Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)


How can FAO and Civil Society Organizations engage better?

Over the years, Food and Agriculture Organization of UN has intensified its collaboration with civil society organizations (CSOs). Hundreds have been involved in FAO’s technical work, emergency field operations, training and capacity building, and advocacy of best agricultural practices. The FAO Strategy for Partnerships with CSOs (2013) recognizes that CSOs play a critical role as important allies to enhance FAO's ability to eliminate hunger and malnutrition given their technical expertise, their proximity to, and representation of, the food insecure, land dispossessed and hungry, and their broad presence in the field.

Members called for an Evaluation of the Strategy in 2018, the findings of which indicated the need for increased attention to FAO-CSO engagement at country level. In 2019, the FAO Programme Committee accepted the results of the evaluation and reaffirmed the validity of the Strategy as the formal corporate document guiding FAO-CSO engagement.  

Over the past years, CSOs have evolved in terms of coordination, structure, outreach, mobilization and advocacy capacity. And so did FAO, which in the current FAO Strategic Framework 2022-31 calls for transformative partnerships to contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the 2030 Agenda’s aspiration of “Leaving No One Behind” and thus exploring a more strategic engagement with CSOs, capitalizing on the breadth and diversity of expertise and characteristics of CSOs. 


This online consultation aims to identify and understand the opportunities and challenges for better and more transformative engagement between FAO and with CSOs.  It will also stimulate the discussion among the participants that would allow the sharing of good practices, understanding of how other CSOs are working with FAO as well as highlighting the areas of improvement for better engagement.

The Civil Society Organization Partnerships team under the FAO Partnerships and UN Collaboration Division invites representatives from CSOs and other interested experts to provide their views and suggestions to:


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 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.
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?
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.
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.

Participants’ suggestions and ideas shared through this online consultation will be taken into account by FAO to improve FAO-CSO collaboration. It’s an effort to strengthen the engagement between FAO and CSOs for the benefit of their shared objectives related to agrifood system transformation.

To take part in this online consultation, please register to the FSN Forum, if you are not yet a member, or “sign in” to your account. You can insert your comment the below box “Post your contribution” on this webpage. Comments are welcome in English, French and Spanish.

The consultation is open until October 2023.

We look forward to your active participation and an exchange of view and suggestions!

Kayo Takenoshita, Team Leader, Civil Society Organization Partnerships team, Partnerships and UN Collaboration Division, FAO


FAO. 2022. Partnerships with Non-State Actors at FAO: Progress Report 2020–2021. Rome.

FAO. 2013. FAO Strategy for Partnerships with Civil Society Organizations Rome.

FAO. 2020. Evaluation of the FAO Strategy for Partnerships with Civil Society Organizations. PC 29/INF/7.

FAO. 2020. Evaluation of the FAO Strategy for Partnerships with Civil Society Organizations. Management Response. PC 129/INF/7 Sup.1/Rev.1.

FAO. 2021. FAO’s Strategic Framework 2022-31. Rome. 

FAO holds informal dialogue to strengthen engagement with civil society organizations:


This activity is now closed. Please contact [email protected] for any further information.

* Click on the name to read all comments posted by the member and contact him/her directly
  • Read 67 contributions
  • Expand all

Dear Participants,

We are deeply grateful for your invaluable contributions! Your dedication and the time you've generously invested in sharing your thoughtful suggestions on how FAO can enhance its collaboration with Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) have not gone unnoticed.

Your insights have been instrumental in helping FAO gain a clearer understanding of the challenges and barriers that exist in our engagement with CSOs. Your recommendation is paving the way for us to make vital improvements and address these issues effectively.

We recognize the indispensable role that CSOs play in the global battle against hunger. Your technical expertise, close proximity to and advocacy for vulnerable populations, and your presence in the field are a source of immense strength in our collective mission. Rest assured, FAO is committed to steadfastly working towards fostering even closer, more transformative partnerships with CSOs.

Once again, we extend our heartfelt thanks for your collaboration, and we look forward to a brighter future as we join forces to combat hunger and create a more food-secure world together.

Kayo Takenoshita, Team Leader

on behalf of the Civil Society Organization Partnerships team, Partnerships and UN Collaboration Division, FAO

Dear All,

God bless. Please find attached my contributions .

Best regards,

Foluke O. Areola, Director(Rtd),

Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Nigeria.

  1. How can FAO and CSOs work together to regain the momentum lost and work jointly to "leave no one behind”?
  1. To improve on the success of SDGs in reducing socio- economic inequality within and between countries, the FAO and CSOs must establish a line of coordination. This must take into consideration the quality of expertise being brought to fore by the CSOs and respect such and the opinions expressed. There is also the need to rebuild mutual trust and respect between FAO and the CSOs. 
  2. There is a need to gather relevant information and data on CSOs within a country and periodically review the capacities and capabilities to carry out activities that enhance the success of SDGs in reducing socio-economic inequality within countries. FAO, within the context of the SDGs, must have indices to measure performances for comparison between countries. A network of CSOs in countries within a region can also be established.
  3. There must be some levels of flexibility in partnering together that recognizes local and country's peculiarities. The opinion of experts in an organization should be considered along the wealth of experience of local stakeholders in achieving the expected outcomes. This affects transparency in the process and working to a prepared answer.
  4. There is the need for multi-dimensional and transdisciplinary approach in arriving at the interventions being proposed. These should be social, economic, technological, and ecological interventions.
  5. The major issue in achieving the plans is to have reliable data to develop meaningful plans
  6. There must be transparency in the partnership that would ensure the needs of the target groups are met.
  7. They must especially focus efforts more at those “who must not be left behind”-countries and individuals. 

