Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

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

• It is important for FAO to recognize the diverse roles and functions of CSOs, including their engagement as implementing partners, their involvement in advocacy, and the provision of technical assistance, viewing them as valued partners who actively contribute to FAO's initiatives.
• CSOs should be integral to all decision-making processes, spanning policy formulation, budget allocation, and program development, commencing from the initial design phase and extending through monitoring and evaluation.
• As essential on-the-ground collaborators, CSOs can assist in designing programs that align with the needs and priorities of local communities and in sharing valuable lessons learned to ensure project success and effective change.
• To cultivate FAO's recognition of CSOs as valued partners, it is critical to prioritize several key actions. These include fostering regular dialogue, defining transparent objectives, and creating equitable and inclusive channels for cooperation and communication.
• Additionally, FAO can play a pivotal role in boosting the capacity of CSOs through initiatives aimed at enriching their skills and knowledge.
• Lastly, FAO can contribute by sharing resources such as technical expertise, data, and financial support with CSOs, thereby enabling them to spearhead initiatives that align with the priorities of local communities.

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

CSOs possess a wealth of expertise and experience that can be utilized to enhance FAO's projects in numerous ways including:

• Identifying and accessing target communities that are most in need FAO’s assistance, ensuring that resources are directed to areas with the greatest impact potential.
• Providing technical assistance to FAO’s project based on their long-term practical knowledge and skills that are well-suited with local contexts and conditions.
• Conducting priority assessments of the communities they serve, ensuring that FAO’s interventions closely align with these needs.
• Facilitating the integration of traditional knowledge and practices into FAO’s projects, considering their proximity to local and indigenous communities.
• Serving as a bridge between FAO and local communities, facilitating clear and effective communication, and fostering mutual understanding.
• Advocating for participatory approaches and fair representation of local communities in FAO’s decision-making processes and projects.

Incorporating CSOs in these roles not only enhances the effectiveness of FAO's projects but also promotes a deeper sense of community ownership and empowerment, aligning with the principles of participatory community development and sustainability.

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

Transitioning from purely theoretical research efforts to practical and tangible outcomes by implementing on-the-ground projects that are grounded in evidence and have a demonstrable impact on climate change adaptation and mitigation. This transition encompasses the implementation of practical projects including tree-planting, agroforestry, and agroecology. These projects aim not only to reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere but also to provide significant socioeconomic advantages to local communities. These benefits, in turn, bolster the communities' capacity to achieve the required level of adaptation and resilience in the face of climate challenges.

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?

APN has been a leader in advocating for food security in the context of conflict in international platforms including FAO, the World Food Security (CFS), and the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism (CSIPM). APN Chairperson of the Board, Razan Zuayter, was the focal point for the Arab civil society at CSIPM for two rounds, pushing for and facilitating the international CSO delegation in voluntary guidelines negotiations, particularly the "CFS Framework for Action for Addressing Food Security in Protracted Crises". After over ten years of relentless efforts, the framework was successfully adopted in 2015 despite many obstacles and hesitation from governments and international organizations. The framework achieved great success for communities living in protracted crises and has persuaded international organizations to recognize and address the root causes of crises and to use a human rights-based approach in their interventions. Moreover, the framework strived towards achieving accountability and monitoring mechanisms, consistently emphasizing the importance of local food systems, as well as mainstreaming nutrition in the work of the CFS. The framework encouraged ownership within the state rather than the creation of parallel systems, confirming that interventions target not only countries that have been affected by protracted crises but also those that lead to them.

Additionally, APN has taken the lead in arranging numerous regional CSO consultations and has served as the representative of Arab civil society at FAO's ministerial and regional gatherings including its active participation in the meeting held in Baghdad in 2022. APN’s involvement aims at ensuring that the region's priorities and needs are prominently featured on FAO's agenda.

APN launched a national campaign in Jordan on Integrated Pest Management (IPM), in collaboration with FAO, Jordan's Ministry of Agriculture, and civil society groups. APN delivered lectures and training workshops to small farmers, and distributed information among concerned bodies including the Jordanian Union of Farmers, universities, professional associations, and distributors of agricultural products.

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.

