Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

This Decade document is unfortunately quite disapointing. It has no teeth. It repeats all the old (predictable) remedies and cliches. It is jargony. It too often states the obvious.

By paragraphs:

4, 38, 54. multistakeholder platforms are taken as a given. Will not more people oppose this? The conflicts of interest (CoI) issue has not been solved...

9. "Leaving no one behind"… You know the quote that says that this is not an accident.

     The para also speaks of a "global accountability framework": where is such to be found?

12, 13, 15, 38, 41, 44, 54, 67, 69, 73.  “Stakeholder” is used over and over. In many of these places, using rights holders and duty bearers is what is called for.

12. The SUN initiative is mentioned casually…without quoting what some of its detractors object.

13. 31. Speak of CSOs or NGOs as the same. It should say (private interest CSOs (PICSOs). It mentions ”an enabling environment” for HR and the RTF. Only enabling? Isn't it to be the cornerstone?

13. The para only says “management of CoI”. Will we demand stronger language on CoI?

14. Speaks of  “an enabling environment” for HR and the RTF. Will we demand stronger language?

16. Cross-cutting area #4 calls for “trade and investment for improved nutrition”. How? Does past experience teach us something?

17. Asks for “fostering policy dialogue…to ensure that solutions are equitable and people-centered”. This is not what the HR framework calls for! Claim holders demand!

19. Paragraph sooo weak..

20. Calls for “strengthening local food production especially by small holders”. This is not what we stand for. Language already a consensus puts central emphasis on small holders.

29. Mentions “nutrient dense foods”. Which? RUTF?

30. This para on nutrition education is sooo weak and naif. Could have been written in the 1970s.

31. “Lead by example” ????

34. Are only “coherence and flexibility” needed??

35. “Achieve global food and nutrition through trade", i.e. “appropriate trade agreements”? What is that?

38. “Multistakeholder governance mechanisms should avoid Coi”. We certainly need stronger wording here.

41. “Member states are encouraged to translate the commitments of ICN2”. Just encourage?? (Then in para 42 there is a call for them to actually commit…. A contradiction).

The mention of SMART here is a gimmick, just for show.

43. The call is “to raise the level of ambition”. Only? Need stronger language?

45. Speaks of a “commitments repository in FAO and WHO”? Would this work and be binding?

47, 48. The call here is for “champions” and “action networks”; seems to me wishful thinking. I may be wrong.

54. “SUN will provide opportunities”? How many years has SUN been on? What to show for?

59. “The Decade will strengthen the capacities at community level as appropriate? Meaning what? Far from what we are asking for re empowering clim holders and duty bearers...

63. Calls for “Evidence-informed advocacy”. What gimmick is that? Does scientific evidence convince politicians?

64. What “visual identity” is referred here to?

69. We read “FAO/WHO will consult with the private sector” …for governance issues? This sentence is in the governance section!! Needs to be deleted. No private sector in governance.

Table 1. Proposes a “reformulation” of foods group. We all know what Monteiro and Cannon say about this giving BIG Food a way to whitewash their image and the public still staying hooked on ultrprocessed foods.

The table also proposes a nutrition sensitive issues group. We all know this was invented as a (bad) substitute for what are the social determinants of nutrition.