The following are my answers to the Guiding Questions:
1. How can FAO and CSOs work together to regain the momentum lost and work jointly to "leave no one behind”?
CSOs today represent different groups and stakeholders than was the case in the past decade. CSOs are no longer restricted to associations, academic institutions, or professional groups. For the FAO to work jointly with CSOs to leave no one behind, it needs to identify clearly which CSOs are most active in the FAO's lines of work, and which are the ones that contribute positively to the objectives of the FAO. It is my experience that many global CSOs have converged to political action to enjoy UN backing and funding for their activities and participatory actions. It is therefore difficult to consider that a certain CSO is a contributor to the future of the SDGs, as an example, just because it calls itself a research entity or a think tank. The FAO needs to identify the level of partnership with each CSO based on contributing elements in the work of the FAO and to assess the synergies or the mutual outcomes that are sought by each CSO. As an example, the objective of reaching zero hunger outcomes is not only by addressing the causes of socio-economic inequality through assessments and political mainstreaming activities but more so by identifying “joint” programs of work that transform the entire systems of work towards a zero-hunger destination jointly and integrally by the FAO and CSOs individually and collectively. If partnerships provide the answer, then a partnership on food security, as an example, should have a thematic identity and functional values towards jointly charted milestones.
2. What and how can CSOs contribute to such transformation to boost impact on the ground?
CSOs that have survived global conditions and are in their current standing considered CSOs are mostly representatives of groups seeking to make a radical change to situations that cannot be tolerated any longer. Therefore, today’s CSOs are initiative takers, program creators, and project undertakers as well as actors of principled agendas. CSOs of interest are the push rather than the pull actors. They need to initiate specific policies and program objectives based on their understanding of the FAO’s strategic framework of actions and approach the FAO to negotiate joint modalities that can achieve results for both the FAO and CSO of interest.
In the food security area, for example, CSOs should be regional actors seeking to develop pathways to contribute to the food security strategies for each country in the region and the entire region. A local or a national actor would find interest in participating and bringing contributions from the local or national stakeholders only when the local or national interests are met at the regional table. For example, in food security policy research, which is carried out to develop food manufacturing projects, CSOs are successful in their transformation initiatives when a program of work involves all actors and produces shared outcomes. If a project is initiated in a certain country of the region, the entire group of countries in that region know and can relate to the outputs of that project knowing that the desired impact is fully regionally shared.
The best that CSOs can deliver to the agrifood systems transformation is by improving their capacities to involve and to reach out to every stakeholder in their ecosystem of work.
3. What FAO and CSOs could maximize collective impact to adapt and/or mitigate climate change?
CSOs should be technically enabled to contribute to anticipatory activities to be part of the response. Climate change is seriously taking economies to unfavorable positions. The set of activities involving the entire food supply chain should become a shared responsibility. CSOs need to be connected with the FAO through some functionality to allow for expedient actions in project undertaking and outcome monitoring. Putting CSOs at the heart of climate action along with the FAO is by creating an enabling mechanism that provides opportunities for CSOs to be effective actors in climate disasters and planned response.
The expression ’collective impact’ to adapt and/or mitigate climate change is argumentative. Today, countries are faced with climate risks associated with health risks and economic challenges. Food shortages resulting from a climate crisis could be affecting market supply or access to logistical support. CSOs can help provide spot solutions to solve particular cases in the crisis. However, CSOs, for example, cannot in flood disasters or earthquakes elevate the crisis response planning to the macroeconomic levels and wait for policymakers to interact with national actors to take measures at the national or macro levels. CSOs should be better equipped to serve in the immediate response and to be part of the humanitarian machinery on the ground to respond. Eventually, CSOs will be part of the macro-level response to achieve the collective impact factors, but they need to be quick in having the capacities to participate in the immediate response measures on the ground.
4. Based on your partnering experience, can you share a good example of meaningful engagement with FAO or another UN agency/development partner?
Unfortunately, except for being a member of the FAO’s Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum) since 2019, I was not and I am not part of any partnering experience with the FAO, but based on my daily observations of the FAO’s activities in the world and in my region, the specialized training and capacity building that FAO provides to stakeholders, through partnering CSOs and national/local government organizations, is exemplary. At the level of other UN agencies, the partnering work practiced by UNCTAD, as an example, is excellent. The consultations that UNCTAD conducts reach all stakeholders and generate constructive feedback from any stakeholder UNCTAD wishes to reach out to. I am referring to consultations that are preceded by papers and briefings, that are conducted through workshops or conferences, that address specific issues, and that ensure that each partnering CSO has contributed to the consultation. In my case, as an independent practitioner, not affiliated with any local or national CSO, UNCTAD ensures that I am invited to participate and to be part of the consultation activity.
5. At present, what are the most significant challenges CSOs face in their engagement with FAO? What could FAO do to address some of those challenges?
CSOs that are institutional actors need the necessary funding to carry out activities and to engage with the FAO. If the funding barrier is addressed, that takes care of one of the most significant challenges. However, there are greater challenges for CSOs to engage with the FAO. I find the most pressing is in the National System of Innovation (NSI). Today, the NSI in any country stands in the middle between the economic performance of a country and its position in the SDGs, especially in climate change and food security. If the CSO is not in one way or another positioned rightly in the NSI, the CSO is far from being able to engage efficiently with the FAO. The future of national and sub-national food security action plans of a country depends greatly on the local economic capacity of the country. In other words, the ability of a country to strengthen local economic inputs and outputs towards food security strategic interests opens opportunities for CSOs to innovate approaches to partner and engage with an organization like the FAO. The FAO should consider that particular note about strengthening local economic capacity towards achieving goals in the agrifood ecosystem.
