The real world in the UN Committee on World Food Security

On the 7th October 2013, it was once again time for the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) to convene. Negotiations and debates were held for five days. Of course they were about world food security issues. Nothing special, you might think, just one of many UN committees. Far from it! Not only is the CFS the most important, global co-ordinating body on policies relating to food security, but it is also the only UN body in which civil society and the private sector have not only had a say but have also been involved in negotiating since 2009. This is why the Director General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) José Graziano da Silva was justified in referring to the “most important governance mechanism world-wide”, whereas others called it the “model for the 21st century”. Social movements – organisations of smallholders, women, indigenous peoples, etc. – and NGOs are organised in the Civil Society Mechanism (CSM), while corporations such as Monsanto and Syngenta, but also the World Farmers Organisation, belong to the Private Sector Mechanism (PSM).

Targeted policy possible for people suffering hunger

But one swallow does not make a summer, and a newly founded CFS alone cannot create a world without hunger. Nevertheless, the re-launch of the CFS can and ought to prove an important milestone in this process. More participatory rights for groups affected by hunger can yield policies that improve their living conditions. Better attuned and co-ordinated policies with the focus on the hungry bring us closer to the goal of zero hunger. More accountability towards those concerned strengthens democratic processes and can lead to more target group-specific policies. But, the CFS is not isolated from the rest of the world. It is part of a real world in which human rights are ignored and politics is determined by power-seeking and economic interests. One example of this is the decision taken at this year’s CFS in favour of agrofuels.

Problem located, but still a threat

Politically supported agrofuels production is making food prices soar, sparking conflicts over land and aggravating competition with food. So just carrying on cannot be an option, one might assume. But when it comes to agrofuels, strong business interests are involved. Correspondingly difficult negotiations had been expected, and rightly so, as it became apparent later on. The negotiations of the Friends of the Rapporteur preparing the decisions for the CFS lasted for 19 hours.
Brazil had specially sent a negotiator from the capital. Argentina had four representatives taking part. The European Union was represented by Estonia and Sweden, backed by Germany and France. An agrofuels front consisting of the USA, the EU, Canada, Australia, Argentina and Brazil turned down all decisions that would have contained any modifications of their agrofuels policy. The EU representatives did not even hold the mandate to mention mandates, subsidies or tariffs.

An unacceptable process and a lack of coherence

Owing to the CFS plenary meeting held partly in parallel, the participation of smaller delegations from developing countries was low. The views of the countries concerned were not seriously discussed. Any moves by Kuwait and Iran as representatives of the Middle East were pooh-poohed. The agrofuels front did not bother to address their arguments. Iran demanded that the negotiations be suspended, but this was not taken seriously. And while the EU proposal to refer to competition for land and water was supported by Iran and Afghanistan, it was then dropped by the EU.
Progressive proposals by the CSM such as the phasing out of agrofuels policies that could have negative consequences for food security, human rights impact assessments or risk management systems safeguarding consumers and smallholder producers against extreme price fluctuations were all rigorously dismissed without debate. The members of the CFS, especially the agrofuels front countries, have violated their mandate, food security and the right to food, by doing nothing against the negative impacts of agrofuels policies on the right to food and by clinging to their government support. Policy coherence has not been established.

Negotiations on investments in smallholder agriculture

In contrast to agrofuels, a good debate was held among the Friends of the Rapporteur on investments in smallholder agriculture that proved to be constructive. The EU (co-ordinated and represented by the German Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection [BMELV]), the USA and Australia were particularly active in the debate, followed by Switzerland and Africa. Argentina, Brazil and Canada also took part. All in all, civil society is satisfied with the decisions taken on investments in smallholder agriculture. The key role that smallholders play in food security has been recognised. Their involvement in the further development of concepts for smallholder agriculture at national level is regarded as indispensable. The significance of local food markets and public investments was stressed. Good governance in the area of land and other natural resources was regarded as particularly important.

Controversial topics such as agro-ecological cultivation methods and seed

Nevertheless, the all in all positive appraisal and the constructive atmosphere in debates could not conceal the fact that there is considerable dissent in some areas. Such dissent always arises when business interests are at stake, e.g. in access to markets, trade and investment agreements and inputs.
In agricultural ecology, for example, it is not quibbling but dissent in contents that lies at the core of terms like “agro-ecological” cultivation methods and “sustainable intensification”. Agro-ecological cultivation methods focus on improving soil fertility, improving the water retention of soils and promoting genetic diversity with less use of fertilisers and pesticides. Sustainable intensification, also referred to as greenwashing of conventional, input-intensive agriculture, advocates area intensification and is biased towards raising production, and there is no technology that it rules out. No wonder the fertiliser, agro-chemistry and genetic engineering industries favour this approach. The text on investments in smallholder agriculture ultimately refers to both concepts.

Regarding seeds, for example, secure access to and control of seeds is of considerable importance to smallholder producers. Restrictive legislation on intellectual property rights in the area of seeds (UPOV 1991) poses an obstacle to this and ensures monopoly profits for corporations. Eighty to ninety percent of seeds is acquired outside the commercial seed market. This is a thorn in the flesh of seed corporations, which was why the “control of seed” was untenable for the EU and the USA. Ultimately, it was agreed to support the ability of smallholders to obtain, breed, produce, conserve, exchange, sell and use the seed that they need. With the addendum “in accordance with national and international laws”, the EU and the USA have made sure that the “harmonising” of seed legislation with UPOV 1991 is not undermined.

Zero hunger within planetary boundaries

Our success or failure in the transition to a fair, ecologically sustainable food system will depend on whether political decision-makers set clear global goals for combating global warming, the conservation of biodiversity, the improvement of soil fertility, the use of and access to land and water and further issues. Above all, however, transition is going to depend on measures at national and regional level. Secure access of smallholders to land, water, seed, extension services and local markets is just as fundamental as a shift of the agricultural concept from input-intensive agriculture to agriculture pursuing an ecosystems approach and remaining within the ecological planetary boundaries. Trade and investment agreements must not be an obstacle to these goals.

Marita Wiggerthale,
Agriculture and Trade Expert Oxfam Deutschland Berlin, Germany
m.wiggerthale(at)jpberlin.de