Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Buen día  primero agradezco la oportunidad que me da la FAO de participar en tan importante foro.. 

Somos una cooperativa de productores de frijol y maiz.  Y La mayor parte de nuestros socios cultivan en terrenos de tenporal, y  con el cambio climático vivimos tiempos muy difíciles, menos cantidad de cosecha año con año. Y eso se traduce a menos recursos para las resiembra del siclo productivo siguiente. La FAO puede jugar un papel fundamental asiendo qué nuestros gobiernos estatales y federal osc se sienten en mesas de trabajo para el rescate del cultivo de frijol y maiz. estableciendo esquemas de siembra con semillas más resistentes al hastío. 

El cimmyt jugaría un excelente papel. En el tema de las semillas. 

Quedo a ala orden y pendiente de sus comentarios. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Good morning. First, I thank the FAO for the opportunity to participate in such an important forum.

We are a cooperative of bean and maize producers. Most of our members farm on rainfed land. With climate change we are experiencing very difficult times: our harvest decreases every year. This means fewer resources to replant in the following production cycle. FAO can play a key role in bringing together state and federal governments and CSOs to support the cultivation of beans and maize, establishing planting schemes with drought-resistant seeds.

The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) would be a key player in this topic.

I remain at your disposal and awaiting your comments.

I find FAO's mission to accelerate the transformation of the Agrifood system to align with the global agenda of 2030 is commendable and essential. Achieving efficiency, inclusivity, resilience and sustainability in agriculture is not just a global goal; is a necessity for our planet's future. CSOs can play a pivotal role in this transformation and here are my personal thoughts on how they can contribute; 

Civil Society Organisations as the catalyst for change have a unique position in society to bridge the gap between farmers and policy makers. Their grassroots presence allows them to identify the most pressing issues faced by farmers and marginalised small-scale farmers on the ground. By being actively involved with these groups, CSOs can ensure that agrifood transformations are not only efficient but also inclusive, addressing the needs of the most vulnerable. 

Concrete action for impact on the ground;

 1. Empowering through free-interest loans; CSOs can empower farmers through zero-interest loans to improve productivity. For instance, they can use already formed farmer's groups or form new farmers' groups which will be registered with local government authorities. These groups will be easy to administer and make intensive follow up.

2. Promotion of sustainable farming practices; encouraging the use of cover crops to enhance soil health is a simple yet effective example of promoting sustainable agriculture. Cover crops not only reduce the need for chemical fertilizer but also mitigate soil erosion.

3. Building resilience farming practices; CSOs can promote preparation for and adapt to the challenges posed by climate change. This might involve providing guidance on crop diversification or assisting in the development of an early warning system for weather-related disasters.

4. Home gardening; encouraging home gardening can significantly contribute to food security at the household level. CSOs can provide starter kits for families to grow fruits and vegetables for household consumption.

5. Community engagement; engaging with local communities is the key. CSOs in collaboration with extension officers can facilitate the formation of farmer's groups to promote knowledge sharing and collective decision making. This could lead to the establishment of cooperatives that enhance access to markets for smallholder farmers.

6. Advocacy for policy change; By advocating for policy reforms that improve access to resources and reduce the financial burden on farmers, CSOs can create a conducive environment for sustainable agriculture. For example, pushing for reduced taxes on essential farming equipment can significantly impact smallholder farmers.

In summary, CSOs have a pivotal role to play in FAO's mission of agrifood system transformation. Their actions on the ground such as free-interest loan provision, education, policy advocacy and community engagement can drive meaningful change towards more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems. By working together we can make substantial progress towards achieving the 2030 agenda and securing a better future for all.       

CSO-Facilitated Formation of Small-Scale Farmer Groups

Approach: Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) can facilitate the establishment of small-scale farmer groups.

Methodology: CSOs can initiate this process by conducting comprehensive surveys to gather data on all farmers engaged in cereal or horticultural crop farming within a specific administrative region, often referred to as a ward. Subsequently, with the assistance of agricultural extension officers, CSOs can encourage these farmers to create cohesive groups comprising no fewer than five individuals who share a common crop type. Following the formation of these groups, CSOs can provide them with specialized training and access to appropriate farming tools, thus equipping them to engage in climate smart agriculture practices.

Promotion of Sustainable Agricultural Practices

Approach: CSOs can promote sustainable agricultural practices.

Implementation: CSOs can work in collaboration with local agricultural extension officers to facilitate the adoption of sustainable practices among farmers. Specifically, they can play a role in advocating for the utilization of cover crops as a means to improve soil health and reduce the dependency on chemical fertilizers.

