elles sont confrontées, doivent faire l'objet d'une attention
particulière dans le CSM.
Par ailleurs, nous ne pouvons pas accepter que la Première version du CSM soutienne
l’achèvement du Cycle de Doha de l’OMC. L'agriculture n'est pas un business! Et un
domaine d'une telle importance pour l'humanité ne peut être discuté que dans un forum
ouvert, comme le CSA, où les personnes les plus concernées, c'est-à-dire les petits
producteurs et productrices de denrées alimentaires sont à la table des négociations.
Annex 6:
Civil Society Mechanism – North America
Response to the First Draft of the GSF
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:
• 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.
A. Accuracy of the Reported Consensus
i. 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.
ii. 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.
38
iii. 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.
iv. 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.
v. 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.
vi. 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 ‘ambitious, balanced, fair and comprehensive
conclusion’, text that was not part of the outcome of the Round Table.
vii. Social Protection and Safety Nets – it is not appropriate to include this section
before the full discussion of the topic at CFS 38.
viii. 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?
ix. 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.
B. Further Policy Areas for CFS – Para 88
1. Current text
i. 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.
ii. 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
39
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.
2. New Proposals
i. 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 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 (Why
Hunger), Cathleen Kneen (Food Secure Canada), Dennis Olson (UFCW), Stuart Clark
(Canadian Foodgrains Bank), Sophia Murphy (IATP), Faris Ahmed (USC Canada),
Brother David Andrews (Food and Water Watch)
24 April 2012
Annex 7: Oxfam submission to the Online Consultation
Oxfam submission to the online consultation on the Draft 1 of the CFS
Global Strategic Framework
Oxfam has supported the development of a CFS Global Strategic Framework (GSF)
since the reform of theCFS. 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 evidencebased consensus exists, are missing or are too vague. The next GSF draft should:
40
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
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
interministerial 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:
41
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. 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 agroecology 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.
42
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, 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 ofhunger 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.
43
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
pre-empt 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/tiranadeclaration)
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.
Annex 8
Trans-Atlantic Food Assistance Dialogue (TAFAD)
TAFAD consolidated collective contribution for GSF 2nd draft
1) Does the First Draft present key issues of food security and nutrition on which
there is broad regional and international consensus?
TAFAD acknowledges that the GSF is an important tool offering a framework within
which the CFS decisions could be coordinated and harmonized at international, regional
44
and national levels. TAFAD has supported this instrument since the beginning of the
process. Nevertheless, in the introduction and background of this document it should be
stated more clearly that a way to enhance coherence and harmonization is through
dialogue between a wide range of actors from governments, local and regional civil
society. One of the most important value-added features of the GSF is in fact its
flexibility and capacity to bring together in one place the key consensus of a multistakeholder process. Few governments like to talk to their civil societies. The GSF,
being a flexible instrument, has a potential in facilitating a compromise between
governments, donors and stakeholders’ interests. These elements are all present in the
document but they need to be structured in a way that highlights better this message.
The GSF is not only an instrument drawing on existing policy decisions of the CFS or
capturing policy consensus, but also an important tool to identify shortcomings or
incoherencies between the various food security related policies discussed at the CFS
and elsewhere and to promote new ideas to overcome these gaps. In this sense the GFS
is an important tool to foster dialogue on key emerging policy areas in food security and
nutrition. This element should also be made clear in the introduction and background.
2) Does the list of areas where there are gaps in policy convergence that may be
address in the future versions of the GSF need to be amended?
Although the debate in linking emergency-relief-development is not new, the existing
system continues to experience a lack of coherence and transitional funding from the
immediate consumption area assured by conventional food aid activities, and the
recovery-to-development area where people need special protection for their livelihoods
and adequate safety nets. When relief activities are integrated into developmental
objectives, development programmes protect people's assets more effectively and
reduce the need for relief in response to future shocks. In this way post-emergency
recovery might be reduced and long-term improvements would be more sustainable.
Emergency food aid should be carefully integrated into national food security plans to
ensure that food or food-related transfers do not undermine other aspects of food
security and ultimately contribute to food sovereignty. The GSF document can
underline the crucial role and responsibility that donors have in supporting these
strategies and ensure policy coherence in these approaches.
More specifically, “Section D - Making it happen: linking policies and programmes
with resources” should include a reference to the new treaty framing global food
assistance, the Food Aid Convention. This treaty deals principally with commitments to
make available food assistance resources to meet emergency and chronic needs.
However, these are not limited to their use in social protection or safety nets. Therefore
it would be more appropriate to include this reference in this section to ensure that these
resources are included in international assistance to food security.
45
Annex 9
ACTIONAID AND IFSN SUBMISSION ON ONLINE CONSULTATION ON
GLOBAL STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
Comments
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?
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
46
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.
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
47
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 multi-sectoral 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 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
48
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.
ActionAid is a partnership between people in rich and poor countries, dedicated to ending
poverty and injustice. We work with people all over the world to fight hunger and disease, seek
justice and education for women, hold companies and governments accountable, and cope with
emergencies in over 40 countries.
IFSN is co-funded by the European Commission and implemented by ActionAid and 13 official
partners. It works in partnership with 1,400+ civil society organisations in more than 30
countries across 5 continents to strengthen national and regional food security and sovereignty
networks to ensure the right to food in southern countries.
The present submission draws from the contributions received by IFSN networks in Asia,
Central and South America.
49