Mr. Rasim Abderrahim
The following are my answers to the Guiding Questions:
1. How can FAO and CSOs work together to regain the momentum lost and work jointly to "leave no one behind”?
CSOs today represent different groups and stakeholders than was the case in the past decade. CSOs are no longer restricted to associations, academic institutions, or professional groups. For the FAO to work jointly with CSOs to leave no one behind, it needs to identify clearly which CSOs are most active in the FAO's lines of work, and which are the ones that contribute positively to the objectives of the FAO. It is my experience that many global CSOs have converged to political action to enjoy UN backing and funding for their activities and participatory actions. It is therefore difficult to consider that a certain CSO is a contributor to the future of the SDGs, as an example, just because it calls itself a research entity or a think tank. The FAO needs to identify the level of partnership with each CSO based on contributing elements in the work of the FAO and to assess the synergies or the mutual outcomes that are sought by each CSO. As an example, the objective of reaching zero hunger outcomes is not only by addressing the causes of socio-economic inequality through assessments and political mainstreaming activities but more so by identifying “joint” programs of work that transform the entire systems of work towards a zero-hunger destination jointly and integrally by the FAO and CSOs individually and collectively. If partnerships provide the answer, then a partnership on food security, as an example, should have a thematic identity and functional values towards jointly charted milestones.
2. What and how can CSOs contribute to such transformation to boost impact on the ground?
CSOs that have survived global conditions and are in their current standing considered CSOs are mostly representatives of groups seeking to make a radical change to situations that cannot be tolerated any longer. Therefore, today’s CSOs are initiative takers, program creators, and project undertakers as well as actors of principled agendas. CSOs of interest are the push rather than the pull actors. They need to initiate specific policies and program objectives based on their understanding of the FAO’s strategic framework of actions and approach the FAO to negotiate joint modalities that can achieve results for both the FAO and CSO of interest.
In the food security area, for example, CSOs should be regional actors seeking to develop pathways to contribute to the food security strategies for each country in the region and the entire region. A local or a national actor would find interest in participating and bringing contributions from the local or national stakeholders only when the local or national interests are met at the regional table. For example, in food security policy research, which is carried out to develop food manufacturing projects, CSOs are successful in their transformation initiatives when a program of work involves all actors and produces shared outcomes. If a project is initiated in a certain country of the region, the entire group of countries in that region know and can relate to the outputs of that project knowing that the desired impact is fully regionally shared.
The best that CSOs can deliver to the agrifood systems transformation is by improving their capacities to involve and to reach out to every stakeholder in their ecosystem of work.
3. What FAO and CSOs could maximize collective impact to adapt and/or mitigate climate change?
CSOs should be technically enabled to contribute to anticipatory activities to be part of the response. Climate change is seriously taking economies to unfavorable positions. The set of activities involving the entire food supply chain should become a shared responsibility. CSOs need to be connected with the FAO through some functionality to allow for expedient actions in project undertaking and outcome monitoring. Putting CSOs at the heart of climate action along with the FAO is by creating an enabling mechanism that provides opportunities for CSOs to be effective actors in climate disasters and planned response.
The expression ’collective impact’ to adapt and/or mitigate climate change is argumentative. Today, countries are faced with climate risks associated with health risks and economic challenges. Food shortages resulting from a climate crisis could be affecting market supply or access to logistical support. CSOs can help provide spot solutions to solve particular cases in the crisis. However, CSOs, for example, cannot in flood disasters or earthquakes elevate the crisis response planning to the macroeconomic levels and wait for policymakers to interact with national actors to take measures at the national or macro levels. CSOs should be better equipped to serve in the immediate response and to be part of the humanitarian machinery on the ground to respond. Eventually, CSOs will be part of the macro-level response to achieve the collective impact factors, but they need to be quick in having the capacities to participate in the immediate response measures on the ground.
4. Based on your partnering experience, can you share a good example of meaningful engagement with FAO or another UN agency/development partner?
Unfortunately, except for being a member of the FAO’s Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum) since 2019, I was not and I am not part of any partnering experience with the FAO, but based on my daily observations of the FAO’s activities in the world and in my region, the specialized training and capacity building that FAO provides to stakeholders, through partnering CSOs and national/local government organizations, is exemplary. At the level of other UN agencies, the partnering work practiced by UNCTAD, as an example, is excellent. The consultations that UNCTAD conducts reach all stakeholders and generate constructive feedback from any stakeholder UNCTAD wishes to reach out to. I am referring to consultations that are preceded by papers and briefings, that are conducted through workshops or conferences, that address specific issues, and that ensure that each partnering CSO has contributed to the consultation. In my case, as an independent practitioner, not affiliated with any local or national CSO, UNCTAD ensures that I am invited to participate and to be part of the consultation activity.
5. At present, what are the most significant challenges CSOs face in their engagement with FAO? What could FAO do to address some of those challenges?
CSOs that are institutional actors need the necessary funding to carry out activities and to engage with the FAO. If the funding barrier is addressed, that takes care of one of the most significant challenges. However, there are greater challenges for CSOs to engage with the FAO. I find the most pressing is in the National System of Innovation (NSI). Today, the NSI in any country stands in the middle between the economic performance of a country and its position in the SDGs, especially in climate change and food security. If the CSO is not in one way or another positioned rightly in the NSI, the CSO is far from being able to engage efficiently with the FAO. The future of national and sub-national food security action plans of a country depends greatly on the local economic capacity of the country. In other words, the ability of a country to strengthen local economic inputs and outputs towards food security strategic interests opens opportunities for CSOs to innovate approaches to partner and engage with an organization like the FAO. The FAO should consider that particular note about strengthening local economic capacity towards achieving goals in the agrifood ecosystem.
Rasim S. Abderrahim