2) What and how can CSOs contribute to such transformation to boost impact on the ground? 

  1. There must be collaborations and linkages on agrifood systems.
  2. It is important to strengthen the weak linkages depending on food system.
  3. It is important to identify the area of strength of the CSOs, leverage it and carry out capacity training and enhancement for improvements, and better efficiency.
  4. Actors along the agricultural value chains must be accordingly supported to reduce food wastage.

3) What FAO and CSOs could maximize collective impact to adapt and/or mitigate climate change? 

a) Develop a catelogue of existing adaptation and mitigation strategies.

b) Sectorally determine the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the strategies, e.g, Fisheries. Aquaculture, crops, livestock

c) Recognise the limits of CSOs to influence policies and programs of a country or region.

d) Partners with relevant CSO.

e) They must collaborate with the relevant agencies in charge of climate change for information.

4) Based on your partnering experience, can you share a good example of meaningful engagement with FAO or another UN agency/development partner? 

a) A good partnering example is the MSME project on best practices in the catfish industry in Nigeria. It was a training for fish farmers in Nigeria carried out by the World Bank and MSME in Nigeria.

b) It worked because the selection process for the different professional bodies and farmer associations/companies was very open and transparent. 

c) All the participating bodies were brought together, each with their different mandates. This created a positive comptroller and collaboration between the participating entities.

d) There were predetermined conditions for the release of the grants in tranches based strictly on benchmarks and performances. 

e) The crop of World Bank officers was professional in their interactions and, where necessary, approved changes to the original plan after detailed request and explanation.

e) There was flexibility of engagement, knowledge sharing, and the willingness to learn on all sides.

f) There was adequate monitoring, control, and participation by the World Bank. 

g) The CSOs were brought together periodically to share ideas and were trained periodically to improve on their capabilities to carry out the assignments.

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? 

a) Professionalism of CSOs

b) Adequate funding

Hello !
Let me commend the joint commitment of FAO - CSOs to campaign in the fight
against hunger, poverty and food quality degradation.

Univ. Prof. Dr. Benone PASARIN


Starting from the practical and didactic experience that I have accumulated, I consider the FAO's approach as opportune, through which it is proposed to identify some of the opportunities and challenges necessary for a better collaboration between FAO and CSOs from various countries of the world.

In this regard, I would like to join the forum members who wanted to give their input by answering the questions that have been suggested, namely:

1. To date, efforts to achieve the SDGs have failed to reduce socio-economic inequality within and between countries. How can FAO and CSOs work together to regain lost momentum and work together to "not let nobody behind"?

To enable FAO to consult meaningfully and constructively with CSOs in order to obtain sustainable economic and policy studies and to formulate common advice to provide to States, regions or groups in socio-economic conditions vulnerable, I believe that actions are needed, first of all, to identify those CSOs that meet the following criteria:

a. The CSOs demonstrate that the activities undertaken by them refer exclusively to subsystems of productive activities in the food sector (rural or peri-urban) and not to other socio-political issues.

b. The CSOs' actions have as beneficiaries, in particular, the local food producers and less the big end users and processors or the big chain stores.

c. CSOs demonstrate that they promote and encourage the association of small producers in order to obtain food, their temporary storage, primary processing and the sale of food through cooperatives and professional associations.

d. The leaders of these CSOs, belonging to both sexes, have specialized training in order to develop specific communication and training, planning and legislation, investment, management and decision-making activities, etc., which will allow them to participate to development dialogues and policy transfer at the local level, with the support of the community to which it is addressed.

e. CSOs prove that they have been interacting for a long time with those organizations (local actors) that are directly associated with one or more of the subsystems or links of food production, of major importance to the population in the area where the CSOs operate activity (soil preparation and land sowing link, irrigation link, soil biodiversity preservation link, soil erosion control link, harvesting link, agricultural goods transport and circulation link, conservation and technological processing link , the chain of food trade and production valorization, etc.).

f. CSOs promote and develop social entrepreneurship, with the aim of development and financial self-sustainability of the organization.

Once the CSOs have been identified, analyzed and accepted in the collaboration, the next step should be how to engage FAO in the relationship with these CSOs, i.e. direct or indirect involvement.

A direct engagement between FAO and relevant CSOs could entail the following:

• The provision by FAO of some training and training programs for CSO members, depending on their basic training, with the aim of participating in joint projects.

• FAO's provision of free advisory work to CSOs, both in private actions at the community level and in joint projects.

• Supporting and guiding CSOs in promoting local productive activities that create added value (establishment of micro farms, purchase and breeding of purebred animals, cultivation of technical plants, development of agritourism and ecotourism, temporary food storage, primary food processing, etc. ).

• FAO's provision of expertise in the collection and statistical analysis of agricultural, food security and safety data.

