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

Consultations

Comment améliorer l’engagement entre la FAO et les organisations de la société civile ?

Avec le temps, l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture (FAO) a intensifié sa collaboration avec les organisations de la société civile (OSC). Des centaines d'entre elles ont été impliquées dans le travail technique de la FAO, les opérations d'urgence sur le terrain, la formation et le renforcement des capacités, ainsi que dans la promotion des meilleures pratiques agricoles. La Stratégie de la FAO en matière de partenariats avec les organisations de la société civile (2013) reconnaît que les OSC jouent un rôle essentiel en tant qu'alliées importantes pour renforcer la capacité de la FAO à éliminer la faim et la malnutrition, compte tenu de leur expertise technique, de leur proximité avec les personnes souffrant d'insécurité alimentaire, dépossédées de leurs terres et souffrant de la faim, et de leur représentation de ces personnes, ainsi que de leur rayonnement sur le terrain.

Les Membres ont demandé qu'une Évaluation de la Stratégie soit réalisée en 2018, dont les résultats ont indiqué qu’il fallait accorder une plus grande attention à l'engagement FAO-OSC au niveau des pays. En 2019, le Comité du Programme de la FAO a accepté les conclusions de l'évaluation et a réaffirmé la validité de la Stratégie en tant que document institutionnel officiel pour guider l'engagement entre la FAO et les organisations de la société civile.  

Au cours des dernières années, les OSC ont évolué en termes de coordination, de structure, de rayonnement, de mobilisation et de capacité de plaidoyer. La FAO a réagi en conséquence et, dans son Cadre stratégique 2022-31, elle appelle à des partenariats transformateurs pour contribuer à la réalisation des Objectifs de développement durable (ODD) et de la volonté du Programme de développement à l'horizon 2030 de « ne laisser personne de côté », envisageant ainsi un engagement plus stratégique avec les OSC pour mettre à profit la richesse et la diversité des compétences et des caractéristiques des OSC. 

Objectifs

Cette consultation en ligne a pour but de cerner et de comprendre les opportunités et les défis qui se présentent pour un engagement plus efficace et plus transformateur entre la FAO et les OSC.  Elle stimulera également les débats entre les participants, de manière à permettre un échange de bonnes pratiques, à comprendre comment d'autres OSC travaillent avec la FAO et à mettre en évidence les domaines à améliorer pour mieux s'impliquer.

L'équipe chargée des partenariats avec les organisations de la société civile, qui relève de la Division des partenariats de la FAO et de la collaboration avec les Nations Unies, invite les représentants des organisations de la société civile et les autres experts intéressés à faire part de leurs points de vue et de leurs suggestions sur les thèmes suivants :

QUESTIONS INDICATIVES

  1.  
À ce jour, les efforts déployés pour atteindre les ODD n'ont pas permis de réduire les inégalités socio-économiques à l'intérieur des pays et entre les pays.
Comment la FAO et les OSC peuvent-elles collaborer pour retrouver la dynamique perdue et travailler ensemble pour « ne laisser personne de côté » ?
  1.  
La FAO cherche à activer la transformation des systèmes agro-alimentaires de manière à les rendre plus efficaces, plus inclusifs, plus résilients et plus durables, afin de réaliser le Programme de développement durable à l'horizon 2030. 
En quoi et comment les OSC peuvent-elles contribuer à cette transformation pour en amplifier l'impact sur le terrain ?  Veuillez proposer des actions concrètes.
  1.  
La menace du changement climatique pèse sur notre capacité à assurer la sécurité alimentaire mondiale, à éradiquer la pauvreté et à parvenir à un développement durable.
Comment la FAO et les OSC pourraient-elles maximiser l'impact collectif pour s'adapter au changement climatique et/ou en atténuer les conséquences ?
  1.  
Sur la base de votre expérience en matière de partenariat, pouvez-vous citer un bon exemple de collaboration fructueuse avec la FAO ou une autre institution des Nations Unies ou un partenaire du développement ? Veuillez souligner ce qui, à votre avis, a bien fonctionné et pourquoi.
  1.  
Quels sont actuellement les principaux défis auxquels les OSC sont confrontées dans le cadre de leur engagement avec la FAO ?  Que pourrait faire la FAO pour remédier à certains de ces problèmes ? Veuillez apporter des exemples concrets.

Les suggestions des participants et les idées échangées à travers cette consultation en ligne seront prises en compte par la FAO pour améliorer la collaboration FAO-OSC. Il s'agit de renforcer l'engagement entre la FAO et les OSC au profit de leurs objectifs communs en matière de transformation des systèmes agro-alimentaires.

Pour participer à cette consultation en ligne, veuillez vous inscrire sur le Forum FSN, si vous n'êtes pas encore membre, ou vous « connecter » pour accéder à votre compte. Vous pouvez insérer votre commentaire dans la boîte ci-dessous « Poster votre contribution » sur la page web dédiée. Vos contributions en anglais, espagnol et français sont les bienvenues.

La consultation est ouverte à la participation jusqu’au 6 octobre 2023.

Nous nous réjouissons de votre participation active et de l'échange de points de vue et de suggestions !

Kayo Takenoshita, chef d'équipe, équipe des partenariats avec les organisations de la société civile, division des partenariats et de la collaboration avec les Nations Unies, FA

LES RÉFÉRENCES:

FAO. 2022. Partnerships with Non-State Actors at FAO: Progress Report 2020–2021. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/cc2246en/cc2246en.pdf

FAO. 2013. Stratégie de la FAO en matière de partenariats avec les organisations de la société civile. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i3443f/i3443f.pdf

FAO. 2020. Évaluation de la Stratégie de la FAO relative aux partenariats avec les organisations de la société civile. PC 129/INF/7. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/nd866fr/nd866fr.pdf

FAO. 2020. Évaluation de la Stratégie de la FAO relative aux partenariats avec les organisations de la société civile. Réponse de la Direction. PC 129/INF/7 Sup.1/Rev.1. https://www.fao.org/3/ne011fr/ne011fr.pdf

FAO. 2021. Cadre stratégique 2022-2031 de la FAO. Rome.  https://www.fao.org/3/cb7099fr/cb7099fr.pdf 

FAO holds informal dialogue to strengthen engagement with civil society organizations: https://www.fao.org/partnerships/civil-society/news/news-article/en/c/1645180/

 

Cette activité est maintenant terminée. Veuillez contacter [email protected] pour toute information complémentaire.