Advocacy for Agricultural Policy Reform

Approach: CSOs should engage in advocacy efforts aimed at influencing agricultural policy reform.

Methodology: CSOs can establish dialogue and partnerships with government agencies responsible for agricultural policy formulation. Through these channels, CSOs can offer expert advice and recommendations regarding necessary amendments to policies related to the accessibility and distribution of agricultural tools. A primary focus of their advocacy should include urging the government to consider reducing the cost of high-quality seeds and revising tax and tariff structures to make farming equipment, such as ploughs, tractors, and irrigation tools, more affordable for farmers.

Promotion of Climate-Resilient Farming Practices

Approach: CSOs can actively promote climate-resilient farming practices.

Execution: In regions susceptible to frequent and unpredictable climate variations, particularly areas afflicted by recurring droughts, CSOs can provide guidance to farmers on cultivating drought-tolerant crops. Crops such as millet, cassava, and sunflowers can be recommended for their ability to withstand adverse weather conditions and contribute to enhanced resilience in the face of climate challenges.

Encouraging Home Gardening Initiatives

Approach: Encouraging individuals to establish home gardens for sustainable food production.

Implementation: CSOs can advocate for and support the creation of home gardens focused on the cultivation of fruits and vegetables. This advocacy should be coupled with the reduction or elimination of ornamental flower gardens. The aim is to emphasize the importance of home gardening as a means of enhancing food security and sustainable food production at the household level.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) and civil society organizations can engage with better by collaborating and working together towards common goals. This can be achieved through various means such as:

1. communication and dialogue: FAO and civil society organizations can engage better by initiating open and transparent communication channels. this can involve regular meetings, forums, and discussions to exchange ideas, share knowledge, and address concerns.

2. partnership and collaboration: FAO and civil society organizations can form partnerships and collaborate on projects and initiatives. This can include joint research, advocacy campaigns, capacity-building programs, and implementation of sustainable development projects.

3. inclusion and participation: FAO  and civil society organizations can be actively involved better in decision-making processes. This can be done by ensuring their representation in relevant committees, task forces, and working groups. It is important to provide a better with a platform to voice their opinions, concerns, and suggestions.

4. capacity building and empowerment: FAO and civil society organizations can engaged better by providing them with training, resources, and support to enhance their skills and knowledge this can enable better to actively participate in agricultural and rural development activities, contribute to policy discussions, and implement sustainable practices.

5. Information sharing and awareness raising: FAO and civil society organizations can be engaged better by sharing information best practices, and success stories. this can be done through workshops, seminars, publications, and online platforms. it is important to raise awareness about the importance of a better role in agriculture and rural development.

overall, FAO and civil society organizations can engage better by recognizing their expertise, involving them in decision-making processes, and providing them with the necessary support and resources to contribute effectively to sustainable development.

1. Es dificil pensar en "no dejar a nadie atras" cuando los políticas existentes favorecen el "desarrollismo" y el extractivismo, explotando y acaparando los recursos como la tierra y el agua a favor de intereses de unos cuantos. Si las políticas siguen siendo de este tipo, muchos más se quedaran atras y las nuevas generaciones serán gravemente afectadas.

2. Las OSC deben intervenir más en la construcción de las política públicas. Para hacer esto, primero que nada, hay que formarlas para que tengan la capacidad de realizar acciones de diseño, incidencia, monitoreo, evaluación y contraloría de las politicas públicas. Esto debe llevar a acciones en donde no solo intervengan las OSC sino las propias comunidades y sus organizaciones. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

1. To date, the efforts towards SDGs have not succeeded in reducing socio-economic inequality within and between countries. How can FAO and CSOs work together to regain the momentum lost and work jointly to "leave no one behind”?

 “Leaving no one behind” is difficult when existing policies favour developmentalism and extractivism, exploiting and grabbing resources like land and water in the interests of a few. If these policies continue, many more people will be left behind and new generations will be severely affected.

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. What and how can CSOs contribute to such transformation to boost impact on the ground?  Please suggest concrete actions.

CSOs must become more involved in public policy-making. To this end, the first step is training these organizations so that they have the capacity to carry out actions —in collaboration with the communities and their organizations—on the design, impact, monitoring, evaluation and control of public policies.

Greetings

    To deal and engage with any society we should understand the nature of that society. Interaction with different society with different civil class (realism or ritualism) requires different methods. Suppose some authorities of some countries which report contradictory agricultural statistics and information nationally and internationally for example in the self-sufficiency and transgenic products should be treated cautiously.