• Supporting and mediating the relationship between CSOs and potential private donors of financial funds, necessary for starting and implementing joint projects.

• Ensuring direct financial support for CSOs.

An indirect engagement between FAO and CSOs could involve the following:

• FAO interventions at the level of state authorities in order to provide logistical and financial support to local CSOs.

• Mediation of lucrative meetings between CSOs with similar specifics, belonging to different countries.

• Periodic information of CSOs regarding specific changes in legislation at European and global level.

• Regularly informing CSOs on new technical achievements worldwide, obtaining genetic advances on management, marketing, plant varieties and animal breeds, food sustainability techniques, the status of social farms, etc.

2. FAO seeks to accelerate the transformation of agri-food systems to be more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable as a means of achieving the 2030 Agenda.

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

Considering that the effective collaboration between FAO and the EU will increase and diversify, this will also be reflected in the activity of CSOs, corresponding to their professional identity. In this context, I consider relevant the following contributions of CSOs, in order to increasing the impact of their activity within local agricultural communities:

• CSOs can easily identify vulnerable or marginalized populations or human groups, advocating their causes at local and national government levels.

• CSOs have the capacity to identify and report existing inequalities regarding child labor exploitation, exclusion of women from professional activities, sale of agricultural land, food security, access to resources, agricultural land and food markets.

• CSOs can coagulate the efforts of marginalized groups with a view to their active participation in the initiation of reforms and policies to overcome their state of social vulnerability.

• CSOs can lobby local and national political decision-makers for the generation and enforcement of regulations on sustainable agricultural practices, short food supply chains, the transformation of agricultural micro-farms into agro-tourism micro-farms, the creation of fair market opportunities for small agricultural producers etc.

• CSOs can monitor government actions undertaken nationally and internationally regarding commitments related to disadvantaged areas or subject to risk factors.

• CSOs can collaborate with governments, relevant ministries, with other national and international organizations, governmental and non-governmental, to initiate or generate significant legislative changes in vulnerable and risk areas.


3. Climate change threatens our ability to ensure global food security, eradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development.

How could FAO and CSOs maximize collective impact for climate change adaptation and/or mitigation?

Maximizing the collective impact of FAO and CSOs for climate change adaptation and/or mitigation requires several approaches, such as establishing the type of FAO-CSO involvement (direct or indirect) and the form of engagement between them, so that the results should be optimal in terms of solving specific problems of vulnerable populations or regions. Subsequently, the collaboration can be of a complementary or synergistic type, as for example:

• FAO, due to its international recognition in agriculture and food security, can deploy adequate human and financial resources to guide CSOs in their data collection and interpretation efforts, as well as to provide the necessary tools to adapt populations to climate change.

• FAO, based on feedback generated by CSOs, can influence the development and implementation of national and global policies, with priority reference to climate-resistant agriculture, sustainable land management, building nations adaptable to climate change, etc.

• FAO has the opportunity to provide tools for the dissemination of relevant knowledge and practical skills, based on which CSOs can fulfill the objectives of climate-specific projects (conferences, round tables, workshops, printed materials, etc.).

• FAO can help inform CSOs of national and international funding opportunities, and CSOs can use their local networks to access financial resources for specific climate change and adaptation projects.

4. I have no comments

5. Currently, what are the most significant challenges facing CSOs in their involvement with FAO? What could FAO do to address some of these challenges? Please provide concrete examples.

From my point of view, some of the current challenges relate to the following:

• The difference in image and recognition of the involvement/funding of CSOs versus NGOs, which is to the disadvantage of CSOs, in terms of the possibility of funding and effective participation in national and international policies and processes.

• Lack of leaders within CSOs and their national and international representativeness.

• The lack of online platforms dedicated to simplifying the submission of project proposals and progress reports, which generates elements of bureaucracy and slows down the flow of information.

• Lack of presence and representation of regional CSOs at the international level, compared to NGOs and large or corporate organizations, which reduces the involvement of women's groups, small farmers, local cooperatives and indigenous communities.

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”?

Most CSOs are engaged with lobbying and advocacy towards influencing decision makers to formulate policies that they believe will inure to the benefits of farmers to increase crop productivity  and earn higher incomes to live better lives that will attract the youth into agriculture to sustain the industry.

The missing link is that grassroot organizations and producer associations are often not engaged. FAO must directly engage grassroot and producer farmer organizations to support them.

Soroptimist International is a women's civil society organisation advocating for gender equality and human rights for all. The FAO should ensure that civil society voices are included to stress the role of women in the food system and build policies that are compatible with healthy systems.

CSOs and the FAO, should together identify areas, ways and means of possible cooperation in accordance with the FAO's objectives/Strategic Framework 2022-31.

NGOs can work with the FAO if their activities are focused on eradicating hunger, achieving food security, enhancing nutrition, and promoting sustainable agriculture. NGOs working in areas congruent with FAO's objectives must have the opportunity to interact with FAO to build concrete collaboration.

The goal can be accomplished by granting consultative status to non-governmental organisations by the FAO.

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”? 

