Agenda for Action for Addressing Food Insecurity in Protracted Crises
Dear Forum Members,
Protracted crises are among the most challenging contexts in which to fight food insecurity and malnutrition. Driven by multiple underlying causes such as recurrent natural or human made disasters, weak governance and unsustainable livelihood systems, protracted crises affect an estimated 366 million people worldwide. Of this number, more than one in three people – 129 million – are undernourished, a rate more than twice the level of other developing countries. This represents 20 percent of all undernourished people in the world. The persistent nature of these crises combined with inadequate response threatens lives and livelihoods, eroding coping mechanisms and often making recovery more difficult over time.
In 2010, the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) concluded that protracted crises require special attention. A consultative process was launched to develop and ensure broad ownership of an Agenda for Action for Addressing Food Insecurity in Protracted Crises (CFS-A4A).
Progress can be made toward improved food security and nutrition in protracted crises by addressing known limitations in policies and actions. A wealth of evidence exists on the interventions required to produce sustainable food security and nutrition outcomes. The CFS-A4A distils key principles from this knowledge base, to inform more comprehensive and effective policies and actions.
In addition to offering policy guidance, the CFS-A4A is a call for transformative action – by all actors, at all levels – to provide affected populations the support they need. This requires leveraging the strengths of humanitarian assistance and development actions and resources to implement comprehensive, rights-based policies and actions which address the underlying causes of food insecurity and malnutrition, build resilient livelihoods and food systems and meet immediate needs in protracted crisis situations.
The CFS-A4A is intended to provide practical, evidence-based guidance to governments, affected communities, intergovernmental and regional organizations, civil society organizations, research and extension organizations, universities, the private sector, donors and foundations. The CFS-A4A will be voluntary and non-binding and should be interpreted and applied in line with existing obligations under national and international law.
Consultations with CFS stakeholders on the CFS-A4A have been held since July 2013, and a global meeting was held in April 2014 in Addis Ababa to discuss the CFS-A4A Zero Draft. This e-consultation aims to build on the feedback and input received to date by providing an opportunity for individuals and organizations that have not yet been able to participate in physical meetings.
The negotiated element of the CFS-A4A, including the principles for action, will be accompanied and supported by an online resource package comprising:
- Appendix A – Illustrative examples of how the principles can be turned into action
- Appendix B – Case studies
- Appendix C – Compendium of reference material and evidence
- Appendix D – Glossary of key terms
All consultation outcomes will contribute to the preparation of the First Draft which will subsequently be negotiated by the CFS-A4A OEWG in Rome in July 2014. The resulting CFS-A4A will then be presented to the 41st Session of CFS in 2014 for endorsement by the Plenary.
We welcome your feedback on the Zero Draft following the questions below:
- In general terms do the ten principles presented in the Zero Draft adequately address the key issues required to address food insecurity and malnutrition in protracted crises? If not, what might be changed?
- Are the roles and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders outlined in the Zero Draft sufficiently clear and defined in order to facilitate implementation of the principles? If not, what should be changed?
- Are the illustrative examples of policies and actions outlined in Appendix A of the online resource package sufficient to show how the principles being discussed can be transformed into action? If not, what should be changed, or are there additional suggestions?
- The CFS-A4A is intended to be a guidance document, aimed at encouraging high-level political commitment by all stakeholders in developing appropriate policies, actions, investments, institutional arrangements. As such:
- Are the current structure and language of the principles sufficiently clear and accessible for all relevant stakeholders?
- What steps need to be taken for the CFS-A4A principles to be used and implemented by different stakeholders, once endorsed by CFS 41?
In order to assist review of the CFS-A4A Zero Draft, previous comments received have been compiled and mapped against relevant sections of the CFS-A4A. Please refer to the comments tracking matrix to better understand the suggestions, proposals, recommendations and feedback already received to date, which will contribute to the elaboration of the First Draft.
We thank you in advance for your time and for sharing your knowledge and experiences with us.
Ambassador Josephine W. Gaita
Ms. Elisabeth Kvitashvili
CFS-A4A Open Ended Working Group Co-Chairs
- Read 13 contributions
I would like to offer comments on the Zero Draft: Agenda for Action for Addressing Food Insecurity in Protracted Crises (CFSA-4A) of February 2014.
(1) It should be recognized that sustained, intense, and widespread food insecurity or malnutrition is in itself a form of protracted crisis.
(2) The work of the UN’s Committee on World Food Security and other global agencies on this issue should be harmonized with that of leading national providers of international humanitarian assistance. The emerging global policy of the U.S. with regard to nutrition is discussed at http://www.globalhealth.gov/global-health-topics/non-communicable-diseases/trending-topics/draftframeworkforusgglobalnutritioncoordinationplan.html
(3) Paragraph 10 of the Zero Draft suggests that it is in the interests of everyone to address the problems of protracted food insecurity and malnutrition. That is not true. Some people, such as those who employ low-wage laborers, benefit from the persistence of food insecurity and malnutrition, since food insecure people work cheaply. Similarly, many consumers benefit from being able to purchase goods at low prices because they are produced by low-wage laborers.
(4) Item 31(vi) speaks about the absence of good governance, and points out the need to establish mechanisms for ensuring that obligations are respected. Apparently this refers to the national level, but the same could be said regarding the challenge of global governance.
