Re: Addressing food insecurity in protracted crises: adequate and appropriate funding mechanisms

02.05.2013

Dear Dan Maxwell

I agree with your argument that the funding agencies can make a significant difference in developing sustainable food security in fragile societies and states. But your statement paper is silent on donors' roles regarding their inappropriate funding practices that escalated in fragile states.

I see that many agencies have contradictory roles in funding in the fragile societies. The agencies funded projects based on increasing food security through direct sources such as seed production and distribution. But the agencies have also funded activities that have hampered indirect contribution to food security or indigenous hedging institution and practices.

Funding for reducing forest resources and other common property resource bases food security systems, for addressing powerful countries’ benefit and interest, is an example. The protracted crises problems are associated with many sociocultural values and practices in the societies. If you deeply analyse the dependency of people suffering from protracted crises you can see that they were historically depended on common property resources.

The resources are more valuable for indigenous communities whose culture and social value are still largely based on communal systems and resource management practices. The management of the common property resources for food security purpose would increase food security and also provide a hedge for extreme conditions.

However, the donor agencies have ignored the issues. The problems of the donor agencies and other environmental conservation agencies (e.g. IUCN, UNEA and WWF) should be addressed in the Agenda of Action.

 

Note: The professional circle in the natural resource field has well understood that the donor agencies have funded and influenced national policies of common property resource resources management in the fragile sate but they have not effectively raised this issue in international policy discussion forums.

It is an unethical practice. 

 

Thank you.

B, Dhakal