*Cliquez sur le nom pour lire tous les commentaires mis en ligne par le membre et le contacter directement
  • Afficher 67 contributions
  • Afficher toutes les contributions

    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”?

    Joint Policy Formulation:

  • FAO and CSOs can collaborate in the formulation of policies that prioritize reducing inequality in agriculture and food systems. This could involve joint task forces or advisory committees where CSOs provide valuable input and perspectives.
  • Create mechanisms for regular policy reviews and updates, ensuring that strategies remain relevant and adaptable to changing socio-economic conditions.

        Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding:

         In regions affected by conflict or instability, FAO and CSOs can collaborate on peacebuilding efforts that                 create an enabling environment for socio-economic development.

         Engage in conflict resolution and reconciliation processes that pave the way for inclusive development                   initiatives.

         Policy Advocacy for Legal Reforms:

         Advocate for legal reforms that protect the rights of vulnerable populations, such as land tenure reforms,               labor rights, and social protection measures.

         Collaborate on lobbying efforts to ensure these reforms are implemented and enforced effectively.

        Gender Mainstreaming and Empowerment:

        Develop gender-responsive programs and policies that empower women in agriculture and food systems.              This can include training in entrepreneurship, leadership, and access to resources.

        Promote women's representation and participation in decision-making processes at all levels.

 

1) Je remercie au nom de l'organisation UMOFC que je représente et mon personnel pour l'opportunité qu'offre la FAO de participer de manière active et proactive. Je crois que  il est nécessaire d'améliorer et d'élargir les liens entre la FAO et les Organisations de la Société civile en tenant compte des spécificités de chaque organisation, tout en maintenant l'objectif fixé de surmonter les différences et les discriminations qui entravent toute possibilité de développement.

2)Les organisations de la société civile peuvent contribuer à accroître l'impact sur le territoire pour rendre les systèmes agroalimentaires plus inclusifs en promouvant l'importance du travail agricole, notamment celui auquel de nombreuses femmes se consacrent, notamment dans les pays les plus pauvres.

3)Il est nécessaire d'affirmer l'importance de l'impact collectif pour lutter contre le changement climatique à travers une information et une formation constantes. La société civile est fondamentale dans ce domaine.

Monsieur ou Madame, l'ADACO vous fait parvenir, ci-joint, sa contribution relative à l'objet ci-dessus cité. Cordialement.

ADACO's contributions to the above themes are as follows:

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

Let's start by clarifying the following: the FAO Strategic Framework 2022-2031 has been drawn up in response to the main global and regional challenges in the areas covered by its mandate. It was approved on June 18, 2021, at the forty-second session of the FAO Conference. This Framework aims to support the achievement of the 2030 Agenda by transforming agrifood systems to make them more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable, with a view to improving production, nutrition, the environment and living conditions, without leaving anyone behind. The main pillars of this Strategic Framework are :

  • Improved production: the aim is to establish sustainable consumption and production patterns through efficient and inclusive supply chains in the food and agriculture sectors at local, regional and global level, ensuring the resilience and sustainability of agrifood systems in the context of climate and environmental change.
  • Improving nutrition: eliminating hunger, achieving food security and improving nutrition in all its forms, notably by promoting nutritious foods and increasing access to healthy diets.
  • Environmental improvement: protecting and restoring terrestrial and marine ecosystems, promoting their sustainable use and combating climate change (reduction, reuse, recycling and waste management) through more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems.
  • Improving living conditions: promoting inclusive economic growth by reducing inequalities (between urban and rural areas, rich and poor countries, men and women).

In addition, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) often holds informal dialogues with civil society organizations (CSOs) from around the world, while exploring ways of improving engagement and achieve greater effectiveness in the field and in regional and global forums. FAO recognizes the important role of CSOs in the fight against hunger and the transformation of agrifood systems, in particular for their wealth of knowledge and expertise and their "strategic and unique presence on the ground, close to those who need it most". FAO has had a long history of working with non-state actors, including CSOs, to strengthen food and nutrition security for all. In line with its mandate to eradicate hunger and malnutrition worldwide, FAO has defined a policy (in 2011 and 2017) aimed at indigenous peoples. It covers the following points:

  • Indigenous communities, which make up a significant proportion of the world's population, are exposed to food insecurity
  • Secondly, respect for the knowledge, cultures and traditional practices of these peoples contributes to the sustainable and equitable development of the planet
  • And finally, the FAO recognizes the benefits that can be derived from closer collaboration with these peoples. These principles respond to the explicit request of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, other UN bodies and indigenous peoples themselves for a framework to ensure that their needs and concerns are effectively taken into account. The aim of this policy is to provide FAO with a framework to guide its work on indigenous peoples' issues. Current activities do not follow a systematic course of action with regard to these issues, and would benefit greatly from a common direction and approach. These principles are also important for the indigenous populations themselves, as they set out and clarify what they are reasonably entitled to expect from the Organization. This policy focuses on certain important areas covered by FAO's mandate, and identifies the motivations and benefits of a partnership between FAO and indigenous peoples. It is the culmination of a series of consultations with indigenous peoples' leaders, the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Inter-Agency Support Group on Indigenous Issues and members of the FAO Governing Body.

In view of the above, we can suggest the following:

  • Consolidate and strengthen the gains made by working directly with civil society organizations (CSOs)
  • Schedule periodic meetings with CSOs to review progress under the new FAO Strategic Framework 2022–2031
  • Give priority to broad inclusion of all CSOs with the aim of leaving no one behind, including indigenous organizations
  • Formalize more inclusive partnerships with CSOs at international, regional and national levels, as some countries do not often call on the expertise of CSOs even though they have real local expertise (on the ground)
  • FAO should facilitate the work of certain CSOs with country and sub-regional offices, as these offices often neglect the expertise of CSOs (this is what ADACO suffered with the FAO sub-regional office in Gabon)
  • Provide financial or technical support to indigenous organizations to help them transform food systems to make them resilient to climate change
  • Enable CSOs to formalize projects based on local approaches
  1. How can CSOs contribute to such transformation to boost impact on the ground? Please propose concrete actions.