    The attached book (Persian Language) entitle "Genocracy of Democracy" contains a genetic theory called "People's Genetics" derived from the parameters of the chromosomal analysis of the frequency of genes or alleles of intelligence and awareness of the human population and its compatibility with management and functional examples of religious ritualism and non- religious ritualism leaders (sheikhs and kings) of the last century in Iran and their knowledge-phobic confrontation with the scientific, realism and even religious community of the society. Investigation, analysis and classifying the frequency of the alleles and genes of intelligence and awareness of people in the ritualism and realism categories and how to exploit the capabilities or improve the genotypic awareness of the public in order to make optimal and maximum use of their genetic capacity and originality or exploitation of their brain and thought or their Genocracy in the framework and body of society's democracy is one of the primary and main goals of the above mentioned book.

    In this book which is still in the process of governmental permission for printing for a long time, for example wick management of the agricultural and educational managers in the ritualism class and its relationship with their intelligence and awareness class is analyzed and discussed genetically.

Yours ever

Gholamhossein Hosseini

Ph.D: Biology-Biometrical Genetics, Scientist

Cotton Research Institute of Iran

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.

As of my knowledge update in February 2016, CSOs (Civil Society Organizations) engaging with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations face several significant challenges. These challenges vary depending on the specific context and region, but some common issues include:

Limited Access and Inclusivity:

Challenge: Many CSOs, especially those from marginalized or underrepresented groups, may find it difficult to access FAO's decision-making processes or engage in meaningful dialogues.

FAO Action: FAO can enhance inclusivity by creating more accessible channels for CSOs to participate, such as online consultations, webinars, or dedicated forums. They can also actively seek out and involve CSOs representing diverse perspectives and communities.

Lack of Funding and Resources:

Challenge: CSOs often struggle to secure adequate funding and resources to participate effectively in FAO activities or research projects.

FAO Action: FAO can allocate resources to support capacity-building programs for CSOs, helping them develop the skills and knowledge needed to engage more effectively.

Bureaucratic and Complex Procedures:

Challenge: CSOs may face complex bureaucratic procedures when trying to collaborate with FAO, which can be time-consuming and discouraging.

FAO Action: FAO can simplify and streamline the administrative processes for CSO engagement, making it easier for them to collaborate. Clear guidelines, online resources, and dedicated liaison officers can facilitate smoother interactions.

Limited Influence on Policy and Decision-Making:

Challenge: CSOs may feel that their inputs are not adequately considered in FAO's policy and decision-making processes.

FAO Action: FAO can establish mechanisms to ensure that CSO recommendations and perspectives are genuinely integrated into policy discussions. This could involve regular consultations, advisory committees, or partnerships for joint research and projects.

Information and Communication Gaps:

Challenge: CSOs may struggle to access timely information and updates about FAO activities, limiting their ability to engage effectively.

FAO Action: FAO can improve communication with CSOs by providing regular updates, newsletters, and access to relevant reports and data. Establishing a dedicated online platform for information sharing and collaboration can be beneficial.

Accountability and Transparency:

Challenge: CSOs often seek greater transparency and accountability in FAO's activities and decisions.

FAO Action: FAO can enhance transparency by publishing more information about its decision-making processes, budgets, and project outcomes. Regularly reporting on the outcomes of CSO engagements and the impact of their input can build trust and accountability.

Concrete examples of FAO addressing these challenges might include:

Establishing a CSOs liaison office or focal point to facilitate communication and coordination with CSOs.

Launching a dedicated online portal or platform where CSOs can access information, submit proposals, and engage in discussions.

Offering capacity-building workshops and training programs for CSOs on topics such as sustainable agriculture, food security, and policy advocacy.

Actively involving CSOs in the development and implementation of FAO projects, ensuring that their expertise and local knowledge are valued.

Creating an advisory committee composed of CSOs representatives to provide regular feedback on FAO policies and programs.

Providing small grants or seed funding to support CSOs-led initiatives that align with FAO's goals and objectives.

Julio Prudencio Böhrt

FTIERRA/IISEC-UCB, Bolivia

1. Hasta la fecha, los esfuerzos para lograr los ODS no han conseguido reducir la desigualdad socioeconómica en los países y entre ellos.

. Haciendo recomendaciones a los gobiernos para que abandonen las políticas neoliberales, y enfaticen en la adopción de políticas públicas redistributivas de los ingresos nacionales; apoyando también estudios/investigaciones que muestren el acaparamiento de tierras por los latifundistas, la mercantilización de tierras, la ocupación ilegal de tierras (y agua y recursos productivos) de los pueblos indígenas, para que se conozca esa realidad y se asuman medidas redistributivas.