•    Livestock make a huge contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), yet this topic is largely absent from discussions of sustainable development. FAO should champion the inclusion of livestock in the broader sustainable development agenda, working closely with a variety of stakeholders, including CSOs, especially those who work directly with livestock-owning communities. 
•    CSOs working on the ground can help FAO identify its ‘blind spots’. FAO defines livestock as ' all terrestrial animals used for food and agriculture’. This definition includes working animals, such as donkeys, horses and mules. However, in practical terms these animals are not considered in FAO’s work, which means that millions of poor people relying on the work of these animas to feed themselves are left behind. NGOs such as Brooke can help FAO understand and begin to address those blind spots. 
•    FAO and animal health/welfare CSOs can work together to engage animal health practitioners, who play a key role in several SDGs (including 1, 2 and 3). For instance, Brooke has an extensive network of animal health practitioners who work in communities and play a key role in major development issues such as food security (ensuring the health and welfare of production animals and working livestock) and global health (e.g. combatting AMR and zoonotic disease spillover).
•    FAO should ensure CSOs are involved in the implementation of country and regional projects funded by the World Bank Pandemic Fund, to gain momentum around and achieve SDG 3. Part of the criteria for funding is that CSOs are involved in the implementation of proposals and FAO should ensure this is happening.
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 play a key role in engaging local communities – often they have been working closely with these communities for many years, they know their needs and have their trust. 
•    CSOs can provide ‘proof of concept’, as many have on-the-ground projects related to sustainable food production, and have many tools and resources that can be scaled-up that contribute to transformation of agri-food systems. For instance, Brooke has frameworks for training animal health practitioners to ensure the health and welfare of both production animals and working livestock. Working livestock contribute to resilient and sustainable agrifood systems, and healthy production animals contribute to efficiency, resilience and sustainability.   
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? 

•    Again, CSOs can provide proof of concept from projects and programmes that could be scaled up by FAO. CSOs can provide data and insights (including voices of communities, farmers, animal-owners etc) for reports, and FAO-endorsed solutions.
•    FAO needs to think beyond ‘business as usual’ and work with a variety of CSOs to explore solutions to that may have been under the radar. For example, livestock are vital climate disaster resilience assets and investing in their health and welfare contributes to climate adaptation. 
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. 

Brooke has supported the development of a mentoring programme as part of the Sustainable Business Development for Veterinary Paraprofessionals project with FAO/EuFMD. We developed a module specifically for the training and delivered an online workshop. This worked well because there was a specific contact person for the work and there was personal engagement between Brooke and the project team.  Another ingredient of success was that Brooke had the relevant experience and ready-made tools that FAO could draw on.

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. 

FAO can be challenging for CSOs to engage with. Information is dispersed and not always provided in a timely and user-friendly manner. Contrary to other UN agencies, FAO does not have an online platform for CSO engagement (like Indico). All communication goes via email, and is often fairly last minute or incomplete (eg if one is not subscribed to a particular mailing list).  
Our recommendation is that FAO: 
•    Establishes an online platform for CSOs to respond to consultations, register for events and make written statements.  
•    Shares information including requests for input well in advance so CSOs can plan ahead.  
•    Introduces annual passes so CSOs with consultative can have easier access to the FAO building.  


