FAO Strategises for Partnerships

I have been meaning to post my analysis of the FAO’s new strategies for partnership with civil society organizations and  for partnerships with the private sector.

I have not had time to write it up but I think it is important to share the document. I am particularly interested in the definitions forwarded in the Strategy for Partnership with Civil Society Organizations (spoiler alert: the Civil Society Mechanism is defined as a social movement!?!)

I was also intrigued to find out that the IPC was consulting on this issue and received 50 submissions. Unfortunately, none of them seem to be available online and there is no record of consultation on the IPC website. I’ll give it a better look when I get more time.

In the mean time, here are the strategies for your reading pleasure.

FAO 2013 FAO Strategy for CSO Partnership fAO 2013 FAO Strategy for Private Partnership

FAO 2013 FAO Strategy for Private Partnership

Also, I think that its worth recalling the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food’s FAO mission while reading these: http://foodgovernance.com/2013/03/04/special-rapporteur-on-the-right-to-food-takes-stock-of-the-fao/ 

Whose Alliance? The G8 and the Emergence of a Global Corporate Regime for Agriculture

A new report by CIDSE and EAA has been released.

CIDSE and EAA are deeply concerned about the vision and approach of the G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in Africa which enshrines food security in a market orientation, rather than as a human right. We believe the initiative falls short of what is needed to eradicate hunger and could potentially undermine progress towards that end. This briefing outlines what we consider to be some of the major problems and risks with the New Alliance, as well as key recommendations. The analysis and recommendations are structured around three central themes: 1) Coherence, 2) Vision, and 3) Process.

You can download the report here.

Also, and related, Sophia Murphy recently published a good report on what sort of role the G20 should be playing around food security and agriculture and analysis translates quite well over to the G8.

In the report — “The G-20 and Food Security: What Is the Right Agenda? ” – Sophia  outline the positive ways that the  G-20 could address food security: by reforming certain problematic domestic policies (for instance, US and European biofuels mandates); by accepting greater transparency in the level and use of grain stocks; by improving the regulation of speculation on commodity futures markets; through progress shifting their agricultural production systems toward less-polluting models; and by accepting disciplines on the use of export restrictions and working with net-food importing developing countries to restore confidence in international trade.

You can download that report here.

Finally, a list of critiques about the New Alliance has been circulating on various listservs. I am not sure who to attribute it to but I am sending out a thank you to the person/people who have put it together.

================

Critiques of the New Alliance on Food Security and Nutrition

‘Letter from African Civil Society Critical of Foreign Investment in African Agriculture at G8 Summit’ (May 2012)
www.foodfirst.org/en/Challenge+to+Green+Revolution+for+Africa

‘The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition: Nothing New About Ignoring Africa’s Farmers’ (Eric Holt-Gimenez, May 2012)
www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/africa-food-security_b_1537279.html

‘G8 punts on food security… to private sector’ (Sophia Murphy, IATP, May 2012)
www.iatp.org/blog/201205/g-8-punts-on-food-security-%E2%80%A6-to-the-private-sector

‘G8 food security alliance answers question hungry people have not asked’ (Oxfam, May 2012)
www.oxfam.org/en/grow/pressroom/pressrelease/2012-05-18/g8-food-security-alliance-answers-question-hungry-people-have-not-

Privatizing the Governance of ‘Green Growth’ (Heinrich Böll Foundation, Nov 2012), especially pp. XV-XVI
www.boell.org/downloads/Alexander_Privatizing_Governance_of_Green_Growth_Version_2.pdf

The Hunger Games: How DFID support for agribusiness is fuelling poverty in Africa (War on Want, Dec 2012)
www.waronwant.org/attachments/The%20Hunger%20Games%202012.pdf

Structural Adjustment 2.0: G8 Initiative New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in Africa (Forum on Environment & Development working group on food and agriculture, Jan 2013)
www.forumue.de/fileadmin/userupload/AG_Landwirtschaft_Ernaehrung/Message_G8-Initiative_New_Alliance_16012013_Englisch.pdf

‘Tanzanian Civil Society Statement on Farmers’ Rights’ (March 2013) – pursuant to Tanzania’s accession to the UPOV 1991 intellectual property regime as part of its New Alliance cooperation framework
www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/UPOV-Tanzania-CSO-Statement-1.pdf

The G8 and Land Grabs in Africa (GRAIN, March 2013)
www.grain.org/article/entries/4663-the-g8-and-land-grabs-in-africa.pdf

Whose Alliance? The G8 and the Emergence of a Global Corporate Regime for Agriculture (CIDSE, April 2013)
www.cidse.org/index.php?option=com_k2&Itemid=195&id=266_7ebace07392a17595c1f53c276f42b24&lang=en&task=download&view=item

Who is in and who is out of the Committee on World Food Security?

