If we have made so much progress on the MDGs, then why is the central message after twelve years the same? We are still facing a world with hunger, widening inequalities and continuous destruction of our planet. Instead of jumping into the process of defining new goals we need to analyze why, behind the numbers and statistics of progress, the situation has not changed.
MDGs focus on ends while being silent on the means. The values and principles expressed in the Millenium Declaration were lost in translation and we were left with a set of quick wins in which progress was measured in terms of country averages. The MDGs were defined and implemented in a top-down process and issues of governance, participation and empowerment were insufficiently addressed. World leaders have tried to solve our problems by simply doing more of what caused these problems in the first place. We cannot realistically expect more of this to get us out of it. If we want the next set of goals to change the situation we need to have the courage to make a radical turn in our approach.
We will elaborate further on this in future postings.
Now we are talking about post-MDG! Surprisingly we are not able to grasp with the real issue. Is the UN or the FAO the right platform to deal with hunger.
As we know, it was 27 years ago when, for the first time, world leaders accepted the collective responsibility of the international community to abolish hunger and malnutrition within a decade (Rome United Nations World Food Conference, 1974). The much hyped talks in World Food summits later has not been successful in reducing poverty and thus hunger. SO now, 37 years later, we need a new Global governance strategy for eradicating poverty. We need to first question, Is UN and its agencies capable? Are UN efforts worthwhile? Did UN effectively contribute in improvement of food security? Has a difference been made? If not, what were the reasons? What can be an alternate global Governance strategy for food security?
Then only a viable discussion on post 2015 strategies can hold ground.
Dans la zone ou je me trouve, le paysan qui cultive la terre a trois principaux défis
Si réellement, nous voulons opérer des changement, il faut investir au niveaux des périphéries. dans les pays pauvres c'est là ou l'agriculture est pratiqué comme une agriculture de survie. nous devons être armé de courage pour briser des barrières qui empêche de construire un monde d'égalité, de liberté et de dignité.
This is a link to our report on “Food security, risk management and climate change”. While relevant to all three themes it is possibly most applicable to Theme 1.
This report is about food security, climate change and risk management. Australia has enjoyed an unprecedented level of food security for more than half a century, but there are new uncertainties emerging and it would be unrealistic – if not complacent – to assume the same level of food security will persist simply because of recent history. The project collected data from more than 36 case study organisations (both foreign and local) operating in the Australian food-supply chain, and found that for many businesses, risk management practices require substantial improvement to cope with and exploit the uncertainties that lie ahead. Three risks were identified as major constraints to adaptive capacity of food organisations operating in Australia: risk management practices; an uncertain regulatory environment – itself a result of gaps in risk management; climate change uncertainty and projections about climate change impacts, also related to risk management.
The integrated and global nature of food supply means that food security is releveant to both developed and developing countries.
Unity-in diversity and Sharing are the two emerging values that are at the basis of all MDGs. They reveal the key to further and accelerated progress by matching each milestone of each MDG with the choice people are asked to make: will we free the financial resources needed for these milestones by diverting them from the military expenditure? Very tangible examples would enhance the crucial importance and responsibility of each specific choice. For instance: how many schools can be established by converting the expenses for a battle aircraft into a program of education?
This approach of reiterating the choice and the relevant responsibility for its implications can gradually establish a constructive attitude on part of the public opinion based on a better understanding of the value of each choice - - in any field and for all MDGs. People's awareness of the huge financial resources that can be converted gradually from the military to development could well be at the basis of all MDGs' programs, thus projecting on each choice a tangible evidence of its relevant ripercussions. And each program of each MDG, with its accent on the responsibility of the choce connected to it, would contribute to the building of a critical mass that would increasingly make a difference and ignite a spontaneous evaluation of the choices that will have to be made in all fields.
In real sense of it all. The problems of artificial poverty created by the leadership platform must be addressed in various countries. Nigeria as a case study, people that do not have nothing on their table will not in any form contribute to the socio development of any nation in term of millennium development goals .They don’t even know these agenda .The government do not even go by these also in practical terms, So if the trend of bad governance should be addressed it will mark the trend of any good initiative effectively working in the life of several people in the world and that will also mark the trend of people working together for peace and harmony.