Dear all,
First of all, let me acknowledge the hardwork so far and resilient act of UN FAO and CSOs on food sustainable system across the globe. However, there is more to be done and improvement on every effort and strategies of UN FAO and CSOs programmed collaboration and partnership on the global system. The global system has been in two different spheres of development within and among states. Mostly referred to (developed and developing nations, advanced and advancing nations, global north and global south etc). This arises because of the level of development of each state that culminates into classification or formation of the axes. The middle class was formally called second world countries but as today is either you are developed or developing state classification. The consequence is that the widening gap had led to this belief. This can also be said in this format what exists between men is rich and poor, perhaps, this is where the world stands today! The rich and poor countries, notwithstanding! But it's time the narrative change to bridge the gap and hunger and poverty free generations. The gap should be minimize and an opportunity should be given to encourage nations' engagement in UN FAO and CSOs collaboration.
Furthermore, the workability by the parties involved should be mutual understanding that builds synergy and high level of participation without organizational discrimination but results and impactful partnership. The UN FAO SDG agenda should be translated into action driven policy implementation. A concrete active advocacy should be publicly received. On this note, awareness has not be seriously addressed. The urban and rural dwellers can't identify SDGs nor the roles it plays in societal development. In other words, the primary call is advocacy and sensitization of the communities of UN FAO SDG programmes in the global system which call for collaboration with CSOs that can give more publicity and awareness. The campaign needs to be intensified, because even the learned in higher institutions as lecturers can tell the functionality and operational of the SDG. This is a wake up call for the stakeholders and partners.
Observation so far, from the global south and reiterating the year 2030 as an applicable deliverable year, I don't think it stands achievable by what is on ground whether the global north or south poverty and hunger free world. This is pertinent to the organization UN FAO to beat the set date. However, if advocacy is intensified a percentage could be meant about what the programmes holds for nations and communities. This is why leveraging on Civil Society Organizations, Private Sector or Non-governmental Organizations (Non-state actors) would be better appreciated as implementing partners. These are organs that would help drive every initiatives under UN FAO global food security sustainability.
These non state actors have the tools and mechanism to create the awareness and implementation strategies because they reside in the communities of every nation in the globe. They are more sensitive to the plight of the citizens and indigenous people. The policies should be joint researched and implemented, funded by joint force but state actors take large part of the cost. SDG 1 and 2 should be the primary focus of UN which is in synonymous to FAO policies on global agenda. If the tools of non state actors are really employed and deployed the programmes are more than half done because of closeness and proximity to issues in the communities. The State actors and UN FAO being the central system can't drive these programmes without the consultation of non state actors. It should be decentralized, the powers involved, the policies mechanism, and implementing techniques and partners. The reality on ground is that UN FAO should engage the non state actors more vigorously in the programmes for actualization and impactful results.
The uniqueness of this programme is that is not dealing with the enlightened alone but both enlightened and non enlightened. So, it calls for critical look for actualization in the society. The local farmers are involved, the commercial farmers are involved and non farmers are involved as well. Therefore, the modalities should be what will mitigate the differences and erase distrust among parties involved for unification and harmonization of ideas and policies that project effective implementation. This would foster agriculture products for sustainability. In other words, it calls for inclusivity of parties involved to maximize effort of stakeholders and multistakeholders mechanism. Meanwhile, the involvement of local farmers is a big plus to CSOs and UN FAO in improvement of productivity and profitability of their products and commodities.
Sustainability of Agricultural products is more of the local farmers who are closer to civil society organization than FAO. This can be enhance by financial support that would increase productivity, efficiency and sustainable development that will henceforth minimize hunger in the communities and at state level. With moral and financial support the moral for resilience is established and sustained. Understanding the fundamental requirements of this group, Agricultural products would be boosted in the communities. The Food Agriculture Organization of United Nations and Civil Society Organizations would have achieved a lot from their programmes. The best practices would have been initiated and carried out and done in this multifaceted dynamics of FAO programmes implementation. This as well calls for education and enlightenment of the local farmers the need for particular products or breed for high yield. These can be done when the understanding is established by the tripartite stakeholders, which includes inclusiveness of all. The willingness and enthusiasm to work as a team irrespective of status most be established without discrimination by the state actors especially. The role of CSOs can't be separated here because they are interlink with communities, local farmers and FAO. And most importantly every feedback most be acknowledge for now and future use in driving the mandate of FAO that are in consonant of resolution or policies of UN FAO.
However, we have seen the effect of climate change globally as disaster to human and its environment. But it can be said that what has led to this challenge, that has remedy is pride and insensitivity of the global system especially north and while that of global south poverty and hunger is lack of initiatives and insensitivity as well which is also solvable. If the world is willing to play by the rules and policies makers initiatives that favours both spheres in global system. That is, if compromise is made and harmonization of the differences is/are done irrespective, will mitigate and almeliorate the issues and strengthen every initiatives that would mitigate the challenges at the moment and in future. The global system needs both spheres to withstand and sustain the effect in a peaceful and resolvable manner for better environment to live in, in the world.
Team work can't be maximize without personal interest and dominance being taken away but the interest of the generality  in a unanimous agreed and accepted form for the Civil Society Organizations to function properly in this light. If not critically view, perhaps both would suffer the advert effect in the long run. These are human projected effect that could be adverted by same human also. Team work can be actualize as business deal and benefits for humanity in the global system. The climate change is a disaster, poverty and hunger are disasters. Both have been seen and observed as human disasters if not carefully manage by the world system. The UN SDG should know more on this and advocate that poverty and hunger should no more be tolerated from global south irrespective of the excuses and drastic action should be taken to advert the ugly trend and situation, likewise the climate change.