CSOs can contribute to this transformation through the following activities:

  • Maintaining gains in terms of capacity building and structuring of CSOs
  • Continued advocacy, awareness-raising, policy monitoring and actions to reinforce democratic values, respect for human rights, good governance, the rule of law, the right to food and local development.

In addition, CSOs need to improve their operating practices in terms of ethics, accountability and commitment to networking. To this end, FAO could support the financing of micro-projects to develop small-scale farming activities at community or local level, in order to improve living conditions for communities in the areas where these projects are implemented. Let's not forget that CSOs have adopted global standards that should shape these transformations through the implementation of the Istanbul Principles in important areas such as equitable partnerships, solidarity and empowerment of populations. But CSOs are also profoundly affected by the political context in which they work, including donor and government policies and regulations. In July 2021, the OECD Development Assistance Committee adopted the Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Assistance. It is the first legal policy instrument and common standard for the protection and promotion of civic space, to fully support civil society organizations, including the priority of local development, and to encourage the effectiveness, transparency and accountability of CSOs.

What's more, the majority of the world's poor population live in rural areas, and agriculture is their primary source of food, employment and income. Around 500 million small farms in low- and middle-income countries support three billion people, who produce most of the food consumed there. Smallholder farming is labor-intensive and often highly efficient: small-scale producers supply 30–34% of the world's food on just 24% of the world's agricultural land. And since most farms are less than one hectare in size, they enable their owners–many of whom are also employers–to improve their diet nutritionally, increase their income and ensure food security in economies often lacking effective and appropriate social protection systems. As incomes rise, the demand for fresh food produced by small farms also follows an upward curve. CSOs could propose the following:

  • Improve profitability and production through greater use of intensive, knowledge-based, circular, sustainable and climate-resilient techniques
  • Go into agricultural services and food processing, transport and marketing
  • Enable farmers, especially women and young people, to enter profitable value chains, rewarding them for the ecosystem services they provide and helping them overcome difficulties in accessing water and land rights, capital, information and new technologies

Finally, transforming food systems involves paradigm shifts at all stages to make food systems healthy and nutritious, by providing nutritious and affordable diets for good health; inclusive, by enabling sustainable livelihoods for all food system stakeholders; environmentally sustainable, by consuming and producing food within planetary limits; and resilient, by ensuring that people can access food and protect their livelihoods when food systems are affected by extreme events or market shocks, and by political instability or conflict (Ruben et al., 2021). The transformation of food systems has the potential to bring systemic benefits to people and the environment. At the same time, we recognize that food systems do not sufficiently meet people's needs, and that their environmental costs contribute to global climate change and biodiversity loss. Transforming food systems aims to improve human nutrition, promote inclusion, protect biodiversity and contribute to a more sustainable and resilient food system.

  1. How can FAO and CSOs maximize their collective impact in adapting to climate change and/or mitigate its consequences?

Adaptation to climate change must accompany any effort to promote food security, poverty reduction or the sustainable management and conservation of natural resources. Adaptation to climate change is linked to adjustments to current or predicted variability and to changes in average climatic conditions. The global mitigation target can only be met if the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors, which account for a third of greenhouse gas emissions, make a significant contribution to mitigation. FAO therefore gives priority to mitigation activities in these sectors. Its technical knowledge gives it the expertise needed to help members realize their mitigation potential.

If we are to combat climate change, it is essential to start by implementing measures that address our food and farming systems. We need to look at how we produce our food, how we feed ourselves and how we use our natural resources. Agriculture is responsible for around 25% of greenhouse gas emissions, but it offers many solutions which, if implemented, will help achieve the global targets set in the context of the fight against climate change. To meet this challenge, we need to start by transforming our food and farming systems. We need to restore degraded land and put an end to food wastage, and take measures to help communities adapt to the new pressures they face (population growth, urbanization, etc.), while protecting the planet's resources and biodiversity.

FAO has been working with the Green Climate Fund (GCF) since 2016 to help countries build their resilience to the effects of climate change. The food and agricultural sectors present unique opportunities to create synergies between climate and development programs. Support for agriculture, and in particular for small-scale farmers, is essential if we are to achieve SDG 1 (end poverty) and SDG 2 (zero hunger) in the context of climate change. It also contributes to SDG 13 (climate change), SDG 14 (sustainable management of the oceans) and SDG 15 (life on earth). FAO is fully committed to supporting countries in achieving their targets. The Organization envisions a world in which food and agricultural systems are resilient to the effects of climate change through adaptation measures and mitigation solutions. It recommends large-scale climate financing to support the transformation of agriculture as the key to a more sustainable future.

Today, the key priority is to build the capacity of the most vulnerable groups and communities to improve their ability to adapt their livelihood systems. Thus, particular attention and support must be given to involving local populations in analyzing their changing situation, identifying possible solutions and deciding on the best way to adapt. This new approach is known as community-based adaptation or CBA. The aim of community-based adaptation (CBA) is to enable communities to decide and engage in development that is sustainable, climate-resilient and sensitive to the changing risks associated with climate change. CBA happens when vulnerable groups and communities have the opportunity to analyze their vulnerabilities, risks and capacities; to strengthen their adaptive capacity; to decide and engage in actions that are sustainable, resilient and responsive to climate information and changing risks; to make choices in uncertain climates; to receive support from local and national actors in terms of capacity building, information systems, services and local policy implementation. CBA is only possible if CSOs intervene alongside these communities to help them adapt to the multiple changes.

  1. Based on your partnering experience, can you share a good example of meaningful engagement with FAO or another UN agency/development partner? Please underline what you think worked well and why.

Since 2016, ADACO has been operating using its own funds, and for almost 8 years our Executive Board has been seeking partnerships and various collaborations with the United Nations system, in particular FAO, UNESCO and WIPO.