There are several critical issues that need to be addressed within FAO's engagement with Civil Society Organizations (CSOs):

• There is a lack of well-defined criteria for evaluating the success of FAO’s partnerships with CSOs which makes it challenging to measure the effectiveness and impact of collaborations accurately. Moreover, there is no transparent and clear process by which CSOs are chosen to collaborate with FAO.
• At the national level, there is a notable absence of CSO involvement in FAO's activities and initiatives. This omission hinders the localization of efforts and the alignment of projects with the specific needs and priorities of individual countries.
• The existing mechanisms for engaging CSOs are problematic, and there are also challenges related to mediating between FAO and international civil society. Currently, international civil society participation is dominated and monopolized by the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC), which can lead to instances of unjustified exclusion of CSOs from FAO meetings and consultations.

For example, at FAO informal dialogue titled "How can FAO better engage CSOs for Agrifood system transformation – towards designing FAO-CSO Forum" which was held in Rome in June 2023, it was disheartening that the organizing committee [IPC] selectively chose organizations and restricted invitations solely to specific institutions, disregarding other organizations that have expressed their willingness to cover all travel and accommodation expenses. Consequently, the participation of other parties is effectively excluded, resulting in a lack of fair representation. As a result, the formulation of priorities and action agendas is shaped according to the perspectives and interests of those in attendance, without adequately representing the priorities, interests, and aspirations of all stakeholders in an equitable and unbiased manner.

In response, FAO can:

• Formulate clear, transparent, and fair criteria for an engagement mechanism with CSOs involved in food-related matters. These criteria should ensure the inclusion of all active actors in discussions, dialogues, and conferences organized by FAO.
• Create institutionalized communication channels between FAO and CSOs, ensuring direct interaction without the need for mediation or, alternatively, employing a neutral mediator.
• Better facilitate CSO interaction with different FAO Governing Bodies including Council Committees, Technical Committees, Regional Conferences, and Core Leadership.
• Promote CSO engagement with FAO regional offices and other divisions and mechanisms like the Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) and the Partnerships and UN Collaboration Division (PSU), ensuring their meaningful involvement in the implementation of projects.
• Facilitate and encourage the involvement of CSOs in shaping global policies and initiatives related to food, agriculture, and sustainable development.
• Advocate for CSO involvement in the formulation of national policies and strategies, as they are often excluded from these processes.
• Map and support CSOs and grassroots movements that have effectively executed on-the-ground projects to help them upscale and expand their work, yielding successful outcomes within their communities and beyond.

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”?

Since the United Nations was founded, Lions International has shared in the humanitarian goals and has worked to help achieve them. From tree planting to improving access to education, providing eye care to empowering youth to build a better future, Lions Clubs are already complementing United Nations work. In 2017, on the occasion of the centenary of the founding of our Association, five global cause areas (Diabetes, Vision, Hunger, Environment and Childhood Cancer) were announced and closely align with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, and in particular the goals of FAO. Today, our mission pillars include improving health and well-being, strengthening communities, and supporting those in need around the world. Lions and Leos complete over one million service projects around the world each year, and service focused on hunger is the most reported service type.

CSOs represent a critical group of organizations that can provide on-the-ground, community-based insight that is often overlooked when formulating global solutions. For organizations such as Lions International with a global reach as well as operating on a local level, we can offer grassroots mobilization and community responsiveness to implement shared solutions to issues such as global hunger and food security.

Founded in 1917, Lions International is the world’s largest service club organization, with more than 1.4 million members serving in 200 countries and territories. Lions clubs plan and participate in a wide variety of service projects that meet the local needs of their communities. Last year, Lions served 539 million people served through 1.6 million service projects globally. Our members are serving locally and globally to help take on some of the biggest challenges facing humanity and are well positioned to partner with FAO in working jointly to leave no one behind.

2. FAO seeks to accelerate transformation of agrifood systems to be more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable as a means to achieve the 2030 agenda. What and how can CSOs contribute to such transformation to boost impact on the ground?  Please suggest concrete actions.

Lions and Leos worldwide are contributing to the transformation of agrifood systems to be more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable. Service projects in the area of food system improvements are completed in countries around the world, and address a wide variety of challenges and community-led solutions. Service in these areas includes young and emerging farmer support, community education, and farm and garden maintenance.

There are now numerous communities around the world where Lions International has established water wells, aqueducts and agricultural schools and fostered the establishment of cooperatives, especially of women, for the development of women's empowerment and family support.

FAO can work more closely with CSOs such as Lions International to utilize our global membership to boost impact on the ground.  The structure of Lions clubs at the grassroots, community level provides an effective approach to addressing issues on the ground, looking to community leaders to provide assessments for improvement, and incorporating their own needs assessments for strengthening agrifood systems. For FAO to partner with Lions International and use this model of collaboration, FAO can achieve solutions that are both effective and sustainable for global communities.