Entre las medidas redistributivas sobresalen la aplicación de impuestos progresivos según el tamaño de las propiedades, de los patrimonios y de los ingresos.

. Que la FAO recomiende y presione a los gobiernos para que pongan en práctica, las diferentes leyes, reglamentos y otros (inclusive los dictámenes de la Constitución Política del Estado), relativos a la igualdad de oportunidades, igualdad de acceso a los recursos productivos, a la educación, a la salud…desde una perspectiva de los derechos humanos.

. Concentrarse más en los temas de impacto grande y transversalizándolos en todos los programas en vez de perderse en una multitud de iniciativas. Por ejemplo, la Agricultura de Conservación, un concepto para la Intensificación sostenible de la producción y clima-inteligente tendrá impacto en 14 de los 17 ODS, con amplias repercusiones no solo en la economía, sino también en la pobreza, la alimentación, la salud, en la adaptación al cambio climático, etc. (*)

2. La FAO pretende acelerar la transformación de los sistemas agroalimentarios para hacerlos más eficientes, inclusivos, resilientes y sostenibles como medio para cumplir la Agenda 2030. 

Si la FAO pretende la transformación de los sistemas agroalimentarios para hacerlos más eficientes, inclusivos, sostenibles:

• ¿Porque apoyó la destrucción del sistema productivo (2012-2016) de la quinua en Bolivia?.....cuyas consecuencias negativas las vivimos actualmente (destruyó la diversidad productiva; desplazo el ganado auquénido que con su defecación alimentaba y nutria la tierra; aplano los terrenos quitando las pequeñas montañas que creaban microclimas y protegían del viento; permitió y fomentó el uso de agroquímicos; permitió que ya no se respeten los linderos entre cultivo y cultivo para el control de la producción ecológica certificada, entre otros).

Todo esto fue alentado bajo el enfoque de “fomento a las exportaciones” de quinua; con un manejo, apoyo e intomisión política fuerte de la FAO (J. Graziano da Silva y Crispin Moreira/FAOBOL) al gobierno de entonces; inclusive se llego a determinar el “año internacional de la quinua” (2013).

Hoy, esas tierras donde se producía quinua (departamentos de Potosí y Oruro) no tienen ninguna utilidad, son planas y pura greda donde no se produce nada, con vientos fuertes, sin agua, tierras agotadas, desprotegidas y abandonadas.

• ¿Porque – en la actualidad – han suspendido los proyectos que hace algunos años implementaba la FAO en Bolivia, bajo el marco de la “Agricultura de Conservación”, si ese enfoque contribuye e induce a la transformación de los sistemas agroalimentarios para hacerlos más eficientes, más sostenibles, más inclusivos?

En la actualidad, ese enfoque no es prioritario para el gobierno actual que sí canaliza todos sus esfuerzos y recursos al enfoque de fomento a las exportaciones; aún a costa de la insostenibilidad del desarrollo agroalimentario.

Hay varias organizaciones de productores (OSC) que solicitan el enfoque de la AC pero la FAO dejó de apoyarlas desde hace algun tiempo.

Está claro entonces que el enfoque político que implementan los gobiernos son los que guían el accionar de la FAO, y no el enfoque de un desarrollo sostenible, eficiente, inclusivo.

La FAO intentó cambiar los sistemas agroalimentarios cuando formuló el objetivo estratégico de la Intensificación Sostenible en el año 2009. El elemento para realizar eso es la Agricultura de Conservación, un concepto desarrollado en colaboración de FAO con agricultores y científicos en todo el mundo. Sin embargo, la FAO ha hecho poco esfuerzo de promover este concepto y lo ha dejado a otras organizaciones técnicamente menos competentes. En algunas regiones del mundo, como en RLC (Latino América y el Caribe), la FAO no la ha promovido para nada; en cambio, ha suprimido las pocas iniciativas existentes en otros países (*).

3. El cambio climático amenaza nuestra capacidad de garantizar la seguridad alimentaria mundial, erradicar la pobreza y lograr el desarrollo sostenible.

• Que la FAO escuche a las OSC; escuche sus necesidades y los apoye.

En la actualidad, la FAO sólo escucha los requerimientos y mandatos de cada gobierno según país, y si las organizaciones de productores no solicitan apoyo a la FAO a través del gobierno, no son escuchadas.

Hay un manejo Político muy grande y vergonzoso por parte del gobierno de turno y también de la FAO (y de otras instituciones de Naciones Unidas que se prestan a ese manejo).