The State actors and non state actors should be action driven in their policies implementation, and better attitude towards economic development and responsible government at all level for citizens welfare and sustainability. In addition, the non state actors can be of help in driving this programme implementation agenda if inclusiveness is paramount to UN FAO or SDG. What is noted here is that CSOs came from nations, therefore, can also be accountable for joint implementation that can mitigate and create enable environment for FAO in the global system. In furtherance to this, policies implementers should have guide mechanism for achievement of programmes and sanctions should be meted against erred organizations in international community.
For example, the Nigeria-State factors, which majorly centered on internal crisis that ravage the farmers especially in the middle belt area and referred to "farmers-herders conflicts" which have affected the productivity of farms' produces and researchers in the area have not really be attentive to by the UN FAO in order to see to the end despite it is an internal crisis. UN mediation would had reduced the menace. But the damaging cost is that it affects productivity, low income, causes inflation, that affect the generality of the people in the area and thereby mitigating export capacity to other nations has been hampered by this menace of herders conflicts and subjected many into poverty and hunger because of the fear arising from it. The Nigerian's agricultural income has been affected and the national GDP has equally reduced because of the crisis. These are some of the areas the civil society organizations could had come in as a research organization for a feedback to UN FAO and the national government to help resolved the issues that befall Agriculture products for global sustainability system in the area.
This really affected the economic trajectory which is not just in Nigeria alone but so many countries in the world. Why is it imperative, is that when there is food insecurity the entire human race suffers the consequences. In other words, poverty and hunger were outlined in SDG 1&2 because of peculiarity and deadliness to human race. Notwithstanding, we can't in no wise resist the actual truth of human needs for sustainability and continuity in the world. If Nigeria could be affected with divert resources and so much human capital capacity, think of what would happen to other countries that are poorer in economic development indexes. What is to be done here UN with FAO assistance in collaboration with CSOs research and support should be look into and given priority to restore and boost productivity of agrofood security in the nation and global system.
Furthermore, CSOs can come up with initiatives that would help eliminate or reduce toxic carbon emission that affect agro products and environment in the world. A policies to strengthen the implementation of programme should be carried out by the state actors and non state actors with strict compliance. This should be immediate action measure. Which would lead to warning and sanction of the culprits. Consequently, without a driving mechanism, modalities, strategies, and drafted policies the implementation stands to be disrupted, distorted by all stakeholders. To resist defaulters in consonant with implementing partners, every stakeholder most agreed on term that will mitigate differences among them all. Neither the global north, or global south  or non state actors would be able to bridge nor contradicts issue raised and resolved as a resolution or treaties among the stakeholders of the policies and strategies of all programmes embark as joint action of UN FAO and civil society organization and other implementing partners.
To be resilient it needs team work, to be sustainable it needs team work between the partners as state actors and non state actors. The resultant effect is what we are looking into here to sustain the world community, harmonize issues and drive a close effective one world without great margin of economic, political and technological gap among states. The perspective of of resolution mechanism should not be different from global north likewise global south, and same with UN FAO and CSOs to arrived at a distinct conclusion of implementation that would drive the world we all envisage as peaceful, hunger free, poverty free and climate mitigated, sustainable implementation programmes.
As an individual and organization, who is a part of non state actors, my contribution, is to initiate and ensure every initiative work well with every one of us irrespective of race, continent, country, colour but a better world we envisage to live in. What I meant by this is that, if allow, we could make a tremendous contribution that can change or help ameliorate the suffering of the communities and nation depending on the capacity in which we operate from. Right now, such opportunity is expected as implementing partner of the programmes in this manner that would warrants one on one with my fellow citizens or nation's government which I would always hope to see the effect and impact on humanity across the world. But currently, we are helping to drive policies programme of SDG as an advocate within the communities either by physical contact or through social media contact as you can see.
In other words, to understand the effect of the programmes' embarked is to have statistics or data that will evaluate the effect and impact of the programmes during the implementing period as an outcome and result, findings taken to archive for future references and use.
So far my best stake with UN or FAO is submission and suggestions that could lead to policies formulation and framework. And this has limitation on change or driving the new narrative of hunger and poverty free world where you are a co-initiator and implementer. The differences would be highly felt and respected as onsite partner in governing agenda of UN FAO and CSOs or other UN agenda programmes implementation. In this respect a critical look or attention should be paid to organization that could make a difference in their little ways to be brought onboard, especially in their communities for a possible change and differences in operation that could change the entire programme of the collaboration venture. In mine opinion there should be a practical change of business operation from the traditional concept to the modern way that elucidate a global objectives without self interest and dominance of state actors.
In conclusion, the best practices should be explore and ensure is action packed and driven without any excuses that would warrant delay nor keep in view strategy. These have mitigated a lot of objectives well scripted and articulated policies that would have eradicated poverty and hunger in the world today. The pass should be passed while the present should be present to help facilitate interactive narrative for accelerating breakthrough of world food security. 
The major challenges today are funding, research, advocacy, states' or national interest first, lack of implementation might, lack of communities based strategy policies and total inclusiveness of farmers. Meanwhile, there are some other challenges that need to be identify which have not be identified and affecting the progress of collaboration and programme implementation of UN FAO. Objectively, holistic strategy by stakeholders would go a long way to mitigate the challenges and finds lasting solution to sustainable food security in the global system.
And ultimately, monitoring and evaluation should be taken seriously in accomplishing the framework and constant review of implemented programmes and outcome. This will help to examine the success and failure of any programme by UN FAO collaboration. The action of state actors should be more intensified. And the understanding of interdependence of states should be understood to navigate a successful expectations by the stakeholders. Every stakeholder perspective should be geared towards actualization of goals and objectives of UN FAO and CSOs collaboration programmes implementation in the world.
On this note, I say thank you on this calls and opportunity on the insight...
Orhue, T. Esosa.
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.