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?

Lions International’s global membership base allows Lions to lead the issues and needs of their communities, on causes such as environmental impacts. FAO can draw on the expertise and perspective of local communities around the world to find equitable and locally responsive solutions to adapting to climate change. Environmental service activities have the highest number of beneficiaries served of all of Lions International’s global causes, so there is great potential for FAO to tap into these grassroots networks.

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.

One of Lions International’s most effective and far-reaching collaborations is with the World Health Organization (WHO). Lions and WHO have an ongoing partnership on the Elimination of Childhood Blindness, the very first international effort solely dedicated to the prevention and treatment of childhood blindness. Lions also work with United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to implement Lions Quest, a social emotional learning/drug awareness program. As a result of the Lions-UNODC partnership, LCIF has piloted Lions Quest in Serbia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Ivory Coast.

In addition, Lions International has an Appointed Representatives to the United Nations program, where each year we appoint a Representative to FAO. This representative has attended the FAO’s Committee on World Food Security since 2017, and continues to foster a positive and mutually beneficial partnership between FAO and Lions International.

In preparation for the International Year of Fruits and Vegetables, Lions International proposed a concrete international collaboration with FAO targeting children and youth. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic ultimately did not allow this initiative to materialize, which would have allowed FAO to use the power of Lions International in the 200 countries and territories where we are present.

Moving forward, Lions International hopes to work more closely with FAO to increase visibility of Lions International with FAO and highlight how our service can directly benefit FAO in achieving its goals and alleviating global hunger.

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.

A clear source of communication and dialogue with CSOs in general can be prioritized. In addition, the FAO can focus on issuing clear opportunities for dialogue and collaboration with CSOs, including virtual forums such as this one as well as in-person or hybrid meetings. There should be dedicated and external-facing staff at FAO who focus on developing relationships with CSOs such as Lions International. Finally, FAO should better publicize how they are collaborating with other UN organizations as well as CSOs in addressing global challenges and implementing solutions.

Associations such as Lions International can be great communicators of FAO's aims and propagate its message to communities around the world, rather than thinking that only Governments can do it.

The Fair Trade Advocacy Office ('FTAO') welcomes the initiative launched by the FAO, to identify and understand the opportunities and challenges for better and more transformative engagement between FAO and with CSOs.

Bottom line, FTAO identifies several relevant opportunities where FAO and CSOs could maximize their efforts and results. However, to reach that point, FAO should revisit its administrative procedures for engagement with CSOs (for more deep partnerships with CSOs) and should ensure equal representation in high level FAO lead forums (avoiding spaces for corporate capture). 

The FTAO wishes to convey its input replying in detail to the questions posted hereinto:

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”?

Firstly, FTAO should be more open to collaborate with CSOs on a more equal footing. FTAO wanted to establish a framework for cooperation with FAO and it was not possible. There are many restrictions to work closely with FAO at a deeper level and that does not contribute to effective and deep work.

More concrete ways of collaboration:

- FAO can provide its expertise in collecting and analysing agricultural and food security data, while CSOs can contribute their grassroots insights. Together, they can produce comprehensive reports highlighting disparities, enabling evidence-based policy advocacy.

- CSOs, with their strong networks and community connections, can advocate for policies that address inequalities in access to resources, land, and markets. FAO can support these efforts by providing technical expertise and data to strengthen advocacy campaigns.

- FAO can offer training and capacity-building programs to empower CSOs in understanding and addressing the root causes of inequality

- Collaboratively, FAO and CSOs can engage with governments, donors, and other stakeholders to mobilize resources for projects and initiatives targeting vulnerable populations.

- FAO and CSOs can jointly monitor progress toward SDGs, ensuring that policies and programs are effectively reducing inequalities. They can hold governments and other actors accountable for their commitments to leave no one behind.

- CSOs can facilitate community participation and empower marginalized groups to actively engage in decision-making processes, ensuring their voices are heard in shaping policies and initiatives.

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.

FAO has hard data on what is happening in the ground and has resources to bring those voices to bigger - high level tables. However, is it our belief that, at least at EU level, FAO is not connected enough to grassroots organisations nor to CSOs and so FAO’s work stays in a level not transformative enough.