Well, this is not the most exciting of posts but I have just reviewed the list of member Nations in the Committee on World Food Security from 2009 (when the CFS underwent its reform), 2010 (first year post-reform) and today.

Today there are 121 member Nations, down from 123 in 2009.

Between 2009 and 2010, Latvia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Togo left the CFS but many countries joined, bringing the number of member Nations up to 126.

New countries were:

  • Central African Republic
  • Democratic Republic of the Condo
  • Djibouti
  • Oman
  • The former Yugoslav
  • Republic of Macedonia

Other Countries that were involved in the reform but has since left the Committee:

  • Azerbaijan
  • Croatia
  • Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
  • Lithuania
  • Mauritius
  • Namibia
  • Niger
  • Republic of Moldova
  • Serbia
  • Tunisia

However, many countries, notably from across Africa, have joined or re-joined the CFS since 2009. These countries are:

  • Burundi
  • Chad
  • Israel
  • Lyberia
  • Lybia
  • Mauritania
  • Togo
  • Syrian Arab Republic

And in more bad news…Land concentration and land grabbing are occurring and reaching blatant levels in Europe

La Via Campesina has issued a new report on land concentration and grabbing in Europe.

Land concentration and land grabbing do not occur only in developing countries in the South ; in fact, both are underway in Europe today. A new report by European Coordination Via Campesina and Hands off the Land network shows that land grabbing and access to land are a critical issues today in Europe, and also reveals that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidy scheme and other policies is implicated in a variety of ways.

The report, involving 25 authors from 11 countries and titled Land concentration, land grabbing and people’s struggles in Europe, reveals the hidden scandal of how just three per cent of landowners have come to control half of all farmed land. This massive concentration of land ownership and wealth is on a par with Brazil, Colombia and Philippines.

 

Download the executive summary of the report and/or the whole report.

Politics of the Commons: “I don’t need it, but you can’t have it”

I am working on some edits for a paper I have written on the need for pastoralist-appropriate policies wherein I examine India’s dairy policy and consider some of the implications on pastoralist communities from data gathered through interviews I did this summer.

I was just reading a paper by Arun Agrawal called “I don’t need it, but you can’t have it: Politics on the Commons”  which is contained in a collection of papers from Gujarat and Rajasthan. I was really intrigued by the analysis and thought I would post it here so that

  1.  I will remember it; and,
  2.  others can chime in as there are some clear links to current debates on land grab, etc. 

In the paper, Agrawal accepts the main arguments advanced by scholars of common property but goes on to point out an oversight that permeates  much of their work:

Except for some notable exceptions, these theorists ignore local politics. The community institutions they describe seem to be harmonious ideals, untouched by such human frailties as are embodied in hierarchical structures, political machinations, and jealous behaviour. In ignoring the politics inherent in the formation and functioning of all institutions that allocate resources, and in championing the cause of community institutions, common property theorists have fallen prey to the same mistake committed by early neo-institutional writers… These early writers argued that more efficient (read private) property rights will come about as the value of a resource increases. They thus ignored the role of politics in creating institutions as well as in deterring the creation of new institutions. Many theorists of the commons similarly valorise the “little community” to the point wherein seems that life in these communities is untouched by political manoeuvres; that local populations know best; and that there would be no victims if only the state stopped intervening into local contexts. Such a view simplifies the complexity of interactions among different groups at the local level. By implication it pots the state against the local community, investing the state with a monolithic rationality, intentionality and structure. Worse, it sees the actions of local resource users as occurring primarily in reaction to external influences.

Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food takes stock of the FAO

The right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has the physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.  – General Comment 12 (CESCR)

The Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, has just released his report on his mission to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

YOU CAN READ IT HERE: SRRTF 2013 FAO Mission

In this blog post I provide a very broad summary of the report and then hone in on three key areas:

  1. the relationship between the FAO and the private sector;
  2. trade; and,
  3. areas of action.

For those of us following processes of global governance of food and agriculture, this report provides advice as to how we can begin to restructure policies to ensure that they target the most vulnerable and that they are developed, implemented and monitored in line with the guiding principles of a human rights framework.

Overview of the Mission to FAO

The Special Rapporteur normally visits countries on his missions, but institutions are within the scope of his mandate. Frankly, a mission to the FAO at this stage, while the FAO is under new leadership and undergoing reform, is appropriate and timely.

The objectives of the mission were to:

  • Take stock of the efforts of the FAO in promoting the right to food;
  • Explore how the right to food normative and analytical framework is integrated in to FAO policies and programmes;
  • Understand how integration of the right to food framework contributes to the attainment of the FAO’s core goals.

Towards this end, the report provides insight into how the human right to adequate food framework is integrated into the activities of the FAO and identifies areas where this normative and analytical framework can be used to strengthen the FAO’s contribution to the realization of the right to food.

The FAO has expressed a commitment to a rights-based approach. As the report explains, in their contribution to the Outcome Document of the Rio+20 Summit, the FAO identified two rights-based guidelines – the Right to Food Guidelines and the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure – as the “overarching frameworks for achieving food security and equitable sustainable development” (para. 18).

But uptake and integration of a right to food approach remains far from coherent across FAO’s policies and programmes. With nearly 1 billion people suffering from malnutrition, it is fundamental that the FAO break out of the institutional silos whereby “the right to food is primarily promoted through discrete projects carries out only by one part of the organization” (para. 19). Furthermore, the right to food needs to be “included as a cross-cutting area of work and the key components of its normative and analytic framework reflected in the action plans on the implementation of Strategic Objectives” (para. 22).

While the idea of rights can be complicated, what we are really talking about is the recognition of food as a legal entitlement, as opposed to a form of charity, or a hand out. As the report explains:

“legal entitlements protect the rights of people to live with dignity and ensure that all have either the resources required to produce enough food for themselves or purchasing power sufficient to procure food from the market. They place obligations on the State, and provide individuals and communities with recourse mechanisms when these obligations are not met” (para 8).

A right to food approach seeks to improve coordination across government, enhance accountability, collective learning, participation, inclusivity democracy and empowerment. It is the combination of agency of people, accountability on the part of the State, and a framework to hold governments accountable that make a right to food approach so powerful.

The report provides identifies countries where the right to food is integrated into national food and nutrition legal and policy frameworks (para. 15) and highlights countries and regions developing strategies for better incorporating the framework into their national programmes.

FAO and the Private Sector

In the report, the Special Rapporteur considers the partnerships between the FAO and the private sector and raises concerns that despite arguably legitimate objectives, there is a “lack of transparency over the conditions of deliberation, acceptance or finding of certain past partnerships and initiatives” (para. 54).

Given the increase in private sector interest in agriculture since the 2008 food price crisis, and the corresponding interest in activities of the FAO, the Special Rapporteur questions “whether the FAO will remain credible as a guardian of the public interest and as an impartial body when it intervenes to share global responses to food insecurity” (para. 54).

In line with this, the Special Rapporteur questions the contradiction between FAO supported reports and partnerships. For example, the IAASTD report, to which the FAO contributed to, calls for a fundamental shift in the way agriculture is supported. However, two years after the release of the report, the FAO signed a Letter of Agreement with the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), without reference to IAASTD, or the Right to Food Guidelines and without ensuring alignment between this cooperation and the conclusions of IAASTD (para. 33).

FAO and Trade

As part of the mission, the Special Rapporteur reviewed key FAO reports on trade negotiations and agriculture and noted that the conclusions of these reports are “unfortunately only partially and insufficiently reflected in the discourse promoted by the FAO at the global level, which does not systematically indicate the conditions under which trade can improve food security at the local, national and international levels” (para. 9).  The report requested that the FAO “express its views more clearly on the question of trade and food security; building not only on its experience with a wide range of situations at country level, but also on its past attempts to ensure food security is always prioritised in the organization of trade in agricultural commodities” (para. 9).

