The consultation is now closed! Thank you for your participation.
The process of developing the Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition (GSF) is progressing well. The First Draft of this important document has been or will be discussed at the FAO Regional Conferences (March - May 2012), and online through the Food Security and Nutrition (FSN) Forum (12th March to 15th May 2012).
We would like to invite you to take an active part in the online consultation by providing written comments on the First Draft. These comments will feed into the preparation of the Second Draft, which will be examined at a CFS consultation in Rome in June 2012, and eventually into the First Version of the GSF to be submitted to the October 2012 Plenary Session of the CFS.
Last year’s online consultation on the Annotated Outline of the GSF was quite broad in scope, receiving individual as well as collective contributions, which provided a great deal of input to the First Draft of the GSF. However, on this occasion we would like the online consultation to be limited to collective contributions, such as from member governments, organizations, institutions and networks.
When providing comments on the First Draft, please bear in mind the following guidelines used in its preparation:
- The GSF is intended to be a dynamic document that will be updated from time to time to reflect regular CFS processes, policy debates and changing priorities; the First Version should therefore focus on the most important agreed decisions and frameworks;
- The preparation of the First Version should avoid including any material that would require an exhaustive negotiation of text;
- The main focus of the First Version would be to present issues on which there is a broad existing consensus, taking into account (i) CFS’s own decisions/recommendations, and (ii) directly relevant policy/other frameworks;
- The First Version should limit itself to simply highlighting other issues of importance where there is no consensus and where further work is required to achieve convergence.
We would ask you to focus your comments on the following key questions:
- Does the First Draft present key issues of food security and nutrition on which there is broad regional and international consensus?
- Does the list of areas where there are gaps in policy convergence that may be addressed in future versions of the GSF need to be amended?
- Does the document have sufficient practical regional and country-level relevance? Can you suggest improvements?
- How can the GSF be linked to regional and national food security and nutrition frameworks and strategies, and accountability and monitoring mechanisms, in ways that promote two-way coordination and convergence?
In addition to the above points, please note that the Second Draft of the GSF, to be prepared by May 2012, will also contain a series of boxes with case studies that illustrate best practices related to the policy recommendations in Chapter IV. You could greatly assist us in this process by proposing innovative examples that we might include. The emphasis should be on how application of best practice in these areas has translated into significant positive outcomes for target beneficiaries – hungry and malnourished people in developing countries.
You can download the First Draft of the GSF here, but please note that we cannot accept any comments made on the document itself using the track changes tool. We would also urge you to keep your contributions to this consultation as concise and focused as possible – case studies, for example, should not exceed 500 words, and preferably should be shorter than that.
Thank you in advance for your participation in this important consultation.
Afghanistan, Ayazi Abdul Razak, Afghanistan, Member States
Below I am responding only to the four questions posed in the Opening Note of the CFS Secretary. More detailed comments on the First Draft of GSF will be submitted later to the FSN-moderator.
Question One: The First Draft covers nearly all the key issues of a global nature on which international consensus has been built. But this cannot be said at the regional level due to lack of broad agreements on food security and nutrition region by region. On the other hand, one can say that the First Draft does contain the key provisions for stakeholders to consider for consensus building on food security and nutrition at the country level.
Perhaps one aspect that has not received specific attention in the First Draft is the impact of climate shocks on food security and nutrition, especiually on the vulnerable groups. Therefore, a sub-section in Part IV of GSF with the title of "Building resilience against climate shocks" would be a useful addition.
To create a good impression and to enhance proficiency, the GSF should be presented in simple and clear language. The First Draft does not pass this key test and we hope that the Second Draft to be available for CSF Consultation in June would do better.
Question Two: The gaps in policy convergence as stated in paragraphs 73 and 74 are well taken. For better clarity, it may be advisable to limit paragraph 73 to the fragility of governance at the national level and paragraph 74 to gaps in governance at the internatioinal level.
At national level three additional weaknesses can be considered (a) inadequate public-private partnership (b) weak inter-ministerial coordination and (c) inadequate consultation with national CSOs.
Bullet points 3, 4 and 5 of paragraph 74 relate to issues at national level and could be transfered to paragraph 73.
At the international level the bullet points in paragraph 74 are well chosen. One issue that could be added relates to global indicators. More work is needed on such indicators with a view of reaching consensus among stakeholders.
Question Three: We would be inclined to say "yes" to the relevance of GSF at regional and country level. In fact, sections A and B of Part V of the document list a number of recommendations that are illustrative of harmonization and coherence with the key messages of GSF. We have no specific suggestion to put forward.
Question Four: Coordination and convergence between GSF and regional and national food security and nutrition frameworks is an on-going and evolving process and we do not expect any miracle to happen in the near future. The GSF serves as a global guide and should not be imposed on national and regional frameworks related to food security and nutrition. Better linkages can be realized by adhering to a bottom-up approach in which country frameworks form the basis of regional or sub-regional frameworks and the latter feeding into GSF as a dynamic instrument for global coordination and convergence. As a contribution to this process, it may be useful to consiuder the preparation by CFS of a tool-kit for accountability and monitoring to benefit regional and national institutions responsible for food security and nutrition.
Posted on 31.03.2012 2:45 pm
DFID, Iris Krebber, United Kingdom, Member States
I have tried to respond to the four key questions asked - please see below.
1. All related issues are mentioned, but the text is at times convoluted, not well structured and confusing. The fact that food insecurity is a function of political economy, ie poor governance, could come out more strongly.
2. List is fine
3. The document could be strengthened in its statements for the regional level.
4. On the definition of indicators (paras 94, 97-98, 104) to monitor progress on agriculture and food security, there should be explicit mention of relevant existing and ongoing work to build upon for more joined-up and therefore comparable monitoring and to avoid duplication.
Posted on 13.03.2012 11:56 pm