• La FAO y las Organizaciones de productores deben alentar/financiar/apoyar programas:

1. De fomento a las cosechas de agua (a nivel urbano-agricultura urbana- y rural)

. a la conservación del agua

. al uso eficiente del agua (riego x aspersión por ejemplo)

. al reciclaje del agua (para luego ser utilizada en riego, etc)

. al uso adecuado del agua (no despilfarro)

1. No deben apoyar los programas de fomento a las exportaciones que representan la deforestación, la ampliación de la frontera agrícola, la sustitución de cultivos básicos de la alimentación, el uso intensivo de agroquímicos que contaminan las aguas y la tierra, que matan la biodiversidad, entre otros.
2. (Pago por servicios ecosistémicos) Apoyar los programas de subvención a los pobladores, familias, Pueblos Indígenas que mantienen la foresta; que cuidan el medio ambiente, que resguardan los bosques y la naturaleza. “Premiar” a los agricultores y que aplican una agricultura combinada con la pequeña ganadería, la foresta, cuidado de plantas…es decir que implementan la agroforestería que es un sistema que contribuyen a la generación de agua.

• La FAO y las OSC deben hacer presión a los gobiernos para detener las políticas de fomento a las exportaciones agrícolas (soya transgénica sobre todo) que están basadas principalmente en las subvenciones a los combustibles fósiles (gasolina, diésel) para el uso de la maquinaria agrícola; para el transporte de los productos a los centros de procesamiento y a los puertos de exportación; para el funcionamiento de las plantas de transformación; y también para la explotación de los recursos mineralógicos e inclusive para la prospección de hidrocarburos en regiones/áreas protegidas destruyendo el medio ambiente y matando la biodiversidad.

Acompañan a esta política de subvenciones a los combustibles fósiles, el fomento al uso indiscriminado de agroquímicos; la deforestación; la ampliación de la frontera agrícola para el aumento de la producción de carne bovina y porcina para las exportaciones…todo lo cual tiene una incidencia directa en la intensificación de los gases de efecto invernadero; en los desastres ecológicos; con un elevado costo ambiental invisible.

• Al inicio del milenio las experiencias mundiales de FAO con la Agricultura de Conservación han demostrado, que la AC era al mismo tiempo no solo apta para la Intensificación Sostenible, sino también el instrumento más potente y el único que realmente funcionó para una agricultura climáticamente inteligente - que logrará la adaptación al cambio climático, la mitigación del mismo y una producción alta y sostenida de alimentos. No hace falta inventar o buscar una nueva solución, que hasta la fecha no existe (*).

4. Basándose en su experiencia en materia de asociación, ¿puede compartir un buen ejemplo de una colaboración útil con la FAO u otro organismo de las Naciones Unidas/asociado para el desarrollo? 

• Este tema es muy difícil de responder; mientras en tiempos pasados las organizaciones de NN.UU. se complementaban en sus especialidades y colaboraron bien, esto ha cambiado en que casi todas de estas organizaciones que han expandido su portfolio cubriendo las áreas de mandatos de otras agencias.

El PNUD casi es una organización universal reclamando especialidades en todas áreas, pero también entre el PMA (WFP) y la FAO casi no se distingue. Por lo tanto, en tiempos de recursos escasos la "colaboración" es más un concurso por recursos.

Exitosas colaboraciones de FAO existían, por ejemplo, con la OMS en temas de resistencia anti microbial o en temas de alimentación sana. En la mayoría de los casos de colaboraciones exitosas, no depende tanto de la organización, sino en las simpatías de los respectivos dirigentes/representantes. Pero, aun así, muchas veces estos proyectos "colaborativos" son forzados por la buena voluntad, pero no por las sinergias objetivas. Con organizaciones fuera del sistema la colaboración muchas veces es más fácil y provechosa. (*)

5. En la actualidad, ¿cuáles son los retos más importantes a los que se enfrentan las OSC en su colaboración con la FAO? 

• Uno de los retos más importantes a los que se enfrentan las OSC son la falta de capacitación técnica de sus asociados, productores. En ese sentido, la FAO debe enfatizar en la capacitación en aspectos fundamentales como por ejemplo el Resguardo, acopio, conservación de semillas naturales y tradicionales; el Adecuado uso de maquinaria agrícola apropiada a cada realidad geofísica; Capacitar en el fortalecimiento/nutrición de la tierra; en la Transformación/procesamiento de productos; en el Buen uso del agua; en las buenas prácticas agrícolas para un desarrollo sostenible (rotación de cultivos, diversificación de cultivos, poner en práctica la agricultura de conservación y la agroecología; no uso de agroquímicos…); en una  Adecuada gestión de sus organizaciones y de la comercialización; en el Fortalecimiento de la estructura y funcionamiento de las organizaciones de productores (con participación activa de las mujeres).