Towards Action

The report usefully provides strategies for addressing the challenge of mainstreaming the right to food with respect to the FAO Strategic Framework with the aim of not only improving coherence but also moving the FAO towards its objectives. The Special Rapporteur proposes three areas where change can be made along with specific actions that could be taken.

1)      Procedural requirements of the right to food can be more systematically integrated into FAO activities.

  1. HOW: Comparative assessments, data collection that captures the multi-dimensional nature of food insecurity that is adequately disaggregated; procedural requirements integrated into the decision-making and implementation process.

2)      FAO can consider measures to mainstream the right to food in the daily work of the Organization

  1. HOW: strengthen mechanisms and procedures to facilitate systematic integration of the right to food; promote the right to food across FAO with the support of dedicated staff; a network of senior-level focal points in technical units at headquarters and in regional and national offices to support the mainstreaming effort;  and strengthened Development Law Service of the Legal Office; develop a set of standard questions to be included on a systematic basis; strengthening monitoring systems to assess the impact of the FAO’s country-level programmes and policy assistance; establish an “impact assessment culture”; make senior and middle management accountable for mainstreaming right to food principles; ensure the work has a regular budget.

3)      The right to food calls for a more systematic consideration of agriculture and food policies that benefit the most marginalised, food-insecure population groups.

  1. HOW: Prioritize the most marginal segments of the population; make national food systems inclusive of poor small-scale food producers; support farmers’ seed systems, especially through local seed exchange systems; enhance access to nutritious food; limit excessive reliance on international trade in pursuit of food security; protect small-scale food producers from the abuse of buyer power in food chains; support social projection systems as a response to chronic-poverty related food insecurity.

Key Conclusions and Recommendations

The conclusions presented in the report are clear: “the right to food approach should permeate all core activities of the FAO, including food and agriculture policies, nutrition, land, and trade” (Para 21).

To summarise the conclusions and recommendations in one word it would be integration. If we subscribe to the evidence presented in the report, and in turn agree that a right to food framework can support the FAO in its objective of reducing hunger and malnutrition, it then follows that the framework needs to be integrated systematically across FAO policies and programmes, and by extension, FAO supported initiatives in member countries.

The report outlines why and how a right to adequate food normative and analytical framework can help the FAO reduce hunger and malnutrition around the world. Some are doing this well, others less so.

The Report concludes by stating that a more systematic application of the right to food as an operational tool can help the FAO improve its work towards the eradication of hunger and malnutrition. The Special rapporteur calls on the FAO and its members to fulfil their obligations to realise the right to food and to:

  •  Promote an integrated approach to implementing the right to food across FAO.
  •  Prioritise activities that have the largest impact on the food insecure and prioritise support to states on policies and programmes that are conducive to the right to food.
  • Mainstream the right to food across the FAO.
  • Integrate procedural requirements of the right to food consistently across FAO activities at the country and headquarter level.
  • Ensure all new FAO norms and standards are aligned with the human rights to adequate food normative framework.
  • Support the implementation of the right to food normative framework at the country and regional level through activities that integrated the right to food in legal, policy and institutional frameworks.

Final Thoughts

This report is a very important contribution to the changing architecture of global food security governance and provides a path towards greater cohesion and efficacy in FAO policy based not only in legal commitments but also on a growing body of evidence that highlights the efficacy of a right to food approach.

I am keen to engage in a discussion on the role of the environment within a broader rights-based approach. I know that Olivier De Schutter contributed to this conversation with his influential 2011 report Agroecology and the Right to Food, but I think that ecology needs to be at the core of policies moving forward and that it needs to be explicitly mentioned and not broadly assumed.

For those of you who want to know more,   I’ve posted some resources and links on the Right to Food here.

Nation-wide Mobilization around Right to Food in CANADA

MONTREAL, 22 February 2013 – As the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Olivier De Schutter prepares to deliver his report on Canada to the UN Council on Human Rights in Geneva on March 4, dozens of organizations across the country are mobilizing to engage in a dialogue with the UN expert about what needs to be done to respect to right to food in Canada and to take action locally and nationally. The list of events is rapidly growing and stretches from coast to coast to coast, including small towns and large cities in all provinces and territories.