In 2021, we collaborated directly with the FAO Indigenous Peoples Team in Rome to contribute to the development of the first White Paper on Indigenous Peoples' food systems. This year we continued the same collaboration, contributing to the design of the second white paper on the mobile livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and their collective rights over land, territories and natural resources, and we're still waiting for FAO to publish it. In 2023, our collaboration with the FAO Indigenous Peoples Team will be formalized. The General Assembly of the States Parties to the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage decided at its 9th session, held at UNESCO headquarters in Paris from July 5 to 7, 2022, that ADACO would be one of the accredited NGOs (Resolution 9.GA 7). The Director-General of UNESCO also invited our organization to the 17th session of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, held in Rabat, Morocco, from November 28 to December 3, 2022. In addition, Sandrine Moughola, Secretary General of ADACO (Gabon), was elected to the Electoral Council to organize the elections for members of the PCI NGO Forum Committee in 2022.

The application for observer status for the Association pour le Devenir des Autochtones et de leur Connaissance Originelle (Association for the Future of Aboriginal People and their Original Knowledge–ADACO) to attend meetings of the Assemblies of the Member States of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Unions administered by WIPO, was approved by the said bodies at their meetings held at WIPO headquarters in Geneva on July 14–22, 2022. ADACO now appears on the list of national non-governmental organizations invited to attend meetings of WIPO-administered assemblies and unions, as observers in accordance with the applicable principles. This question was dealt with in document A/63/9 entitled Summary report, which is available at https://www.wipo.int/meetings/fr/details.jsp?meeting_id=67908.

In terms of activities, our organization was invited to the Director General's annual consultation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which took place on December 6, 2022, from 9am to 11am at the headquarters of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva. Since 2012, WIPO's Director General has chaired this annual event, which testifies to the importance of NGOs as stakeholders in the intellectual property system. WIPO's Medium-Term Strategic Plan 2022–2026 expresses the vision of a global, balanced and efficient IP ecosystem that benefits everyone, everywhere, and the desire to build a more inclusive IP community that better serves women, youth and small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as the use of innovation to address global challenges such as climate change.

This year, we worked with the FAO (Rome) Partnership Division (PSU) responsible for collaboration with the United Nations to develop Standards of Practice to guide ecosystem restoration. The only drawback here is that our financial resources are insufficient to attend these face-to-face meetings. We always attend these meetings by videoconference. We wish to continue this type of partnership, while further strengthening it through capacity-building, ongoing dialogue, and technical or financial assistance, etc. We also often respond to calls for submissions to consultations published by the Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum). ADACO appreciates this type of collaboration, as it is simplified and requires no specific legal constraints. Because quality of a partnership or collaboration requires that the terms of collaboration between the two parties to be simplified and understandable. It will therefore be essential for these partnerships to be more direct and have an impact on the ground for the well-being of local populations.

What are the most significant challenges CSOs face in their engagement with FAO?

  • The main challenges facing CSOs in their engagement with FAO can be summarized as follows:

 

CSOs find it difficult to carry out their actions or activities because of the obstacles faced by certain population groups in realizing their right to food. These obstacles may be linked to biological or socio-economic factors, discrimination or stigmatization, etc. The right to food and the principles of equality and non-discrimination imply that particular attention must be paid to different categories of people and population groups within society, especially those in vulnerable situations. These include the following population groups: people living in poverty in rural and urban areas; indigenous peoples; disabled people, women and children, etc. This list is not exhaustive, and other people or population groups may face particular problems in realizing their right to food.

In addition, people living in poverty cannot fully exercise their right to food because they cannot acquire adequate food or the means to produce it. However, the fact that they lack the means to obtain food is also due to persistent forms of discrimination in access to education and information, in participation in political and social life, and in access to justice. Most indigenous peoples are among the most vulnerable to hunger and malnutrition, largely due to a long history of social, political and economic exclusion, and centuries of expropriation and dispossession of their lands. Understanding what the right to food means for indigenous peoples is more difficult than simply reviewing the statistics on hunger and malnutrition. Indigenous peoples have their own notions of what constitutes adequate food, and their aspirations are far removed from the criteria generally applied to development and economics. Their perception of food security is inseparable from their socio-cultural traditions and the special relationship they have with the land and resources of their ancestors.

What's more, food, how it is obtained and consumed, is often an important part of their culture, as well as their social, economic and political organization. The realization of indigenous peoples' right to food depends on their access to, and control over, the natural resources found on their ancestral lands, since their food is often derived from cultivating these lands, gathering food, fishing, hunting and raising livestock. The confiscation of land without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned, and the lack of legal recognition of land ownership rights, represent serious obstacles to the realization of the right to food. It is therefore important to grant these peoples title to their ancestral lands. According to the International Labour Organization's Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries: "Governments shall take steps as necessary to identify the lands which the peoples concerned traditionally occupy, and to guarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and possession" (paragraph 2, article 14). The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007, proclaims that indigenous peoples have the right to use and develop the lands they own because they have traditionally owned them (article 26) and that States must take due account of the land tenure systems of these peoples (article 27).

In Gabon, indigenous peoples meet most of their food requirements through gathering, fishing and game hunting. The latter are semi-sedentary and still represent fairly marginalized groups whose needs are not taken into account in national development master plans. Then, deforestation, human-wildlife conflict and restrictions on the preservation of biodiversity considerably eroded their livelihoods. Evolution and modernity have brought them into contact with other peoples. However, their practices and means of subsistence, such as farming, have transformed their socio-community organization, while keeping their cultural practices intact. Women play an important role in farming, as it highlights their capacity to work (as producers and processors) and their contribution to the social equilibrium of communities. They also play a key role in the resulting exchanges: they are both traders and distributors of food within the household.