Concrete actions through which CSOs can contribute to boosting impact on the ground:

- CSOs can engage local communities, especially marginalized groups and small-scale farmers, to ensure their active participation in decision-making processes related to agrifood systems.

- CSOs can advocate for policy reforms that promote sustainable agrifood systems. They can lobby governments to implement and enforce regulations that incentivize sustainable farming practices, equitable access to resources, and fair market opportunities for smallholders.

- CSOs can monitor the progress of agrifood system transformation, holding governments and other stakeholders accountable for their commitments to sustainability and inclusivity.

- CSOs can collaborate with governments, international organizations, and private sectors to leverage resources, expertise, and technology to drive meaningful change on the ground.

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?

Jointly facilitate knowledge sharing and capacity-building initiatives. FAO, as a leading international agency in agriculture and food security, can provide technical expertise and research capabilities. CSOs, on the other hand, can contribute localized knowledge, community engagement, and advocacy efforts. Together, they can empower communities with the necessary tools and information to adapt to changing climate conditions.

Secondly, FAO and CSOs can work in tandem to influence policy development and implementation at various levels. CSOs often have strong grassroots connections, allowing them to collect valuable feedback from vulnerable populations. FAO can then utilize this input to inform global and national policies that prioritize climate-resilient agriculture and sustainable land management.

Thirdly, they can collaborate on resource mobilization efforts. FAO can help connect CSOs with funding opportunities, and CSOs can leverage their networks to access financial resources, enabling the implementation of climate adaptation and mitigation projects at the community level.

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.

FAO – IFAD can be a good example.

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.

- The bureaucracy in setting up partnerships with FAO is a challenge which then has lead to less meaningful engagement with FAO. CSOs may encounter bureaucratic challenges when trying to collaborate with FAO, including complex application processes, lengthy approval timelines, and administrative burdens. Solution: FAO could streamline administrative procedures to facilitate CSO engagement. For instance, it could establish a dedicated unit or online platform to simplify project proposal submissions and reporting requirements.

- The high level approach that FAO uses is seen by many as a platform for corporate capture. CSOs often struggle to gain meaningful access to FAO's decision-making processes. Solution: FAO could establish formal mechanisms for CSO involvement in policy development, such as regular consultations, advisory committees, or partnership agreements. For instance, FAO's Committee on World Food Security (CFS) includes CSO participation, setting a positive example.

- Some CSOs feel that their voices are not equally represented within FAO, with larger organizations or businesses often dominating discussions and decision-making. Solution: FAO could ensure diversity and inclusivity in its CSO engagement by actively seeking out and supporting the involvement of grassroots organizations, women's groups, smallholder farmers and cooperatives and indigenous communities. It can also establish clear criteria for equitable representation in events and committees.

- CSOs may encounter challenges related to transparency and accountability within FAO projects and initiatives, leading to concerns about the effectiveness and impact of their collaboration. Solution: FAO could enhance transparency by regularly sharing project progress reports, financial statements, and evaluations with CSOs. Engaging CSOs in project monitoring and evaluation processes can also promote accountability.

Contact details: Virginia Enssle, International and Institutional Relations Manager

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”? 

As the first step in the direction of collectively making up fpr the lost momentum, it is crucial to define the most urgent areas of intervention and the target groups. In the experience of Global March, the issue of child labour is the biggest sign of continuing socio-economic inequalities and in sectors such as agriculture and its affiliates, the evolving complexities due to climate change and structural poverty are changing the ecosystem in which child labour thrives. This means that the need of the hour is to collectively identify the key areas of intervention with the CSO and exchange technical expertise and resources to work on the identified issues. Both CSOs and FAO have untapped synergies and intersectional factors that need to be simplified to be able to generate effective, climate responsive and sustainable solutions to address challenges of the agriculture sector with child labour, gender and other human rights issues at its heart. FAO and CSOs can collaborate on specific projects and programs. For example, they might work together on community-based agriculture initiatives or food security interventions in specific regions as both have immense potential to address deep rooted socio-economic inequalities. 

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 bring a nuanced, community-centric and human rights-oriented lens to complement the technical aspects of interventions related to strengthening agrifood systems. To transform food systems and their impact on the ground, CSOs can leverage their role in involving a diverse range of stakeholders, including marginalized and vulnerable communities, in the various initiatives. This ensures that no one is left behind. CSOs can also advocate for policies that support sustainable and inclusive agrifood systems. This can include but is not limited to lobbying for regulations that incentivize sustainable agriculture practices, equitable access to resources, fair market conditions for farmers, gender inclusive policies among others. 

