Dear Christina and the CFS-RAI team,
I write as an independent consultant and researcher on food security.
I thank you for the work you have undertaken to date in collating and drafting the Zero Draft principles.
I think you capture the essence of the major concerns regarding the relationship between responsible agricultural investment and food security - and sovereignty - the latter's principles which are not really reflected in this document.
I agree with many of the comments of those who have taken the time to compile quite comprehensive and lengthy contributions to this discussion.
However due to time constraints I really just want to cover one brief but central aspect of this discussion - the proverbial elephant in the room; power and money, the two being essentially indivisible.
It is fine and well compiling an excellent analysis of the state of play and requirements for future food security in the face of growing populations, threatened by climate change and other pressures. However the framing of the discussion skirts the issue of how the important and vulnerable groups - women, indigenous peoples and so on - are proposed to protect themselves in the face of power being wielded against them.
These concerns are writ large in Africa at present (and I am certain are equally embedded in other developing nations around the world) with the expansion of large agricultural land holdings across the continent being supported by both national political players, international agencies and of course the major financial interests that are keen to speculate and control as much fertile land as possible, at minimum outlay.
We can set in place as many MOUs on responsible investment in agriculture as we like but there is an inherent problem that the institutional powers that be - governments and corporate interests - have been led to believe that large scale industrial agriculture remains the solution to international food security. While the zero draft acknowledges the realities of the majority of smallholder and emerging farmers, it does not adequately speak to the challenges of capacity in enabling them to not just be heard and acknowledged as far as their requirements are concerned, but more importantly it fails to take due cognisance of the continued inequity of the positions of often isolated smallholders versus that of those who impose structures, like the privatisation of large land holdings on their traditional lands, usually decided upon in distant boardrooms and legislatures. Even many aid programmes are dominated by large scale, externally driven, technocratic solutions that are often imposed rather than absorbed and adopted by local communities in a truly participatory manner. These inequalities in power and more importantly the projection of power must be addressed if a programme such as this is to have any hope of success.
Certainly this policy document cannot solve these fundamental and systemic challenges at their roots, but it should certainly address them more closely than it presently does. I have a few suggestions that may suggest some ways to provide mechanisms to facilitate ways around this inequity.
Firstly I would suggest that an international clearing house be instituted in order to provide an oversight mechanism. While this would not have any legislative power, it would be able to place problems firmly into the public sphere simply by making them visible. It would be logical to place such an institution within a body such as the UNFAO or a sub-committee such as this. Such an office could be accompanied with a rapporteur or secretariat that ensures that important information is raised to suitable levels so that it can be properly facilitated, in co-operation with the parties which require assistance.
Secondly readily accessible channels should be made available for reporting to this entity. These would encourage and enable whistle blowing and information sharing about due process, either being followed, or not. This is especially important in the case of nations where governments may lack the will, experience or means to facilitate proper public facilitation such as appears to be occurring in areas in Africa where massive dams and agricultural schemes are being imposed on small, isolated but culture rich populations. The challenges around dealing with the dynamics around these tensions could be facilitated with the assistance of increasing internet and cell phone technology penetration or through other reporting methods that allow greater anonymity, possibly through third party reporting.
Thirdly, these mechanisms of oversight and reporting and assistance, where need be, should be facilitated. Such facilitation should be made able to assist vulnerable populations in navigating these challenges. These could be assisted through already present civil society organisations or again, through institutional linkages with neutral bodies such as the UNFAO.
If these sorts of steps are not put in place the same vulnerable, voiceless communities and sectors - women, marginalised groups, migrants, etc. - will not gain the benefits that this initiative is envisaged to bring, compromising the goals for which it is designed. This is why we need these sorts of linkages - to protect, assist and empower the otherwise silent and powerless.
Excuse me not distilling this down to a shorter bullet point presentation but time constraints force me to submit an unedited version!
Regards
Glenn Ashton
Glenn Ashton