Indeed, the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic have further accentuated the vulnerability of these groups, exposing them to greater precariousness and creating new challenges, notably by limiting their sales opportunities. As part of its missions in Gabon, the FAO Subregional Office plans to integrate the needs of these indigenous populations into the next technical cooperation framework with the Gabonese Republic. With this in mind, in September 2023, the FAO-Gabon Program has initiated a series of missions to this target group. Community consultations were held in the villages of Matamatsengué, Foungui and Njoye 1 (Ngounie province). The aim was to collect data, identify real needs, particularly those of women and young people, and develop a technical and operational support program, in line with respect for indigenous peoples' right to food. All these exchanges helped us to understand the organization and social structure, to gather useful socio-demographic information and to identify the needs of the population in general and the specific needs of women in the areas of food and vegetable production, fishing, gathering and small-scale crafts. This work sequence follows other missions carried out by the FAO Gabon Office in November 2021 in the Baka community of Minvoul (Woleu Ntem province). The data from these two stages will serve as the basis for a technical support program.

In addition, the FAO's Sub-regional Office did not deny ADACO's involvement, as it carried out a mission in our intervention zone, in particular to Village Nioye.

However, the Bureau is aware of our existence. To carry out pilot agricultural activities in this remote region of Gabon (Ikobey, in the village of Nioye 1), it would be necessary to build infrastructures such as the Nioye 1 and 2 schools, which are in a state of complete disrepair, rehabilitate dispensaries, combat human-wildlife conflict and provide sunlight on the road. ADACO had already sent the FAO Country Office in Gabon a document detailing the concerns of the region's Tsogo and Babongo populations. This is an opportunity for ADACO to call on FAO's General Management in Rome to remind FAO's Sub-regional Office in Gabon to involve indigenous peoples' associations at national level in this type of project and activity, without exclusion. It was this approach that led us to work directly with the FAO Bureau in Rome. This is because some country offices (in Gabon) of certain International Organizations (IOs) often fail to adopt the working principles laid down in the Charters or Constituent Acts of these organizations, particularly as regards CSO involvement in the implementation and monitoring of certain projects.

    • What could FAO do to remedy some of these problems? Please provide specific examples.

Today, it is imperative to re-examine the potential of FAO's partnership with CSOs. The commitment of civil society will be essential if we are to achieve the goal of halving the number of food-insecure people. We need to capitalize on FAO's ability to reach out to a wide range of groups, while reaffirming that it is the responsibility of governments to ensure food security for their citizens. For example, we can commission an in-depth evaluation of cooperation between FAO and NGOs and other civil society organizations (CSOs), in consultation with our technical units and decentralized offices, as well as with external partners. This assessment could enable us to formulate policy and strategy guidelines that are appropriate to the challenges we face in the future.

So, why should FAO seek to strengthen its links with civil society, and how and in what form should these links be strengthened, and what type of partnership or collaboration should be envisaged?

Closer collaboration with NGOs and other CSOs should enable fairer and more judicious decision-making under the auspices of FAO, by taking into account the interests of all social sectors and building consensus among all stakeholders. This cooperation should also enrich the Organization's standard-setting activities and enhance the effectiveness of our Field Program by drawing on the skills, experience and knowledge of NGOs and other CSOs. This will help mobilize additional resources to achieve common food security objectives. FAO can provide civil society with invaluable technical, financial and institutional support, helping them to replicate successful NGO approaches and gain better access to information and decision-making processes.

To this end, we need to identify which organizations within civil society are competent for which type of cooperation, so as to have the necessary basis for choice. FAO must focus its efforts on priority partners such as organizations representing important categories, e.g. farmers and consumers, associations of vulnerable groups such as indigenous peoples, and technically competent intermediary NGOs able to engage in ongoing cooperation with FAO. Whatever the organization, the partnership must be simplified and respect the essential principles of compliance with the FAO mandate. Following this assessment, we will be able to identify the following activities: information sharing and analysis; dialogue on policies and programs in the field; and resource mobilization. These activities should be implemented in consultation with all FAO partners, including CSOs. Similarly, we need to make a strategic choice of partners and activities, encouraging coordination and networking between NGOs and other CSOs so as to increase dialogue and mobilize all players. What's more, these organizations must share responsibility for program planning and implementation, as well as for resource allocation.

It is also important that FAO country representatives ensure that the national organizations closest to rural populations are not excluded from this process.

 

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”?

No one is more left behind then the Chinese dog meat worker using traditional live cooking methods.



Animal Rights organizations (CSOs) are the only ones that know the truth of the scale of atrocities committed

within animal agriculture/food production.  The more socio-economic inequality there is in a country, the less

animal protection standards such as the OIE Terrestrial Code or The EU Five Freedoms are ever considered.  

Socio-economic inequality certainly leaves tens of thousands of meat workers in Asia behind, using 2000 year old methods.  For example in parts of China, agricultural animals such as calves and donkeys, are strung up at market places.  Their mouths are bound, and then slices of skin, legs, rump, noses, ears, are sliced off the animal over 2/3 days while the animal is still alive.  The workers say they cannot afford refrigeration and this is the way things have always been done and its the best way to serve the meat to the customer who prefer it fresh.  



In the dog and cat meat trade across China/Asian regions, a common production method has been pieced together by Animal Rights advocates. Showing a 2000 year old method of slowly cooking the dogs and cats alive,

starting with soaking the animal in hot water, removing the hair, boiling the water more, and then finally

blow torching the dog/cat while still alive.  The workers say this is the way it has always been done.

The boiling water also protects workers from rabies they say.  The consumer also wants the traditional method,

with increased adrenalin in the meat.   No one is more left behind then the Chinese dog/cat meat worker,

using these methods.  Animal Rights orgs as well as the UK and USA  Gov have written and sent petitions to

China on the ancient cultural torture of  animals for purported health benefits yet nothing changes.   

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

By FAO actually setting up official meetings with Chinese (and other) Gov Food reps, bringing along the Animal Rights/CSO rep, and discussing the graphic evidence - photos and videos. Putting ALL the emphasis on the graphic evidence, for this is the truth. And pointing out, your food worker's methods are so ancient and the people are so left behind, that this is not sustainable food production in line with the UN Sustainable food agenda, this is in fact slow torture for ancient culture. China's PM Xi Jing ping famously said, he was waiting for the UN to tell him how to sustainably manage resources.   All the while, he is oblivious that animals in China are resources who deserve the OIE Terrestrial slaughter code. Not torture. Three way meetings with FAO/Animal Rights CSO/Gov reps all focusing on the graphic material,is the only way to show them that the people are left behind.