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? 

Climate change and its impact on food security is leaving millions of children and their vulnerable communities at the brink of devastation. From being impacted by natural disasters to dissipating agricultural conditions, children bear the worst impacts of climate change as they end up being displaced, trafficked and forced into hazardous work. The fight with climate change can prove to be very effective if approached from the lens of child labour and community welfare. FAO and CSOs should target the most vulnerable communities and work with an area-based approach to set up innovative and climate responsive measures that provide means for income as well as food security to the communities.  FAO and CSOs should collaborate on developing and implementing innovative models for climate-resilient agriculture with a focus on child labour which may involve exploring climate-smart investment opportunities and public-private partnerships.

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. 

The FAO can work more in proximity, collaboration and communication with CSOs instead of working in silos. It is crucial to acknowledge that even though transforming agri-food systems is a huge task that requires in depth technical knowledge, it is not possible to create meaningful change that focuses on the community’s deep rooted socio-economic inequalities without the support of CSOs. At a practical level, the FAO can focus on communicating more about their interventions, share knowledge and be open to learning more from CSOs as well to integrate the experiences in their programmatic interventions. Additionally, the FAO can act as a key technical partner in facilitating resources for collaboration on issues of child labour, climate change and sustainable income and food security in the agriculture sector. 

Food and Agriculture Organization and any organization affiliated with the United Nations to continue to partner and work with grassroots organizations in rural communities to reach the targeted poor communities and discuss with them the mechanisms for implementing the required interventions and arrange implementation priorities according to their needs. Most importantly, the communities must contribute to implementing the required intervention and for the organizations to do the work. What is required for the development of societies: The leaders of these organizations need capacity-building activities through intensive training in planning, investment, management and decision-making  ect ....to strengthen them and enable them to participate in policy development dialogues, also  the organization must choose educated youth of both sexes in the community to be among the project staff because their presence at the community level encourages and motivates them and enhances the organization’s access to the targeted group  and achieves the required goals and ensures sustainability.

Attika Mohmmed Elamin Marouf

Community Development and gender Specialist

Integrated Agricultural and Marketing Development Project /IAMDP/IFAD 

Elobeid -SUDAN

Je félicite  premièrement l’engagement de FAO et les OSC qui militent sur la lutte contre la famine, pauvreté et la qualité alimentaire. Donc l’ASEAD (Academy of Sciences & Engineering for Africa Development) qui travaille d’arrache pieds en milieu périurbain de Kinshasa et au Kasai oriental sur le développement des techniques d’agriculture durable et les techniques d’irrigation.  Par contre, je suggère certaines recommandations :

1. Que le FAO arrive à renforcer les partenariats avec les acteurs (OSC, clubs des jeunes, cercles et associations formelles et informelles) en agro-business actifs du développement en milieu périurbain et rural, cela fera avancer la production et renforcer la chaine de valeurs pour lutter contre la famine au profit des population et cela évitera un exode rural qui se fit ressentir dans les pays du sud.
2.   Que les acteurs (partenaires de FAO) arrivent à promouvoir une innovation qui doit être scientifique, technique et aussi artisanale, qui s’adapte au milieu et cible. En tenant compte des défis climatiques et environnementaux. De s’investir dans l’agriculture durable et favoriser des renforcements de capacités sur toutes les couches de la population (jeunes et vieux).
3.  Nous devons savoir que depuis la pandémie de la  COVID-19, l’Afrique subsaharienne n’a pas encore retrouvé son optimisation productive. Je cite : « Bien que la reprise économique mondiale se poursuive… La reprise économique de l’Afrique subsaharienne reste fragile et hésitante, dans la mesure où la lenteur de la vaccination dans la région la rend vulnérable aux nouvelles souches de coronavirus, ce qui nuit à ses résultats économiques. Si elle se poursuit au rythme actuel, le continent mettra plus longtemps que d’autres régions à ramener son secteur productif à la situation d’avant la pandémie. D’après la Banque mondiale, les dégâts économiques dus à la pandémie devraient se ressentir encore longtemps. » [CONFÉRENCE RÉGIONALE DE LA FAO POUR L’AFRIQU, Incidences de la covid-19 sur les systèmes agroalimentaires en Afrique: priorités stratégiques à l’appui d’un redressement sous le signe de l’inclusion et de la résilience, Trente-deuxième session, Malabo (Guinée équatoriale), 11-14 avril 2022, p 3]. Avec les enjeux et risques climatiques qui se pointent, les partenaires deviennent rares, les OSC se battent, mais la démographie challenge face aux défis de la sécurité alimentaire.
4. FAO doit mener des enquêtes in situ pour pouvoir remédier et répondre à ses objectifs ensembles avec les OSC.