Todo esto forma parte de las necesidades que tienen para adaptarse mejor al cambio climático, siendo parte de las prácticas agrícolas sostenibles

• Sin embargo, la FAO es demasiado burocrática y en muchos casos muy dominante tratando de suprimir intereses de colaboración y no aceptando colaboradores. Por ejemplo, no aceptan colaboración del sector de las ONG como "iguales", en posiciones y derechos (*).

…………………………………

(*) Comentarios expresados por el ex representante de la FAO en Bolivia (Theodor Friedrich) en entrevista realizada por el autor

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

1. To date, the efforts towards SDGs have not succeeded in reducing socio-economic inequality within and between countries. How can FAO and CSOs work together to regain the momentum lost and work jointly to "leave no one behind”?

FAO and CSOs can work together to develop recommendations to governments aimed at waiving neoliberal policies and emphasising the adoption of public policies that redistribute national income. They can also support studies/research showing land grabbing by large landowners, land commodification, illegal occupation of the land (and water and other productive resources) of indigenous people, in order to make this reality known and encourage the adoption of redistributive measures. Among these, progressive taxation —according to the size of properties, level of wealth and amount of income— stands out.

FAO could lobby governments to implement different laws, regulations and instruments (including the rulings of the Political Constitution of the State) related to equal opportunities, equal access to productive resources, education, health... from a human rights perspective.

I also believe that FAO should focus on high-impact topics, mainstreaming them across all programmes, rather than scattering them across multiple initiatives. For example, conservation agriculture —a climate-smart concept for sustainable production intensification— will have an impact on 14 of the 17 SDGs, with broad implications not only for the economy, but also for poverty, food, health, climate change adaptation, etc. (*)

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. What and how can CSOs contribute to such transformation to boost impact on the ground?  Please suggest concrete actions.

If FAO seeks to accelerate the transformation of agrifood systems to make them more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable:

Why did it support the destruction of the quinoa production system (2012-2016) in Bolivia? Today we are suffering the negative consequences: productive diversity has been destroyed; auchenid cattle that fed and nourished the land with their droppings were displaced; land was flattened, removing the small mountains that created microclimates and offered protection from the wind; the use of agrochemicals was allowed and encouraged; and crop-to-crop boundaries were breached, hindering the control of certified organic production, among other things.

All of this was encouraged under the quinoa "export promotion" approach, with purposeful management, support and political interference of FAO (J. Graziano da Silva and Crispin Moreira/FAO Bolivia). Furthermore, FAO declared 2013 the International Year of Quinoa.

Today, the land where quinoa was grown —in the departments of Potosí and Oruro— has no use. It has become wasteland. Flat, all clay, subject to strong winds, with no water, exhausted, unprotected and abandoned.

Why have projects implemented by FAO in Bolivia years ago —and focused on conservation agriculture— been suspended? Isn't this approach supposed to contribute to the transformation of agri-food systems to make them more efficient, sustainable and inclusive? Unfortunately, this concept is not a priority for the current Government. Instead, it is channelling all its efforts and resources into the export promotion approach, even at the expense of unsustainable agri-food development.

Several CSOs (producer organizations) have called for the adoption of the conservation agriculture approach, but FAO no longer supports them.

To me, it is clear that the political approach of governments guides FAO's actions, rather than sustainable, efficient and inclusive development.

FAO tried to transform agri-food systems when it formulated one of its strategic objectives in 2009: sustainable intensification. The cornerstone to realize this goal is conservation agriculture, a concept developed by FAO in collaboration with farmers and scientists around the world. However, FAO has made little effort to promote this approach, and has left this task to other organizations, not so technically competent. In some regions of the world (e. g. Latin America and the Caribbean), FAO has not promoted conservation agriculture at all. Instead, it has suppressed the few initiatives that had been launched in other countries (*).

3. Climate change threatens our ability to ensure global food security, eradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development. What FAO and CSOs could maximize collective impact to adapt and/or mitigate climate change?

FAO should listen to CSOs, understand their needs and provide support.

Currently, FAO only listens to the requirements and mandates of each of the different governments. If support is not requested through them, producer organizations are ignored.

Nowadays, governments and FAO (and other UN institutions) handle this situation in an overbearing and outrageous manner.