2. FAO seeks to accelerate transformation of agri-food 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.



While so much torture, not slaughter, occurs, food systems are not sustainable.  FAO needs to take Animal Rights/CSOs pleas and cries for help seriously and properly engage with them and look at their graphic evidence.  If governments took the OIE Terrestrial Code seriously, then 95% of the atrocities would not happen.  

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

contribute if FAO listens very carefully, pays close attention to their graphic evidence, and then is very firm

with governments. Developing a proper official pact and covenant or code with governments. Currently many

governments ignore OIE codes/suggestions.  Torture of animals for food does not just occur in some Asian/Chinese culture.  Torture of food bearing animals routinely occurs in modern agricultural systems, as a means of cost cutting,saving time/money.  For example in USA tens of thousands of pigs never get the chance to bleed out and die before they hit the scalding tanks, or are dismembered.  To be boiled or dismembered alive is torture, not slaughter and is not in line with the OIE Terrestial Code. There is no cost margin to allow for the bleeding out, so the pig must endure live scalding, and or live dismemberment.  Up to one million chickens are also scalded alive because of profit margins and the speed of the production line.  



How can CSOs contribute to improving this  on the ground?  

First, FAO should routinely invite Animal Rights CSOs to send in details of everyday atrocities.

Second. FAO reps should pay very close attention to the details presented by CSOs e.g.



https://mercyforanimals.org/blog/slaughterhouses-boiling-animals-alive-freezing/

https://www.indy100.com/news/pigs-iowa-animal-rights-inhumane-roasted



Once FAO is aware of the details and has the graphic evidence, then a three way meeting with FAO/CSO/Gov

using the details and graphic evidence as the main focus of the meeting, asking the Gov to sign the pact.

If the government signs up to a UN compact/Pact/Terrestrial code, then this stops the torture on the ground.

The FAO needs to understand that the Animal Rights CSO cannot change anything on their own without UN

FAO help. They merely collect the evidence and are rarely supported by the governments. In fact some Animal

Rights/CSOs are under arrest merely for sneaking into factories to collect graphic evidence.  Some US Governments are making it a crime now for anyone to film what goes on inside.  FAO/OIE Reps should be allowed to go inside as part of the 'pact'.  FAO Reps should be supporting the Animal Rights reporters to show the truth.  Now CSOs that want to show the truth are being called Terrorists.  

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-undercover-investigators-animal-enterprise-terrorism-act/5440/

In China millions of pigs have also been burned and buried alive due to Swine Flu.  This is not the humane disposal method that OIE or WHO had in mind. Only Animal Rights CSOs can gather this info for you.
 
The only way for the OIE and FAO to stop such things on the ground is to engage with the Animal Rights/CSOs and carefully review the evidence. And then firmly speak with the governments, always using the facts - the graphic evidence as the central focus.
 
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?




Sustainable development/sustainable agriculture also includes, or should include a high degree of

Animal Welfare/Animal Protection. For example adhere to the OIE Terrestial code of for example the EU 5 freedoms, eg. freedom from suffering, water to drink.  No consderation has yet been paid by governments, OIE, FAO to the effects of climate change on live stock.  



https://animalsaustralia.org/our-work/farmed-animals/lynn-simpson-a-life-live-export-stories/

Live export vet: Animals were 'cooking from the inside'



Again, its the Animal Rights Orgs/CSOs left on their own to gather the information of the torture.

What FAO can do? Engage with the Animal Rights CSOs and ask them to send in all such evidence.

Meet with them and review their evidence.  FAO/OIE - take the evidence to the governments and be firm and clear

and get them to sign the pact/code/compact.



It is not just in Live Export where animals are dying torturous deaths due to the effects of climate change.

Thousands of animals are also freezing to death for the sake of the food system.

https://mercyforanimals.org/blog/sickening-new-video-reveals-calves-freezing/



Thousands of dogs in China and South Korea are also left in cages outdoors under the boiling sun,

they suffer from heat stroke with no water.  



The Animal Rights CSO's can do nothing to stop the above, until the FAO/OIE  involve themselves and speak

to the governments about the issues. 
 
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.



I was assisting my friends at World Protection For Dogs and Cats In The Meat Trade (WPDCMT).  They are

Special Consultants to the UN Eco/Soc council on the dog/cat meat trade  When myself and my friends at

WPDCMT learned that Mr Qu Dongyu, who worked at the Chinese Ministry of Food/Ag was also now

the Director of  UNFAO, we wanted to meaningfully engage him in his FAO role, on the dog meat trade in his

own country.  Using the graphic evidence showing the traditional live dog meat process, a petition to Mr Dongyu

of 5000 signatures, and a large letter writing campaign personally to Mr Dongyu, we were finally able to engage

him to speak to the Chinese Ministry of Food/Ag. They then declared they would class dogs as companion animalsnot food, that civilization had moved on, and it was not right to class dogs as food as FAO and OIE did not class themas food. It was a big step for China.  Sadly nothing has changed in China and activists report dogs are still being cooked alive across huge regions. It is a start only, and FAO could do more.  Please note, that the only way we were able to engage the FAO DG in this case, was by dozens of people sending him personal letters, begging him to help and the petition with 5000 signatures.  This is the problem. CSOs should not have to beg people at the UNFAO to help.  The only way forward is for the FAO to rally the Animal Rights CSOs and ask them what they need help with. 
 
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 example I gave above is one of the biggest obstacles. Getting FAO to pay proper attention to the

atroscities and to take responsbility for fixing them.  Not having to get 50 people writing begging letters, and

not having to get 5000 people to sign petitions begging the FAO to pay attention.  The FAO should be engaging wtih the Animal Rights CSOs and asking them, saying, please send us in all the horrible issues, that need our assistance.  
 
There should be a dedicated person at the FAO who collects all the issues from the Animal Rights CSOs.  