Shaloom Mbambu Kabeya

Coordonnateur Exécutif des Projets ASEAD

Coordonnateur National de l’AEDA asbl

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

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

First, I'd like to congratulate FAO and CSOs on their commitment to fighting hunger, poverty and ensuring food quality. So ASEAD (Academy of Sciences & Engineering for Africa Development) is working hard in Kinshasa's peri-urban areas and in Kasai Oriental on the development of sustainable agriculture and irrigation techniques.  However, I would like to make a few recommendations:

If the FAO succeeds in strengthening partnerships with actors (CSOs, youth clubs, circles and formal and informal associations) in agro-business active in development in peri-urban and rural areas, this will advance production and strengthen the value chain to fight famine for the benefit of the population, and avoid the rural exodus that has been felt in southern countries.

 That the players (FAO partners) manage to promote innovation that is scientific, technical and also artisanal, that adapts to the environment and target. Taking account of climate and environmental challenges. To invest in sustainable agriculture and promote capacity building for all segments of the population (young and old).

 We need to be aware that since the COVID-19 pandemic, sub-Saharan Africa has not yet recovered its productive optimization. Quote: "Although the global economic recovery continues... Sub-Saharan Africa's economic recovery remains fragile and hesitant, as the slow pace of vaccination in the region leaves it vulnerable to new strains of coronavirus, undermining its economic performance. If it continues at its current pace, the continent will take longer than other regions to bring its productive sector back to pre-pandemic levels. According to the World Bank, the economic damage caused by the pandemic is likely to be felt for a long time to come." [FAO REGIONAL CONFERENCE FOR AFRICA, Impacts of the Covid-19 on agrifood systems in Africa: strategic priorities in support of an inclusive and resilient recovery, Thirty-second session, Malabo (Equatorial Guinea), April 11-14, 2022, p. 3]. With the challenges and risks of climate change looming on the horizon, partners are becoming scarce, CSOs are struggling, but demographics are challenging the challenges of food security.

FAO needs to carry out in situ surveys to be able to remedy and meet its objectives together with CSOs.

Shaloom Mbambu Kabeya

Executive Coordinator of ASEAD Projects, National Coordinator of AEDA asbl

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

I will start this off by expressing appreciation for this consultative process at this time. Opportunities for collaborative work should be localized, hence a focus on the promotion of country level processes. This can be achieved through having more regular and issue-specific interactions with CSOs at the country level.

Another opportunity that can be leveraged is the drawing on the expertise FAO in specific thematic areas to support existing coordinated efforts in improving agri-food systems. For example, FAOs expertise in social protection would be an asset for the promotion of the ILO Policy Guidelines for the Promotion of Decent Work in the Agri-food sector.

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

Impactful contribution through partnership with CSOs should be built on a foundation of practical engagement on either technical or programmatic matters – CSOs come with valuable experience and expertise to contribute to development of good practice/evidence papers that can inform strategy and plans. Below are ways CSOs can contribute to boost impact on the ground;

• CSOs can contribute to filling the gaps that exists in the current projects of FAO for example, setting up systems, tools, and capacities to integrate gender transformative approaches in Farmer Field and Business School Approach.
• CSOs can play a more central role in the implementation of the Food Systems National Pathways. They can be involved to have a true whole-of-community shift to ensure efforts by all actors are directed at supporting transformation.
• To harness collective effort towards impact, FAO should work better at supporting tools, approaches and research findings that are developed by CSOs. That way CSOs would more actively promote tools and products from FOA for example the findings of the latest FAO State of Women in Agriculture. CSOs can work together, with the ministries of agriculture and planning, to adopt some of the recommendations.

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.

CARE’s collaboration with FAO on developing the guidance note on incorporating Gender Transformative Approaches in programing is one of such examples of meaningful engagement. Based on this initial engagement we see scope to work with FAO on capacity building of the country/regional teams on rolling out that guidance document. CARE also has ongoing collaboration with the Farmer Field School (FFS) team at FAO on strengthening gender and MEL in FFS. Both institutions have been able to push these engagements forward through dedication of key technical staff to coordinate the dialogue.