Food Secure Canada is organizing the cross-Canada initiative in response to the overwhelming interest expressed by its members when the Special Rapporteur came to Canada last year.  Food Secure Canada has called upon the government to take the rapporteur’s recommendations seriously.

“Food is a human right that belongs to every one of us,” said Diana Bronson, Executive Director of Food Secure Canada. “Yet we know that more than 12% of Canadians – indigenous peoples, people in Northern and remote communities, those on social assistance and the working poor — amongst others –experience some form of food insecurity. This is an urgent, national problem that can and must be addressed.”

The national web-based Conversation between the Special rapporteur and civil society groups across the country will take place at noon (EST) on March 4 in English and March 5 in French.  Communities are gathering in food banks, universities, offices, town halls and other places to participate in the event.  The rapporteur will present his report, followed by a period of questions and comments from the audience, and most community events will then host a local discussion around what can be done to improve respect for food in their communities.

Follow us on Twitter @foodsecureCAN #Right2FoodCAN

-30-

To contact Food Secure Canada:  Diana Bronson, Executive Director, at 514 271-7352 or cell 514 629 9236 ordirector@foodsecurecanada.org.

To find out about local events, please consult this list. Most events are open to the media and the public but please check precise arrangements with local organizers.

Food Secure Canada is a national membership-based organization concerned with zero hunger, safe and healthy food and sustainable food systems. Its basic platform is explained in Resetting the Table: A People’s Food Policy for Canada.

Food Secure Canada – Sécurité Alimentaire Canada

info@foodsecurecanada.org

3720 avenue du Parc, suite 201
Montréal, QC H2X 2J1
Canada

Take the plunge: 2 PhD studentships investigating urban governance in an age of crisis and austerity

The Department of Politics and Public Policy at De Montfort University is delighted to announce two full PhD studentships investigating urban governance in an age of crisis and austerity, covering fees and stipend. The successful candidates will work with a team of internationally renowned researchers in critical governance and public policy. The studentships are an outstanding opportunity for two ambitious and talented graduates to contribute to our exciting research on crisis and austerity governance and join a thriving group of doctoral students.

The first studentship, with Professor Jonathan Davies, explores the challenge of Understanding and Transforming Crisis Governance. The successful candidate will research the changing forms and functions of governance at the state-civil society interface, under conditions of crisis and/or austerity.

The second studentship, with Professor Colin Copus, explores City leadership in Times of Austerity.  The research will focus on the processes, forms and structures local political leaders (and mayors) and chief executives develop to work with public and private bodies in tackling problems of economic regeneration and urban growth under austerity.

For further details of these scholarships please visit http://www.dmu.ac.uk/about-dmu/schools-and-departments/leicester-business-school/phd-studentships.aspx.  Applications are invited from UK and EU students who have a good MA/MSc degree, or are projected to achieve one.  The scholarships are available for up to three years full-time study starting October 2013 and provide a bursary of £13,770 pa in addition to university tuition fees.

To download an application pack, please visit the Graduate School Office website - http://www.dmu.ac.uk/research/graduate-school/phd-scholarships.aspx. Completed applications should be returned to researchstudents@dmu.ac.uk

Understanding and Transforming Crisis Governance (Professor Jonathan Davies) DMU Research Scholarships 2013 BAL FB1

City Leadership in Times of Austerity (Professor Colin Copus) DMU Research Scholarships 2013 BAL FB3

CLOSING DATE:  Friday 15th March 2013

Food Crisis Update: Main drivers of price volatility still not addressed

Here is a copy of Tim Wise and Sophia Murphy’s update to their influential article:  ”Resolving the food crisis: The need for decisive action

You can see it on the  Triple Crisis Blog (which is worth a read if you are not familiar with it).

Food Crisis Update: Main drivers of price volatility still not addressed

by Timothy A. Wise and Sophia Murphy

Triple Crisis Blog
February 12, 2013

Last year international food markets suffered their third price spike in five years. The trigger was a terrible drought in the United States—a major agricultural producer and exporter. An unstable climate met low levels of international grain reserves, while U.S. ethanol gobbled up maize supplies. The resulting high and volatile prices struck yet another blow at the world’s already fragile food systems.

