1. Are all relevant issues and areas related to fostering responsible agricultural investments adequately addressed in the Zero Draft? If not, what should be changed?
Yes, they are. Principles are well defined and formulated. Though ‘Food safety’ and ‘addressing risks emerging from food insecurity’ seen being implied in the part I, they should be highlighted in terms of existing situation and forecasting risks. I also miss the stressing on standards of accountability and reporting of food security at national level. Additionally, I found that principles are described in more generic style, but I acknowledge that this document is highlighting the ‘principles’ and does supposed to be detailed or specific. ‘Principles’ should not interpreted in multiple meaning, therefore should have shorter and wider versions. It would also be useful to readers to brief why principles are divided into groups / parts.
2. Are the roles and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders clearly defined in order to facilitate implementation of the principles? If not, what should be changed?
Yes, and not. Yes, because this document is stipulate ‘general’ principles, not a guiding ‘principles’ or framework or strategy or policy. Not, because, each case would have its own framework in kind of project or program, where actors of public and/or private sector would have different mandate and role. Additionally, each case could be different state by state. In the section “roles and responsibilities” the document states that ‘states’ are obligated…, are encouraged… . It is not clear will this assure the buy-in of principles by states and national partners.
While public and private sector is considered as horizontal dimension, a vertical dimension should also be considered, such as inter-sectoral institutions, regional and global bodies, and their roles and responsibilities.
3. Does the Zero Draft achieve the desired outcome to promote investments in agriculture that contributes to food security and supports the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security? If not, what should be changed?
Yes, it does, if the principles are recognized, adopted and implemented/followed by countries. I think first of all these principles should up-scaled as much as possible to make sure that they could be then out-scaled. The principles are very holistic, but still more efforts should be done in order assure ‘buy-in’ by national partners.
4. The principles are intended to provide practical guidance to stakeholders; therefore:
Are the current structure and language used clear and accessible for all relevant stakeholders to apply?
Yes, it is very clear and easy to read! But, I am not sure that all stakeholders would be communicated. An Intstitution in charge should be resposible for communicating the principles should be communicated to all stakeholder. The principles should be translated into local languges.
What steps need to be taken for the CFS-RAI principles to be used and implemented by different stakeholders after endorsement by CFS?
This is very critical. The principles are very holistic, but still more efforts should be done in order assure ‘buy-in’ by national partners. The CFS-RAI principles should be widely endorsed and adopted by development continuum, global initiatives and political bodies. Wide campaign should be implemented towards formal recognition of the principles by states. Global Standards on food security accounts/accounting should also be adopted globally for assuring the transparency and M&E of principles implementation. CFS-RAI principles should also be linked with MDGs.