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 has not been very consistent and transparent with engagements with CSOs at CO level. The extent of openness with engagement with INGOs and (more importantly) CSOs, varies from country to country.

FAO should have clear guidelines for Country representatives to fully engage civil society, within the following domains.

•            Design processes of FAO strategic plans at county level

•            Policy dialogue processes with host country governments

•            Co participation in global events, conferences, negotiation rounds etc. at global or regional level

•            Engaging in the implementation of FAO funded and/or led programs of any kind

 Active engagement of FAO Country Offices in the processes to advocacy for Farmer Field Schools/Farmer Field and Business Schools adoption by ministries of agriculture that CARE is promoting.

•            Active engagement of FAO Country Offices in the implementation of the DIESTs program

•            Active engagement of FAO in the food systems dialogues/implementation pathways

•            Active engagement of FAO in the implementation of the guidelines on decent work and living income in food systems

•            Active engagement of FAO in the implementation of the (upcoming) CFS Voluntary Guidelines on Gender Equality and Women’s and Girls’ Empowerment

FAO needs to set indicators of success that include partnerships at national level.

Enhancement of the Engagement between FAO and CSO’s

The great diversity among the CSO’s precludes any meaningful engagement between all of them and the FAO. Therefore, it would be necessary from the outset to device a suitable screening procedure to select the appropriate organisation with whom FAO may fruitfully interact. Once this has been carried out, the next challenge is to identify how best such an interaction may be undertaken in order to enhance the quality and quantity of the output from the food systems involved.

The best way for FAO to optimise its engagement with CSO’s would be to select to interact with those organisations directly associated with one or more of the sub-systems of the food systems that seem to be of importance to people of the area in which an CSO operates. Other things being equal, such sub-systems may include yielder, harvester, transport, preservation, preparation, supplementation or trade sub-system or any combination of them.

Unfortunately, the current notions on what may justifiably constitute our food systems are diffuse, vague not to say trade-centric as though food trade has any logical priority over the other sub-systems of a food system. This is patently incorrect despite the rhetorical notions like supply chains, block chain technology, etc. In order of their emergence into the real world, our food systems have the following component sub-systems:

   • Yielder; first solely our environment and then agriculture in selected parts of it. Even then fishing, hunting and gathering are examples of the ancient usage carried out with modern equipment.

   • Harvester; ranges from simple fishing, gathering nuts in a forest to the use of combined harvesters.

   • Preparation; conversion of food into a ready-to-eat form which may or may not involve cooking.

   • Transport; removal of the harvested produce or food from place to place. This may range from field to a grain silo or from a shop home.

   • Preservation; prolonging the usability of food through a variety of processes such as drying, smoking, salting, refrigeration or by converting it into lasting forms like dairy products etc.

   • Supplementation; originally concerned with methods applied to make up the shortfall in ecosystems services brought about by constant cultivation or weather changes. Such shortages include diminished soil fertility, lack of water, proliferation of pests owing to the reduction of biodiversity in cultivated areas. Use of fertilisers, irrigation and biocides are examples of this. In recent times, this has been extended to increase the yield of cultivars and in animal husbandry.

   • Trade; requires no elaboration and some considers this last to emerge component to be the ‘first.’ Such a notion represents a belief in reverse social evolution which may be profitable to some while entailing misery to the food producer and the end-user.

Now, apart from its transport sub-system, CSO’s associated with improving the other sub-systems of national food systems are the appropriate bodies with whom FAO may fruitfully engage. However, FAO ought to ensure that their activities are exclusively concerned with those sub-systems and not any other socio-political issues. Failure to meet this criterion would remain an unsurmountable obstacle to success for obvious reasons.

Once the appropriateness of engaging with a CSO has been ascertained, FAO ought to consider the following questions before undertaking any further action:

   • Would the activities of the CSO really contribute to an increase in national, regional or local food production? Sometimes, its activities may have a negative effect here even though it may enhance the economy at the expense of food production by its emphasis on cash crops, which is to be deprecated.

   • Does its endeavours benefit the local food producers and end-users in general rather than the wealthier end-users in distant areas? This is important because some affluent agronomists purchase rural land and employ locals at  symbolic wages to cultivate ‘ecological crops’ to be marketed in distant cities at a high profit to themselves. Engagement with such bodies is to be deprecated.