There are no real progress because scientific ecoligy has not been integrated inside development program. Market and business have dominated the vision of development. Now this is changing. But to achieve this goal it is important to transform the key human ressources challenges. using the right people at the right places. Biologist and there systemic vision and multidisciplinary skills have to be formed to manage social, market and agronomic works.
Botanical, zoological and ecosystem knowledge must have the first places, it is on this fundations that human nutrition could be securized. Agroecology is not agronomy, investment should take time into account, and human behaviour would be adapted to natural efficiency. So technology would be adapted to soil ecology, human and animal ressources , and richness of population.
Field size and property rights, peace, and cooperative organisation are the best way to manage self controled action on agroecological system wich are commons. the more actors you have the more controls are done, see water distribution in the alpine swiss countryside. The next 20 years land use could be a rush for the richer against the poorer(see corea, china ou saoudi arabia in africa) , protecting the farmer against investor with land rights, high prices and investment is the first goal, the next target is improving there knowledge.
From the rainy contries to the driest the goal couldn't be achieve in the same time,
- Number of biomass produced per acre /year
- liter of water used to produce 1 daily portion for 1 human
- amount of fertilizer, pesticides, and energy used per acre/year
- work force and work time needed for producing 1 ton of cereales/year
- capital gain per acre/year
- index of education
- most common disease/year
Theme 1. :
1. Challenge is how to influence or convince the different sectors or ministries of the government that food and nutrition security is the number one priority and we all must address it as a team! This is because every head of the sector or ministry always thinks his/her sector must receive highest prority.. etc. We need to get our policy right!
2. The capacity building is important but in many cases, candidates who go for training are usually not from implementing agencies or departments. For example, we need to focus ( capacity building) on our extension and health colleagues who are close to our farmers. We need to shift focus from policy/decision makers to field colleagues. They ( field colleagues) can make difference!
3. We must target awareness, education and advocacy on food and nutrition security at all levels: from politicians to farmers living in remote areas.
4. Food and nutrition insecurity issues are influnced by culture, and local governance/environment. FAO should not come up with precriptive meaures that fits for all!
1. We must pay attention to sanitation and hygiene issues of our community while addressing Food and nutrition security. There is no point of addressing issues separately..( currently addressed by two or three ministries in many countries)
2. There is a need to study and understand local food customs to enrich or change old dietry habits.
3. Communities respond positively to new farming technology if access to market and access to inputs are improved.
4. Access to community postharvest facilities can make a big difference ( prevent from pest and diseases losses).
1. First we must define our own national, sub-regional or regional targets using existing data from health, trade and agriculture.
2. Using these information, we can project global targets.
3. We also need to think how we can make our small farming more attractive and sustainable given that all cheap food ( subsidies provided by the developed countries) flooding the global markets!
I suggest that a key challenge for the post-2015 period is to ensure that there is closer integration of agricultural research and agricultural extension within the agronomy profession, and closer cooperation of both of these functions with small and marginal farmers and rural people themselves.
The aim of agronomic research and extension organisations ought to be transformed from the routine development and dissemination of 'technology packages' in a top-down manner, but working more collaboratively in support of farmers and field-level scientists and technicians (whether from agricultural universities, extension agencies or NGOs/CSOs) to help them analyse, prioritise and address agricultural problems and opportunities at local levels.
This would involve scientific and government agencies working with farmers and rural people in a much more responsive, demand-led, problem-oriented, horizontal manner; where problems are framed and priorities set in sincere collaboration with the people most affected by agricultural challenges.
A target for this proposal could be that x per cent of poor and marginal farmers have real access to/contact with scientific expertise. Possible indicators should not be in the form of inputs adopted or yields increased, but measures of simultaneously improved productivity (which is an input:output measure, not the same as gross production/yield) and sustainability.
The key challenges to food security include rising demand for food, climate change and rising demand for energy, water and land. All are a consequence of rising per capita consumption and population numbers. Only by limiting the rise in demand can be guarantee food security.
We should therefore encourage greater equity to allow the poorest to improve their consumption without increasing overall human impact on the environment. We should also provide universal access to rights based family planning and encourage female employment to reduce the birth rate in all countries to sub replacement levels.
This thematic discussion was led by FAO and WFP in collaboration with “The World We Want”.
The consultation was facilitated by the Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)