First of all, let me show surprise, if not appall, at thelanguage used in the intro: “…validity of the Strategy as the formal corporate documentguiding FAO-CSO engagement”. Says a lot… You are asking us to identify andunderstand the opportunities and challenges for better and more transformativeengagement between FAO and [with] CSOs.
1. To date, the efforts towards SDGs have not succeeded in reducing socio-economic inequality within and between countries.
Agree
How can FAO and CSOs work together to regain the momentum lost and work jointly to "leave no one behind”?
First of all, here: What does it really mean to ‘leave no one behind’, as the SDGs proclaim?
Communities are not forgetfully left behind! It is the neoliberal policies that systematically exclude them. [Is there thus enough time to regain momentum…?]. The UN, FAO very much included, is clearly helping to establish ‘stakeholder capitalism’ as a governance model for the entire planet. The language of stakeholders is dishonest. It attempts to remove politics and interests from the analysis by blocking any distinctions in people's relationship to the fields of agriculture, food, nutrition and many other --and you are taking money from corporates! [As a cat lover, I have long experience observing the interactions between cats and birds or small rodents. All are stakeholders in these interactions, but the birds and rodents have far more ‘at stake’]. FAO simply has to, better late than never, look at the SDGs from a human rights framework perspective --something the SDGs did not do. In that sense, let us be honest, FAO is not listening to public interest CSOs. Our inputs are ignored. [The CSIPM in the CFS was a welcome change, but now, we are not listened to. It has been frustrating].
2. FAO seeks to accelerate transformation of agrifood systems to be more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable as a mean to achieve the 2030 agenda.
Disagree
Let us ask what does FAO understand by agrifood system. (Efficiency is a term used by corporate agriculture). Certainly not what PICSOS have been asking for over a decade. How convenient for FAO to mention agroecology ‘passing by’ (and that is where the resilience and sustainability resides) and in the case of food sovereignty, not even mentioning it. Do remember that PICSOs decided not to back the Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and withdrew: too many of our red lights were ignored --where is the inclusiveness? Well, we will not achieve the 2030 Agenda: You still have hopes?)
What and how can CSOs contribute to such transformation to boost impact on the ground?
Please suggest concrete actions. Why only on the ground? The ground is our PICSOs’ turf, and we bring the feelings and demands of millions to you at FAO: to what avail? (See above) We carried out comprehensive regional consultations that we shared with you. We cannot find much in final resolutions. Well, countries rendered rich in the North have a way to eclipse us (and eclipse is a generous term…).
3. Climate change threatens our ability to ensure global food security, eradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development.
Agree
What FAO and CSOs actions could maximize collective impact to adapt and/or mitigate climate change?
Probably none right now. The problem is with fossil fuels discontinuation and a transition to a democratic green economy (plus plus) all terribly linked to transnational corporations and powerful lobbies. What can FAO and PICSOs do that is not just a bunch of pat solutions when the problem is clearly upstream? Brings me back to the neoliberalism I mentioned above. Way more mass mobilization is needed --and we are at it.
4. Based on your partnering experience, can you share a good example of meaningful engagement with FAO or another UN agency/development partner? Please highlight what/why it worked well in your opinion.
Well, you can see from the above that our ‘partnership’ has been quite uneven and unsuccessful, and so are other ‘partnerships’ where partners are not on an even playing field --like cat and the rodent… Take the SUN Initiative, which FAO backstops and that promotes public-private partnerships. We note SUN says that addressing “conflicts of interest should initially start from a positive perspective, not from negative assumptions,” (Wow!) thereby ignoring that conflicts of interest represent a risk to be controlled. SUN’s Secretariat also says that “tools to manage conflicts of interest should serve as a mechanism to enable, rather than prevent partnerships.” (Hmm!) But in fact, managing conflicts of interest typically requires restricting those partnerships and activities that are full of conflicts of interest. There is a lack of clear standards to preclude engagement or requiring termination when non-state actors come in with significant conflicts of interest. (Even the IMF and World Bank have warned public-private partnerships (PPPs) “incur contingent fiscal risks”). In short, I wish I had a current, good example of meaningful engagement with FAO or another UN agency/development partner. (Ayayay!)
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? Please provide concrete examples.
We want to be partners at an even level, and we are not. You use us to say we participate in decision making, but we do not. I think the bulk of the challenge is with you, not us. We are much more transparent than you. (We even cannot access the sources of your external funding). What is this consultation then going to achieve? I am a realist. Terribly little if any --depending on what responses business friendly (or controlled) NGOS will contribute. Your hands are tied. Can you meet us at least half-way? Good intentions are not the way to heaven.
ClaudioSchuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
Dr. Claudio Schuftan