   • Does the organisation promote cooperative food production or sale? Such may include family farms, family-run sales outlets or restaurants.

   • Is the CSO involved in the development of ecological manure and pest control or rain harvesting?

   • Has it carried out  activities demonstrably to increase local green cover? This may include planting endemic shade and fruit trees, promotion of home gardening, etc.

   • Has the cso successfully recovered polluted or salinated arable land?

   • Is it successful in combating soil erosion?

   • Does the activities of the CSO promote biodiversity in general and that in agriculture in particular?

Unless a CSO is concerned with any one or more of the above topics and the answer to the relevant questions is in the affirmative, it would be unwise of FAO to establish a working relationship with such an organisation, for it is not concerned with the general social good described earlier. Once a CSO has successfully come through this screening, one faces the question, what form of engagement between it and FAO would yield the most desirable result to a nation, region or a locale.

It is possible to distinguish between two distinct forms of FAO’s engagement with the appropriate CSO’s; indirect and direct engagement. Indirect engagement is concerned with influencing the relevant home authorities of a CSO to provide the latter with any one or more of the following assistance:

   • Financial help.

   • Technical assistance; this may include enhanced extension services, equipment, cultivars, etc.

   • Relevant infra-structural improvement; storage and transport facilities may be critical in many less affluent countries.

   • Comprehensive pest control; it had been established that monkeys destroy many millions of crops in central and north India while rhodents do the same in several other parts of the world.

   • Active promotion of cooperative food production and trade including legislation on establishing financial conditions beneficial to them.

   • Establishment of laws against monopolies concerned with every sub-system of food systems and their strict enforcement.

   • Active promotion of family planning.

It is not claimed that the above list is exhaustive, however, the urgent need for them and similar actions is self-evident. While food monopolists and ‘globalists’ may vehemently protest against many of the above measures, the ever-increasing number of the hungry and malnourished ought to convince the humane of their importance.

The direct engagement between FAO and the relevant CSO’s has a clearer range and scope. Such engagement may involve any one or more of the following:

   • Provision of the relevant knowledge and skills a CSO may need successfully to carry out its objectives. Field workshops, training programmes, printed matter, etc., are among the most useful tools used here. While context dependent, their general format is too well-known to be elaborated.

   • Advisory project participation; FAO may second appropriate human resources from its own cadres or some other suitable institution to guide a CSO throughout the lifetime of one or more of its projects. Such an involvement should not entail a financial burden to the CSO concerned.

   • Being instrumental in the joint development of appropriate guidelines on healthy and varied culinary practices, cultivation, animal husbandry, cooperative enterprises etc. It is crucial that such guidelines meet the screening described earlier.

   • Mediation between qualified CSO’s and potential donors to financed and/or equip the former to implement their plans in accordance with the restrictions imposed by the screening requirements.

A detailed description of how these four types of engagement may be executed would have to be decided with respect to the context, but are well-known. It is hoped that the present outline of the modes of possible engagement between FAO and CSO’s to enhance the qualitative and quantitative output would be of some use.

Best wishes!

Lal Manavado.

Some proposals from Triptolemos Foundation:

1- Know exactly the geographical and conceptual areas of action and the capacity for action of each CSO in the wide range of the food system from legislation, technologies and cultures. FAO proposal for collaboration.

2- Work on specific and agreed topics according to the identity of the CSO. For eg. If it is social: campaign against waste food. If it is study: influence of production costs in its environment on the cost of the food basket.

3- Collaborate with specific bodies acting on the topic already created on specific issues of the food environment.

4- TRIPTOLEMOS Foundation collaborates with UNESCO with the Science and Innovation for Sustainable Development: Global Food Production and Safety Chair established at UNED (National University of Distance Education - Spain). It works very well as a collaboration centre between groups interested in the global vision of the food system.

5- As answered in point 1, it is necessary to reinforce topics based on severity and possibilities. FAO should establish fluid bridges of dialogue. Initially a relationship with CSOs based on their identity and purposes, this would favour the generation of topics to present and develop with FAO.

Dr. Ramon Clotet

www.triptolemos.org

If we look at the development of civil society in different countries, the civil society has grown less in countries that have large and massive governments. Therefore, the first priority is the development of civil society in countries so that cooperation between FAO and civil society can be expanded. On the other hand, training and capacity building is one of the important factors in the development of cooperation between FAO and civil society in countries. These actions should be done in harmony with the country so that there is no feeling of conflict between the civil society and the government.