FAO and producer organizations should encourage/finance/support programmes aimed at promoting:

• water harvesting (at urban —urban agriculture— and rural level)
• water conservation
• efficient use of water (e.g. sprinkler irrigation)
• water recycling (to be used later for irrigation, etc.)
• appropriate use of water (no waste)

FAO and producer organizations should not support export promotion programmes, as they lead to deforestation, expansion of the agricultural frontier, substitution of staple food crops, intensive use of agrochemicals that pollute water and soil and destruction of biodiversity, among others.

(Payments for ecosystem services) Furthermore, they should support subsidy programmes for villagers, families and indigenous people who maintain and protect the forests, take care of the environment and safeguard nature. They should "reward" farmers who combine agriculture with small livestock, forestry, plant care... In other words, farmers who adopt agroforestry systems, which help to generate water.

FAO and CSOs must lobby governments with the aim of halting policies that promote agricultural exports (especially transgenic soya), mainly based on fossil fuel subsidies (petrol, diesel) for the use of agricultural machinery, the transport of products to processing centres and export ports, the operation of processing plants, the exploitation of mineralogical resources and even hydrocarbon prospecting in protected regions/areas, which destroys the environment and biodiversity.

In addition to fossil fuel subsidies, other issues of concern should be the promotion of the indiscriminate use of agrochemicals; deforestation; the expansion of the agricultural frontier to increase the production of beef and pork for exports... All this has a direct impact on the intensification of greenhouse gases and ecological disasters, with the consequent environmental cost, onerous and apparently unnoticeable.

At the turn of the millennium, FAO's global experiences with conservation agriculture have shown that it is not only suitable for sustainable intensification, but also that it is the only —and most powerful— instrument that has actually worked to achieve a climate-smart agriculture, an approach that contributes to climate change adaptation and mitigation and to high and sustained food production. There is no need to invent or seek a new solution, which does not exist at the moment (*).

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.

This is a very difficult question to answer. In the past, United Nations agencies complemented each other in their areas of expertise and collaborated well. However, this has changed: almost all of these organizations have expanded their portfolio and encompass the mandates of other agencies.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is almost a universal organization specialized in all areas. Likewise, WFP and FAO are almost indistinguishable. Therefore, in times of scarce resources, "collaboration" is more of a competition for resources.

To give an example, FAO successfully collaborated with the World Health Organization (WHO) on antimicrobial resistance and healthy food topics. In most cases, success does not depend so much on the organizations themselves, but on the sympathies of their leaders/representatives. But even so, these "collaborative" projects are often based on goodwill, rather than on objective synergies. Collaboration with organizations outside the system is often easier and more advantageous (*).

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.

One of the most important challenges faced by CSOs is the lack of technical skills of their members (producers, in the case of producer organizations). In this sense, FAO should support training in key aspects such as: safeguarding, collection and conservation of natural and traditional seeds; proper use of agricultural machinery suited to each geophysical reality; land strengthening/nutrition; product transformation/processing; good water use; good agricultural practices for sustainable development (crop rotation, crop diversification, implementation of conservation agriculture and agroecology, no use of agrochemicals...); strengthening the structure and operation of producer organisations (with the active participation of women), adequate management and commercialization.

This is all part of the needs CSOs have to better adapt to climate change as part of sustainable agricultural practices.

However, FAO is too bureaucratic. And, in many cases, too overbearing, trying to dismiss collaborative interests and not accepting partners. For example, FAO does not accept the collaboration with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on an "equal" basis, in terms of positions and rights (*).

----------

(*) Comments expressed by the former FAO representative in Bolivia (Theodor Friedrich) in an interview conducted by the author

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.

Example: Sustainable Agricultural Development Project with FAO

Context: A non-governmental organization (NGO) focused on sustainable agriculture wants to collaborate with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations to improve food security and livelihoods in a rural community in a developing country.

What/why does is work?

Key Elements that Make this Engagement Meaningful:

Needs Assessment: The NGO conducts a thorough needs assessment in the target community to understand the specific challenges, local agricultural practices, and socio-economic conditions. This data collection phase ensures that interventions are tailored to the community's actual needs.

Alignment with FAO Goals: The NGO's project aligns closely with FAO's mission and priorities related to food security, sustainable agriculture, and poverty reduction. This alignment is crucial for gaining FAO's support and endorsement.

Capacity Building: The partnership focuses on building the capacity of local farmers and communities. Training programs are developed to empower farmers with modern, sustainable agricultural techniques that improve crop yields and resilience to climate change.

Local Ownership and Participation: The project actively involves the local community in decision-making and implementation. Local farmers are encouraged to participate in designing and managing the agricultural initiatives, ensuring their ownership of the process.