(5) Regarding the preceding point, item 16 in the Zero Draft asserts that the principles set out in CFS-A4A are voluntary and non-binding. Nevertheless, the principles should recognize the need for recognition of clear extra-territorial rights and obligations with regard food insecurity in protracted crises. I discuss this in “Rights and Obligations in International Humanitarian Assistance.” Encyclopedia of Natural Hazards. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 2013, pp. 851-855. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/RightsObligationsinIHA.pdf The essay has been republished in Disaster Management and Prevention, 2014, Vol. 23, No. 3. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/DPMRightsandObligationsinIHA.pdf
(6) Item 32(i) articulates the idea that national governments are primarily responsible for the food security and nutrition of their own people. It should be recognized that trade and other externally-oriented policies of both high- and low-income countries tend to undermine this concept. In international food trade, on balance the poor feed the rich.
(7) Item 33(i) speaks about the need to examine the underlying causes of food insecurity and malnutrition. This might be asking too much of this initiative. Instead, it might be better to conceptualize the strategy for dealing with the problem of food security in protracted crises as one of establishing a global food security safety net that deals mainly with symptoms, not underlying causes. Urgent needs should be addressed immediately, as recognized in FAO’s Twin Track approach. Other global programs can address the underlying causes. Focusing this effort on the idea of establishing a global safety net seems likely to result in a more effective program of action.
George Kent
University of Hawai‘i (Emeritus)
Dear Forum Members, Moderators and the global stakeholders.
Let us express our appreciation that the forum is opening this discussion in times the globe is more immersed in its complex and compound crises.
First:
The drivers for the protracted crises could not be merely attributed to nature; often in not always the Man is stimulator in this regard. The recurrent natural and man-stimulated or man-made crises and disasters tied to issues of inappropriate governance, unsustainable livelihood management and mismanaged food and nutrition pools. The natural disasters in today’s consideration tied to the climate change which has global drivers, causes, dimensions which are aggravated by localized similar. Unsustainable natural resources management and irresponsible investment lie at the core of prolongation of the protracted crises and disasters, especially in the African content.
Second:
There should be avoidance of the Business as usual (BAU) and fit-all-size in designing catalyst which support the coping mechanism and recovery modalities. accurate crises and disaster mapping should be continuously updated and repeatedly reported to stimulated genuine political will to address underlying causes and challenges which can alleviate the sufferings of the vulnerable in that mapped territories. In the action plan, there should be clear designation on who should do what and how to enact the designated strategies and implementable plans.
Third:
It is good that the CFS is paying due attention and special attention and address to this vital issue afflicting millions. However, in its drafting the CFS-A4A to advice governments, it should know that some governments are intentionally excluding communities from the real participation in setting the adequate policies, that is due to controversial interest and conflicting orientation between local communities and governments operating in environments of resource grabbing, and that is evident in territories where these resource grabbing are taking places and where dirty investments are heading. Often, most of the actors operating in crises-brone territories or countries lack transparency and operate under weak accountability settings. Governments has their representative to the international institutions, but communities are not, especially if they are in conflict with their oppressive governments.
Fourth:
The principles mentioned in the zero draft are excellent, but that should be shared and explained to local crises-affected peoples and vulnerable, in simply and understandable languages and through effective multiple communications tools and mechanism and not to limit the participation only to a bunch of elites who monopolize power and stimulate the social exclusion.
Fifth:
The accumulated knowledge base, literature are rich, but the reality or field malpractices challenge that inherited knowledge and experiences, therefore, more practical and collective action is badly needed to demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness and above all bring back trust in the institutional arrangements and knowledge holders and hope for the vulnerable who are suffering in that crises-affected environment.
Dear All,
First of all I would like to say thank, the CFS for organizing the meeting at Addis Ababa, Julius for his nicely coordinating the discussion and the CSM for invited me to participate in this meeting.
As we have been well discussed, all these ten principles are the outcome of major natural and manmade causes of food insecurity. In my opinion, it is impossible to say these principles are comprehensive.
For instance, one of the major food insecurity problems, rapid population growth rates is not emphasized. Rapid population growth rate is a very critical problem of many developing countries which have very low family planning activities.
What I would like to suggest here is, please try to incorporate and bold the family planning policy issues or concrete sentence should briefly stated in the controlling mechanism of the fast growth rate.
Land is the most critical natural resources to get food and for survival; however, it is decreasing in both size (urbanization, poor land management, investment, etc...) and quality (over cultivation, leaching away by erosion, etc...) time to time. The existing land resource and population size is not balanced. It would be very difficult to minimize or tackle the food insecurity problem in the situation of rapid population growth rate. Therefore, we have to be taken in to account the issues of population pressure.
My second point is directly related to principle 8; the language, ensure multi-year funding may be threats for dependency syndrome. In the detail part of the principle we have to show clearly the resource mobilization and fund raising mechanisms at local level.
In principle 6 we have given more emphasis for conflict (war and occupation). But on the other side of conflict there is also interest conflict between institutions during implementation of various development projects (government, implement agents and donor communities) I do not have idea how do you treat/ incorporate the issue in this principle, but very important point that should be considered. Many projects terminated and facing challenges because of interest conflict.
Many thanks for your time and consideration!
Yared Amare CSM/Ethiopia
This activity is now closed. Please contact [email protected] for any further information.