The FAO should say, we can speak to the governments  once we have the details.  Currently, the Animal Rights

CSOs are left alone with no one to help them and some governments now classing them as terrorists for filming

the atroscities.  The FAO need to start looking at the Animal Rights CSOs as the ones reporting the facts,

not as raving lunatics to be ignored or brushed aside.  The FAO need to start taking the facts seriously and

agree solutions with the governments who have allowed it to carry on, using pacts/codes/agreements.
 

If the FAO takes my suggestions seriously, eg engage directly with the Animal Rights orgs like Humane Society,

Mercy For Animals, Animals Australia, PETA, World Protection for Dogs and Cats in The Meat Trade, asking

them for graphic evidence of their most pressing issues and proof of mass atroscities, then FAO can help to

prevent such things  from happening by engaging the governments.  The governments see Animal Rights CSOs

as an annoyance at the very least. Terrorists at the worst.  I am asking FAO to help change that as part of the

SDGs and certainly before 2030.

 

 
 

These are somethings to consider for CSO and FSN/FAO effective sustainable collaborative outcome.

To regain momentum and work jointly to "leave no one behind" in the context of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) can collaborate in several ways:

Strengthen Partnerships: FAO can engage with CSOs at various levels, from local to international, to form strong partnerships. These partnerships should be based on shared values and goals related to reducing socio-economic inequality and promoting sustainable development.

Capacity Building: FAO can provide support and capacity-building initiatives to CSOs. This may include training and resources to enhance their ability to engage in policy advocacy, data collection and analysis, and project implementation related to food security, agriculture, and rural development.

Data Collection and Analysis: FAO can work with CSOs to improve data collection and analysis related to socio-economic inequality and food security. CSOs often have grassroots networks and community-level insights that can complement FAO's data collection efforts.

Advocacy and Awareness: FAO and CSOs can collaborate on advocacy campaigns to raise awareness about the importance of addressing socio-economic inequality and achieving the SDGs. This can include joint efforts to influence policy changes at national and international levels.

Inclusive Decision-Making: FAO can involve CSOs in decision-making processes related to policy formulation, program design, and resource allocation. This ensures that the perspectives and needs of marginalized groups are considered.

Project Implementation: Collaborative projects between FAO and CSOs can target specific areas where socio-economic inequality is prevalent, such as rural communities or regions with high poverty rates. These projects should aim to improve food security, access to resources, and income generation.

Monitoring and Evaluation: Both FAO and CSOs can jointly monitor and evaluate the impact of their initiatives on reducing socio-economic inequality. This involves setting clear indicators, collecting data, and conducting regular assessments to track progress.

Resource Mobilization: FAO can support CSOs in accessing funding and resources for their projects and initiatives. This can be done through grant opportunities, partnerships with donors, and technical assistance in proposal development.

Knowledge Sharing: FAO can facilitate knowledge sharing between CSOs by creating platforms and networks where organizations can exchange experiences, best practices, and lessons learned in the pursuit of SDGs.

Policy Dialogue: FAO and CSOs can engage in regular policy dialogues with governments and international organizations to advocate for policies that prioritize reducing socio-economic inequality and achieving the SDGs.

1. There should be clear linkages and synergies established between FAO and CSOs with clearly stipulated roles for each party.
2. First, studies should be conducted as to why most on-ground CSOs may lack contribution, however, trainings, and mentorships could raise the spirit and keep the momentum. This could help instill the need for self-reliance in agriculture as the main contribution to socio-economy
3. The only way to deal with climate change impact is to accept its presence and impacts, then adopt to the evolving technologies on agricultural practices that respond to impacts brought about by the changes: These include procurement and use of climatic adoptive seeds which are drought tolerant and disease resistant, short maturity period. Also use of appropriate fertilizer products relevant for the soils and cultivated crops. These all still need awareness and trainings.

This input is based on my personal observation. It does not stand as an opinion from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).

In Central Asia, a region where warming as an impact of climate change is faster than the global average, water scarcity and food insecurity are real concerns.

I am a keen collaborator with FAO and have collaborated with its HQ and Geneva office. Now to bring the collaboration to the national level, I have encountered challenges. The IFRC member National Societies (Red Cross or Red Crescent) address humanitarian and its nexus issues with a holistic approach. As a key actor in disaster management (from risk reduction, preparedness, to response) National Societies collaborate with their disaster management public authorities. In Central Asia where I am working now, governmental ministries/committees for Emergency Situations (MoES) are in collaboration with National Societies.

I think for civil society community (including Red Cross Red Crescent), it is challenging to address food insecurity with a siloed approach, as it often links to social vulnerability, ill health, water scarcity, etc. To re-initiate the momentum of collaboration between FAO and CSOs, FAO may wish to find a mechanism at the country level to facilitate cooperation in a holistic way. Very recently we have worked with UNDRR regional office to bring Early Warnings for All for implementation in Tajikistan. I found the way they design the process for the government in the driving seat and include all stakeholders quite useful. (You may find the attached press release a useful reference.)

Firstly, need clarity as to what is a relevant CSO, who is involved, under what auspices, who funds the organisation, who they represent, leadership structure and how they deal with vested and conflicts of interest.

Secondly, how does the CSO represent its members, how do they ensure the views expressed in consultation with FAO, reflect members views.

Thirdly, funding. How do small community organisations fund their activities. If only bigger, industry funded organisations are represented how does FAO ensure balance and proper community perspective and representation. Industry funding, with conflicts of interest, will likely bias the representation of o unity views to be more sympathetic toward inaction that allows vested interests to dominate. Simply completing COI forms may not be enough to avoid this bias. Ideally, a separate, blind fund should be available to ensure small but representative groups are able to contribute and ensure small holder/community groups are heard and solutions offered reflect their views and the impact policy will have on them.

Fourth, FAO needs to be more open and inclusive. People and small groups need to believe FAO represents and listens to them, and not just to big food/industry dominated organisations. Umbrella organisations like SUN, with conflicted interests and perspectives should not be allowed to dominate the conversation. Difficult, but FAO truly needs to be able to listen to small holder farmers to ensure climate challenges address their concerns and brings them along with actions that protect their livelihoods.

Fifth, national and local representation at meetings.