Concrete actions that Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) can take to contribute to the transformation of agrifood systems in a way that aligns with the FAO's goals of efficiency, inclusivity, resilience, and sustainability:

Women's Cooperatives: Support the formation of women's cooperatives to empower female farmers and enhance their roles in agrifood systems.

School Gardening Programs: Partner with schools to establish gardens where students can learn about agriculture and healthy food choices.

Grant Proposal Writing: Train CSO staff in writing effective grant proposals to secure funding for agrifood system transformation projects.

Document Success Stories: Share success stories and case studies from local communities to inspire others and demonstrate the tangible benefits of agrifood system transformation.

Media Campaigns: Use various media channels, including social media and local radio, to disseminate information and mobilize public support for sustainable agriculture.

CSOs, with their grassroots connections and commitment to social and environmental causes, can make significant contributions to the FAO's mission of agrifood system transformation. By focusing on these concrete actions, CSOs can help drive positive change on the ground, working towards more efficient, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable agrifood systems that align with FAO 2030 Agenda.

1. With regards to regaining lost ground and leaving no one behind, the FAO needs to re-difine it's scope of operations tot the partner CSO community. In the experience of Zimbabwe the parameters off UN agencies often suffer from misunderstandings by players in the CSO sector leading to entirely avoidable regressions. As such it is important that terms of operations, reference and collaborations are clear and constantly echoed. 

2. As an active player in food security, safety the CCZ is of the view that whereas the FAO is specialized and capacitated in all things food, it's important for it to deepen it's reliance on the localisation advantages inherent in most CSO players as it is these that are on the ground and can act as strategic conduits between the cultural and practical undercurrents of locales and the FAO. Not enough can be said about many well meant interventions floundering as a result of lack of proper consultation, sensitivity and buy-in .

3. The FAO and Chaos can be more engaging of each other in the full glare of the generality of the communities they serve and articulate positions that easily translate into something these communities understand around climate change. Inspire of the phrase climate change being a buzz word, not many in society AND indeed CSO grasp what it entails. As a result, there is a dearth of messaging that can be bridged through this deliberate mechanism of visible partnership riding on agreed yet scientifically valid localizations of the phenomenon of climate change.This submission is made from the standpoint that most CSOs would be local to the environments they serve. There is gravitas in packaging concepts in terms organic to recipients and these partnerships can achieve this important feat.

4. The partnerships of the Consumer Council of Zimbabwe (CCZ) over the years around food safety, security and handling have consistently shown that mutual respect of each entity by the other is crucial. For this reason the constant high level meetings between the leadership's of the two bodies from inception of interventions to the back channelling amongst officers and engagement of gatekeepers as a unit have always pointed to mutual recognition of what each brings to the table. This is important in that there is no overbearing by the international development agency and had always allowed us to be confident of what we bring to the table. To be sure, the same has been our experience with other UN agencies we collaborate with.

5. We are of the view that, in the case of our area, CSOs face the challenge of capacity building for staff that daily interacts with communities. As highlighted above, as a passing example, capacities around climate change are not a given in the CSO sector and the FAO with it's expertise around such and other matters can ameliorate these through provision of capacity building to CSOs. The CCZ takes the view that a capacitated player is an asset to the communities they serve, particularly so because most CSOs are held in high esteem by the communities and what they say, declare or promote is taken as truth


Caritas Internationalis welcomes the consultations on how can FAO and civil society organizations engage better

Caritas Internationalis is a global confederation of 162 National Caritas member organizations and 7 Caritas Regional Offices that respond to humanitarian emergencies and promote integral human development and integral ecology, with special concern for the effects of climate change on the poor and its implications for the full enjoyment of a wide range of human rights.  Caritas Internationalis has its headquarters in Rome and two delegations to the United Nations in Geneva and New York.

This submission includes inputs from the following regions Africa, Europe, Latin America and Asia.

  1.  How can FAO and CSOs work together to regain the momentum lost and work jointly to "leave no one behind”?
  • Policy Advocacy and Awareness: FAO and CSOs can collaborate to advocate for policies that promote equal access to resources, education, and healthcare. They can also raise awareness about the importance of reducing inequality and the impact it has on achieving the SDGs. FAO can also  work together with CSOs in ensuring that there is Zero hunger by joining forces with CSOs to advocate for agroecology 
  • Monitoring and Accountability: Establishing joint monitoring mechanisms to track progress towards reducing inequality is crucial. Joint regular assessments and evaluations can help in identifying gaps and refining strategies to ensure that no one is left behind.
  • Data Collection and Research: Joint research initiatives can be conducted to collect and analyze data on socio-economic disparities. This data is crucial for informed decision-making and can highlight areas that need immediate attention.
  • Community Engagement and Participation: Encouraging community participation in decision-making processes is vital. FAO and CSOs can facilitate town hall meetings, workshops, and forums where community members, especially from far reaching areas, can voice their concerns and contribute to local development plans. Community members can actively participate in conversations with the FAO, expressing their preferences and ideas about the specific food systems they would like to see in their communities.

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

Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) play a vital role in accelerating the transformation of agrifood systems to be more efficient, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable. Their grassroots presence, community engagement, and advocacy efforts can significantly boost impact on the ground. Some of the concrete actions that CSOs can take to contribute to this transformation include:

  • Community Empowerment and Education: CSOs can conduct workshops and training sessions to educate farmers and local communities about sustainable farming practices. Empowering farmers with knowledge enhances the efficiency and resilience of agrifood systems.
  • Promoting Inclusive Practices: Advocate for inclusive policies that ensure small-scale farmers, women, and marginalized communities have equal access to resources, markets, and agricultural support services. CSOs can work towards eliminating discriminatory practices and policies that hinder inclusivity.
  • Promotion of Agroecology: CSOs can promote agroecological approaches that enhance soil fertility, biodiversity, and resilience to climate change. They can support farmers in adopting sustainable farming methods, reducing dependence on chemical inputs, and promoting natural resource conservation.
  • Supporting Local Food Systems: Encourage the development of local food systems by connecting local farmers with consumers and facilitating farmer's markets. 
  • Advocacy and Policy Influence: Engage in policy advocacy to influence agrifood system reforms at the local, national, and international levels. CSOs can advocate for policies that support sustainable agriculture, conservation of natural resources, and fair trade practices.
  •  Partnerships and Collaboration: Collaborate with other stakeholders, including government agencies, businesses, and research institutions, to leverage resources and expertise. CSOs can initiate partnerships that focus on research, innovation, and the implementation of agroecological practice practices.


