InternationalFood
Security & Nutrition Civil Society Mechanism 10/10/2013
Civil Society Key Messages on CFS 40
Agenda Items [Facilitated by the Civil Society Mechanism]
BIOFUELS
We need to act
now, and address policies that are at the root cause of the food crises.
Biofuel production – and the policies, subsidies and mandates behind much of
the supply and demand in the biofuels market – has been directly linked to
higher food prices and increased food price volatility in recent years. The
demand for biofuels and high prices for food crops are also directly linked to
land -‐ and water -‐ grabbing. Coordinated policy actions at the
global level are necessary to eliminate mandates and subsidies; protect the
rights to food, land, and water; and ensure that biofuel production does not
threaten food security. The CFS has no other option than to deliver to meet
its obligation to improve policy coherence for the realization of the right to
food and o ensure food and nutrition security for all.
INVESTING IN SMALLHOLDER AGRICULTRE
Small-‐scale producers – mostly women -‐ are the principal
investors in agriculture and the major food producers. Public investments
should support:
· The
family farming model which is more diversified, more nutritious, and more
useful from an environmental perspective than the industrial model.
· The
rights of peasants to access land and seeds, which is the first step towards
food sovereignty.
· Small-‐scale
food producers' markets that exist everywhere.
PROTRACTED CRISES
We appreciate the efforts to include civil society in
the development of the Agenda for Action (A4A) for Addressing Food Insecurity
in Protracted Crises, but demand further involvement in the immediate actions
surrounding resilience and the New Deal, and the criteria and selection
process for countries in protracted crisis. Additionally, we stress on the
following:
· Affected
communities should be at the centre of the assessment of the underlying
structural causes, consequences of protracted crisis to enable them to be
active in decision-‐making processes and claiming their rights under
legally binding instruments.
· The
A4A should be directed at enhancing local food systems defined by affected
communities rather than short-‐term interventions that breed
dependency.
· The
A4A should ensure that “nutrition” is mainstreamed into the A4A title, design,
implementation, and monitoring processes.
CFS PRIORITIES (Multi Year Programme of Work)
On
the process, we have complained about the attempt of certain governments to
reduce the work of the CFS, as this undermines the role of the CFS as the
global governance platform, which gives recommendations and coordinates
policies on food and nutrition security. The reduction in the number of HLPE
reports from two to one for the 2014-‐2015 period is just one example.
There are no economic reasons why the number of HLPE reports should be
reduced.
On
CFS priorities, we believe that the topic of seeds is central to food
security, especially for small-‐scale food producer organizations. The
CFS should be able to coordinate the actions of international bodies involved
in the topic of Genetic Resources at one single articulation level, with
bodies such as the ITPGRFA and the Commission on Genetic Resources, the CBD,
WIPO and UPOV. This should be a priority for governments in order to provide
coherence to international agreements aimed at guaranteeing food security.
MONITORING
We welcome and appreciate the work done so far by the OEWG. We recall the
importance of monitoring and accountability as one of the main tasks of CFS.
Particularly we stress the mandate of the CFS Reform Document to develop and
establish an innovative mechanism on monitoring, which is to be built on the
elements agreed upon by the OEWG and the GSF. We understand that the explicit
OEWG mandate given by the CFS 39 to further develop the innovative monitoring
mechanism will be part of the work plan in 2014.
COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY
The CSM supports the overall CFS Communications Strategy and suggests
further consultations with civil society on communication needs assessment in
finalizing the strategy and implementation plan. The communications strategy
should take into consideration the people who do not have regular access to
electronic infrastructure such as internet/email or even electricity and
explore alternative communications means such as traditional/folk media,
radio, and interpersonal communications and others. The CSM wishes to work
closely with the CFS Secretariat in developing communications messages and
products, which should be made available during campaigning activities across
the globe.
To ensure coherence in implementing CFS policy guidance, the CFS strategy
should elaborate how it relates to, and supports the processes. The CSM wishes
to highlight that different constituencies may not always automatically
endorse CFS communications messages and products which at times may need
adaptation and contextualization for a specific audience. In addition to this,
the CFS website should be separate from that of the FAO, “articles” should be
replaced with “other communication products and initiative” on page 7 (point
26) and “CFS Champions” should clearly be defined on page 7
(point 27) as the CSM constituencies and sub-‐regions would also
like to be a part of the “Champions”.
GSF
As the CSM we are deeply committed to using the GSF. We expect the CFS, in
its communication strategy, to disseminate and raise awareness of the GSF in
the same manner that we are doing. As far as this year's decision box, we will
accept it. However: Although we are in favor of this being a living document
we caution against the yearly update, as cut and paste from decision boxes. We
urge the CFS to identify a clear inclusive process for the periodic update of
the GSF and to resource it accordingly. In case it is decided to go ahead with
yearly updating this should be done using annexes. We would like to see the
removal of the sentence which refers to updates being subject to available
resources.
rai
Small-‐scale food producers -‐ who include farmers,
fisherfolk, pastoralists, workers, indigenous communities, women and
processors -‐ must be at the centre of the principles. This requires
the rai principles:
to acknowledge and address the imbalances of power
among different investors; small-‐scale food producers cannot be
grouped in the same category as other “private investors” that include
large-‐scale investors, state enterprises, financiers and
corporations
· to
offer a clear condemnation of land and resource grabbing and the importance of
safeguarding legitimate tenure rights as elaborated in the VGGT
· to
recognize and facilitate public investment that favours small scale food
producers
· to
elaborate the roles and responsibilities of the state in relation to
regulatory and legal frameworks that address the interests and priorities of
small-‐scale food producers, including in the regulation of local,
national, regional and global markets
Civil society also wishes to express concerns regarding the time-‐line
of the rai consultation process and the drive by some to push the
consultations beyond 2014. In a context in which small-‐scale food
producers are losing access to and control over the world’s land, fisheries,
and forests at a rapid pace, we cannot afford any delays. The original agreed
upon time-‐line, in which the principles are to be endorsed in October
2014, should be respected.