Sustainability: The partnership promotes sustainable practices, such as crop diversification, organic farming, and water conservation, to ensure long-term food security and environmental stewardship.

Monitoring and Evaluation: Both partners establish a robust monitoring and evaluation framework to track progress and measure the impact of their interventions. Regular assessments help in making necessary adjustments and ensuring accountability.

Resource Mobilization: The NGO collaborates with FAO not only for technical expertise but also for resource mobilization. FAO can help attract additional funding or resources from other development partners or donors.

Knowledge Sharing: Knowledge and best practices are shared not only within the community but also with other similar projects and organizations. This promotes learning and replicability.

Advocacy and Policy Influence: The partnership engages in policy dialogues at local and national levels to advocate for favorable policies that support sustainable agriculture and food security.

Long-Term Commitment: Both partners commit to a long-term engagement rather than short-term interventions. This allows for sustained impact and the cultivation of strong relationships with the community.

In summary, a meaningful engagement with a UN agency or development partner, such as FAO, involves careful planning, alignment of goals, community involvement, capacity building, sustainability, and a commitment to monitoring and evaluation. Such partnerships work well when they are based on shared values and a clear understanding of the local context and needs.

Q3. 

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) play crucial roles in addressing the challenges posed by climate change to global food security, poverty eradication, and sustainable development. To maximize their collective impact, they can collaborate on various initiatives and strategies:

Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) Promotion:

FAO can provide technical expertise, research, and resources to support CSOs in promoting CSA practices among smallholder farmers.

CSOs can work at the grassroots level to educate farmers about climate-resilient farming techniques, facilitate access to CSA technologies, and promote sustainable land management practices.

Data Collection and Sharing:

FAO can assist CSOs in collecting and analyzing climate-related data, including weather patterns, crop yields, and vulnerability assessments.

CSOs can help disseminate this information to local communities, empowering them to make informed decisions and adapt to changing climate conditions.

Policy Advocacy and Implementation:

FAO can collaborate with CSOs to advocate for climate-resilient policies at the national and international levels.

CSOs can provide valuable grassroots insights to inform policy development and work to ensure policy implementation at local levels.

Capacity Building:

FAO can offer training programs and capacity-building initiatives to enhance the skills and knowledge of CSOs and local communities in climate adaptation and mitigation.

CSOs can then deliver this training to farmers and vulnerable populations, increasing their resilience to climate change.

Promotion of Sustainable Practices:

FAO and CSOs can jointly promote sustainable agricultural practices, such as agroforestry, organic farming, and efficient water management, which can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance food security.

Knowledge Sharing and Awareness:

FAO can support CSOs in developing and disseminating educational materials and campaigns to raise awareness about climate change and its impacts on food security and poverty.

CSOs can engage with local communities and stakeholders to ensure that climate-related knowledge is accessible and actionable.

Resource Mobilization:

FAO and CSOs can collaborate in mobilizing financial and technical resources to support climate adaptation and mitigation projects, especially in vulnerable regions.

Monitoring and Evaluation:

FAO and CSOs can work together to monitor the impact of climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts, ensuring that they are effective and making necessary adjustments as needed.

Participation in International Forums:

FAO can engage CSOs in international climate negotiations and forums, ensuring that civil society perspectives and voices are heard in shaping global climate policies.

Community-Based Adaptation Projects:

FAO and CSOs can jointly implement community-based climate adaptation projects that empower local communities to take ownership of their resilience-building efforts.

By working together, FAO and CSOs can leverage their respective strengths and resources to tackle the multifaceted challenges of climate change and its impact on food security, poverty reduction, and sustainable development. Collaboration at various levels, from policy advocacy to grassroots engagement, is essential to maximize their collective impact in addressing these critical issues.

À ce jour, les efforts déployés pour atteindre les ODD n'ont pas permis de réduire les inégalités socio-économiques à l'intérieur des pays et entre les pays. Comment la FAO et les OSC peuvent-elles collaborer pour retrouver la dynamique perdue et travailler ensemble pour « ne laisser personne de côté » ? Réponses: pour ma part. je pense que le FAO doit rendre plus accessibles les appels à projet à l'endroit des ONG aussi petites soient-elles. il faut que le FAO élargisse vraiment son champ de communication.

------------------------------------------------------------------

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

To date, efforts to achieve the SDGs have failed to reduce socio-economic inequalities within and between countries.

How can FAO and CSOs work together to regain the momentum lost and work jointly to "leave no one behind"?

Answers: I think that FAO needs to make its calls for projects more accessible to NGOs, however small they may be. FAO really needs to broaden its field of communication.