What FAO and CSOs could maximize collective impact to adapt and/or mitigate climate change?

  • Access climate finance: Different climate funds as the adaptation funds, green fund, REDD+ funds, and clean technology fund, remain inaccessible for CSOs. There is need for finances to be channeled to local actors and dedicated to strengthening the resilience of local food systems. Examples of these could be agricultural insurance for smallholder farmers, strengthening risk reduction and emergency response capacity, financing the shift to sustainable practices and a host of other measures that Caritas already implements in its development projects. Currently investments remain alarmingly low leaving smallholder farmers very vulnerable to shocks and price shocks.
  • Financing Sustainable Food Systems Transformation: There is an urgent need to shift public and private climate finance towards sustainable food systems transformation. Despite the multiple benefits from agroecology to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and to cope with climate change, it is still underfunded. As such, there is need to fund and broadly support the transition to Agroecological practices and local innovations to build sustainable food systems. Right now, only 1.7 per cent of climate finance – a fraction of what is needed goes to small-scale farmers in developing countries despite their disproportionate vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.
  • Advocate for effective climate policies: Such as removing subsidies to fossil fuels, improving the clean development mechanism and REDD+ projects, increasing the loss and damage fund, and mainstreaming a rights based approach, among others.


  • 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: Caritas Internationalis and FAO Collaboration on the “Caritas One Human Family, Food for All campaign”, 2013-2015

Key Elements of Successful Engagement:

  • Shared Goals and Objectives

Why it worked: Caritas and FAO shared a common vision of improving food security and livelihoods. Their aligned objectives created a strong foundation for collaboration, ensuring that their efforts were mutually reinforcing.

  • Complementary Expertise

Why it worked: Caritas brought expertise in community development, social empowerment, and advocacy, while FAO contributed technical knowledge related to agriculture, sustainable farming practices, and policy development. The combination of these skills enhanced the overall impact of the collaboration.

  • Advocacy and Policy Influence:

Why it worked: Caritas and FAO collaborated on advocacy and campaigning, engaging with local governments and international stakeholders. By amplifying the voices of marginalized communities, they contributed to the creation an enabling environment for sustainable development.

In summary, the success of this partnership stemmed from a shared vision, complementary expertise, community-centered approaches, advocacy efforts, and adaptability. These elements can serve as a model for meaningful engagement between CSOs and FAO, emphasizing the importance of collaboration, inclusivity, and sustainability in achieving impactful outcomes.


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.

  • Limited Access and Representation: CSOs, especially smaller or grassroots organizations often face limited access to FAO's decision-making processes, which can hinder their ability to represent the needs of their communities effectively. 

FAO can promote inclusivity by actively seeking input from a diverse range of CSOs, including those from marginalized communities. Establishing regular consultations, town hall meetings, and online platforms can facilitate broader participation.

  • Limited Funding and Resources: Many CSOs operate on limited budgets, making it challenging to engage in sustained and impactful projects without financial support.
  • FAO can establish funding mechanisms specifically tailored for CSOs, providing grants and resources for collaborative projects. Additionally, FAO can facilitate capacity-building workshops to help CSOs enhance their fundraising and project management skills.
  • Lack of Information Sharing: CSOs often struggle to access relevant information and updates about FAO’s programs and initiatives, limiting their ability to align their work with FAO’s priorities. 
  • FAO can establish transparent communication channels, regularly updating CSOs about ongoing and upcoming projects, policies, and initiatives. Webinars, newsletters, and online forums can facilitate information sharing and collaboration.
  • Unequal Partnerships: Power imbalances exist in CSO-FAO partnerships, with larger, more established organizations receiving more attention than smaller, grassroots organizations. 

FAO can promote equality in partnerships by actively seeking out and supporting smaller CSOs. Encouraging partnerships at the local level and recognizing the unique perspectives and strengths of different CSOs can foster collaborations that are more balanced.

  • Limited Influence on Decision-Making: CSOs input rarely translate into tangible changes in FAO’s policies and programs, leading to lack of expectation. FAO can demonstrate a commitment to incorporating CSO feedback by actively involving them in the decision-making process. Creating joint committees or working groups where CSOs and FAO representatives collaborate on policy development can ensure meaningful participation.
  • Lack of Recognition and Visibility: Local CSOs often struggle to gain recognition for their work, limiting their visibility and credibility in the broader context. Currently and at national level, Country FAO offices limit the coordination with governments generally. This results in limited exchange of lessons and opportunities for enhanced partnerships. As such, it will be important for recognition of local CSO’s efforts and enhance partnerships. FAO and governments need to collaborate with CSOs that compliment sustainable agriculture development programmes on the ground. These partnerships should aim at addressing the entire value-chain, strengthening capacity and coordinated demonstration of local innovations that achieve food security, improved nutrition and promote Agroecological practices.