This is exactly the scenario we warned of a year ago when we published “Resolving the Food Crisis,” a comprehensive assessment of the international community’s response to the global food price crisis. High and volatile food prices in international markets will continue until structural reforms to trade, finance and agriculture are put in place to address the real drivers of the food crisis.

It’s time for meaningful limits on financial speculation, reformed mandates for biofuels made from food crops, a system of internationally coordinated public food reserves, and strong regulation on land investments. Donors should continue to invest in developing country agriculture, respecting their commitment to recipient country leadership. If the private sector engages, it, too, must respect the rights of the people it engages with.

Here is our review of progress on these issues in 2012:

Funding for agricultural development: Instead of renewing their 2009 L’Aquila commitment to invest significant aid money in agriculture, the G-8 group of powerful nations rolled out the “New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition.” Most of the funding comes from private sector partners like Monsanto and Yara, a global fertilizer company. The aid comes with strings: To qualify, governments must, “refine policies in order to improve investment opportunities.”

Reforming biofuels policies: Developed countries improved their biofuel policies some, but the industry boom continued, still supported by government-mandated minimum use policies. The United States ended its tax credit and tariff on imported ethanol, but refused to waive the minimum use mandate for biofuels during the drought. The government even proposed raising the allowable percentage of ethanol in petrol from 10% to 15%. The European Union proposed to halve from 10% to 5% the amount of transportation fuel that can be sourced from food/feed crops, a valuable reform, but failed to impose a firm cap.

Regulating financial speculation on agricultural commodities: The United States and the European Union both introduced regulations to bring over-the-counter (OTC) trading on commodity futures markets onto regulated exchanges and to impose stricter “position limits” on the scale and scope of any one trader’s holdings. But the financial industry spent the year lobbying hard, and it successfully delayed and weakened approved reforms, in part through legal challenges. The E.U. is unlikely to implement the Market in Financial Instruments Directive before 2015.

Much more encouragingly, a Financial Transaction Tax will be implemented in 11 European countries, a bold and important step to raise needed revenues while reducing incentives for financial speculation.

Building public food reserves: World stocks-to-use levels remain dangerously low for major grains. Several G-20 countries remain hostile to public stockholding and have resisted international discussion of how to coordinate grain reserves. Meanwhile, many developing countries are rebuilding domestic food stocks. In West Africa, the initiative to create a regional emergency food reserve continues to take shape.

Stopping land grabs: Large-scale land acquisitions in developing countries continue at an alarming pace. The World Bank rejected Oxfam’s call for the Bank to support a moratorium on land deals. Yet global efforts to slow and regulate them made important progress in 2012. The U.N. Committee on World Food Security (CFS) adopted the Voluntary Guidelines on Land Tenure in May, while Tanzania has announced it will limit how much land foreign investors can acquire.

Addressing climate change: Drought and storms wreaked unusual havoc in 2012, reminding all of the reality of climate change. But global climate talks in Doha achieved little. The attempt to include agriculture in the formal negotiations stalled, and developing countries’ urgent plea for policies and funding to focus on adaptation went unheeded. More hopefully, climate negotiators approved a mechanism to address “loss and damage” from slow onset impacts of climate change.

None of these issues is insoluble, but change will require political commitment and international agreement. The U.S. and E.U. must agree on effective limits on financial speculation and reform their biofuel mandates. Governments everywhere need to look at how best to build and coordinate public food reserves and to enforce strong investment regulation. Public investment in agriculture remains vital, and all investment—public and private—must respect human rights.

The CFS is a source of hope. It has formal standing as the international body responsible for coordinating responses to the food crisis. Three years into its new mandate, it is off to an impressive start. This year it will take up the hot-button issues of biofuels, responsible agricultural investment, and investment in smallholder agriculture, all critical areas for reform. But it can only lead if the world’s economic and agricultural powerhouses let it. Let us hope this is the year they show the world they are serious about resolving the global food crisis.

For a more detailed look at these issues, see the author’s article, “Resolving the food crisis: The need for decisive action,” in Al Jazeera and the interview with them on The Real News Network. This article also appeared on IATP’s Think Forward Blog.