The need for FAO and possibly any other UN agency, particularly those engaged in the UN development agenda, has been long overdue. Indeed, this call for contribution is timely, relevant, and appropriate, especially as we strive towards the Agenda 2030. I would take advantage of every opportunity to contribute; thus, my view is below.

One of the best ways FAO can engage and interact better with civil society is by being transparent, honest, and consistent in the communication and actions with these organizations. Remember, civil societies are more often grassroots conduits, making them more acceptable in the communities, which makes even their efforts more percolative in the communities they operate. Civil societies are more sensitive to the consciousness of the communities than any other stakeholder in the development chain of players. In any case, any development agenda FAO wants to pass on to the final benefit (which in most cases is the community) should be clear, transparent, and concisely communicated to civil society. 

FAO should also, more often than not, seek the input of civil society and, if possible, embed these ideas (mostly local-based) in the general development agenda. Usually, FAO’s plan is global in content and context. However, these should be somehow decentralized to fit the particular community of beneficiaries and avoid a one-shoe-all scenario. By taking this approach, FAO is cementing a long-lasting appreciation and recognition of the work of civil societies and their achievements and acknowledging their challenges and concerns within the UN food agency’s global and always complex development agenda.

With due respect to all, I would like to share my thoughts with you. Like all others, I also think that language and technology can bridge all human of all sectors without discrimination including food and agricultural sector. In this context, I would like to remember with pleasure that Bangladesh along with all other countries celebrate international mother language day on 21st February. On the eve of the day, like others I also respect Father of the nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Martyrs of Bangla Bhasha Andholon in 21st February 1952, Heroic Freedom Fighters of 1971, Activists of recognition of 21st February as International Mother Language Day, and many others who are passionately working human intangible asset 'Languages'. 'The Bangla alphabet or Bengali alphabet (Bengali: বাংলা বর্ণমালা, Bangla bôrṇômala) is the alphabet used to write the Bengali language based on the Bengali-Assamese script, and has historically been used to write Sanskrit within Bengal. It is one of the most widely adopted writing systems in the world (used by over 265 million people)' (Ref: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_alphabet). Like all others, I also wish for the increase of more languages as UN Official Languages including Bangla.

Every year new words are added into human culture due to Neologism (Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism). Many new words are not phonetically compatible with many scripts. Sharing suitable alphabets using IPA among scripts of various human languages could be a solution for this problem. Neural Machine Translation (NMT) and Statistical Machine Translation (SMT) could be incorporated for digitizing this concept easily.

Chandrabindu is an excellent example of a diacritic sign shared  by many languages from the historical past (ref: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrabindu). All the same, I think many scripts could benefit from sharing letters of other scripts.  For example, the alphabet ' প '/ 'P',  'ঢ', ' ভ '/'V' etc are absent in Arabic, 'র' / 'R' is absent in Burmese, 'য়' absent in Hindi, ' ع' ‘ح” absent in English, Bangla etc. I think using IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) for finding a suitable alphabet, if anyone wishes to add a new familiar conventional alphabet with their own script for perfect pronunciation, can do it easily. I think adding new complementary alphabets will not change original scripts/culture but enrich scripts of various Languages for global competitiveness.

For writing right transliteration, correcting already written wrong transliteration, and learning more new languages in an easy and perfectly and culturally acceptable solution is needed. So, I therefore here mention a solution which I have given the name as ‘YLIT’ (Worldwide Integrated Linguistic Information Technology). I wish YLIT will be a peaceful co-existing solution with dignity to the multilingual people of the world.

I have developed a multi-scripts multi-line text which could be considered as 'Worldwide Integrated Linguistic Information Technology (YLIT)' for beginners. For example, here on attached image the top line is Bangla words (Writing direction left to right), then Bangla IPA, then Bangla Phonetic Romanization, then Bangla Phonetic Romanization in mixed script, then English Translation, Then Arabic Translation (Writing direction right to left). In the corner, another word 'Shohagh' and under it written in self-defined script.  If necessary, mirror writing could be used with normal script.

I think today's information technology is rich enough to bring all humans in a folder with peaceful co-existence and provide scope to learn multiple languages in an easy way using multiple learning media. Simply, it's an innovative scientific way of Journey Inside Mass in different eyes. This YLIT also could be usable for enriching Information Security. That could be said as YLITIS (YLIT Information Security). Now-a-days no one is out of ICT risk. In the time of various global crises including the food crisis, ICT risk is more sensitive. In this context, multi factors authentication, user defined Cryptographic captcha using alphanumeric characters of Multiple Scripts of Multiple Languages, circuit level security, NS2 for various disaster management including fire, security sensors integration, proper law and policy etc could be used to enhance cyber security especially in the agricultural sector. Due to various global crises on one hand and on another hand various new innovations, market places etc in different parts of the world and its e-supply chain management, I think FYLIT (Farmers Worldwide Integrated Linguistic Information Technology) could be an important tool for better sharing various matters among farmers around the world. In this system farmers are able to learn directly by sharing proper alphabets of one another scripts for faster learning. I think enriching linguistic and agricultural skills of natives, and expatriates will ultimately benefit not only their own country but also the agricultural and greening sector of many other countries too. I think if there were a relevant database about this contribution, then it would be better. Waiver and subsidies-based farmers debit card's name on card, name on mobile apps or any other financial documents could be easily converted to local language in perfect pronunciation by YLIT for famers satisfaction.

All the same in heterogeneous environments of LEARN (Learning, Earning, Alerting, and Rescuing Nexus), perfect pronunciations are necessary for every alphabet to sentence specially for machine-based voice to text conversion or for learning using smart whiteboard. Like Chandrabindhu has been mainstreamed and naturally legalized/standardized, I think learning perfect pronunciations of all humans using script sharing of each other- might need global to local legal support.

I wish all the success of 27 march- International day of Multilingualism, and 30th September - International Translation Day (transliteration is the beginning of learning Translation). I think that schools to universities can play a significant role overall in this context, and I sincerely hope that the schools to universities will do so. I think YLIT could be used for more reaching to all and peaceful bonding among all the human specially in Food and Agricultural sectors. I think FAO and Civil Society organizations could engage better by YLIT.