Food Governance

MODERNISING AFRICAN AGRICULTURE: WHO BENEFITS?

foodgovernance — Thu, 23 May 2013 08:27:26 +0000

African groups have developed the statement below, to highlight the dangerous vision of the G8′s ”New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition”

On June 8th, UK Prime Minister David Cameron will host a Hunger Summit in London, where the New Alliance will announce their plans to end hunger in Africa, by way of the corporate sector. As part of this initiative, the New Alliance will require African countries to change their laws relating to land, seed and trade to open up to investment from corporations.

An alliance of African networks have drafted a statement that aims to challenge this privatisation of African agriculture by international corporations, and calls on the G8 and other international initiatives such as CAADP and AGRA to abandon this agenda for Africa.

The statement is open to sign-ons from individuals and organisations around the world: http://www.acbio.org.za/activist/index.php?m=u&f=dsp&petitionID=3

MODERNISING AFRICAN AGRICULTURE: WHO BENEFITS?

African agriculture is in need of support and investment. Many initiatives are flowing from the North, including the G8′s “New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in Africa” and the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). These initiatives are framed in terms of the African Union’s Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP). This gives them a cover of legitimacy.

But what is driving these investments, and who is set to benefit from them?

The current wave of investment emerges on the back of the gathering global crisis with financial, economic, food, energy and ecological dimensions. Africa is seen as underperforming and in control of valuable resources that capital seeks for profitable purposes. The World Bank and others tell us Africa has an abundance of available fertile land, and that Africa’s production structure is inefficient, based as it is on many small farms producing mainly for themselves and their neighbourhoodsⁱ.

Africa is seen as a possible new frontier to make profits, with an eye on land, food and biofuels in particular. The recent investment wave must be understood in the context of consolidation of a global food regimeⁱⁱdominated by large corporations in input supply (seed and agrochemicals) especially, but also increasingly in processing, storage, trading and distribution.

G8 and AGRA: a new wave of colonialism

Opening markets and creating space for multinationals to secure profits lie at the heart of the G8 and AGRA interventions. Both initiatives are built on the basis of public-private partnerships (PPPs) with the large multinational seed, fertiliser and agrochemical companies setting the agenda, and states and institutions (like the G8, World Bank and others) and philanthropic institutions (like AGRA and others) establishing the institutional and infrastructural mechanisms to realise this agenda.

Multinational corporations like Yara, Monsanto, Syngenta, Cargill and many others want secure markets for their products in Africa. In the first place, security means protection of their private ownership of knowledge in the form of intellectual property (IP) protection. Across Africa, so-called ‘harmonisation’ of laws and policies are underway to align African laws and systems with the interests of these multinationals.

Harmonisation of trade laws means opening borders across the continent to free trade. But this is a skewed free trade, one that favours the ‘formal sector’ of goods and services that have gone through approval and registration processes. Farmers and other producers of goods and services who cannot afford to enter the official approval system are marginalised and trading of their products is rendered illegal.

Private ownership of knowledge and material resources (for example, seed and genetic materials) means the flow of royalties out of Africa into the hands of multinational corporations. In some countries where laws protecting the interests of corporations are well established – for example in South Africa – multinationals have entirely occupied domestic seed and agrochemical sectors with profits flowing out of the country. The same is happening for agricultural services, trade, manufacturing and even selling of food.

The private companies are not acting on their own. They are using investment-friendly government policies and plans to advance their agenda.

CAADP and regional investment policies: facilitating ‘orderly’ processes of colonialism

There are many well-meaning organisations and individuals who view CAADP as an African-based investment plan. But Africa is not isolated from the world. CAADP emerged at the height of neo-liberalism globally in the early 2000s. African governments were mired in the consequences of decades of structural adjustment that saw the net outflow of financial and other resources from Africa to the rest of the world. The New Economic Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) was an initiative by selected African governments to integrate Africa into global flows of capital. The expectation was that profit-generating investment, and creating the conditions for protection of this investment, were Africa’s chance to catch up with the rest.

African governments, desperate for some financial relief, are willing to make whatever changes are necessary to bring capital into their countries. The multinationals are setting the terms: harmonisation, free trade and protection of private IP or no investment. It is therefore of little use calling for CAADP to be placed at the centre of investment plans. CAADP itself is a compromised instrument, calling for the very policies and programmes favoured by the multinationals.

Food security and corporate-driven investment in Africa

Harmonisation, free trade and the creation of institutions and infrastructure to facilitate multinational penetration into Africa are presented as the answer to food insecurity on the continent. Multinational corporations, African states, states outside Africa, philanthropic institutions, multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and even some non-government organisations are all part of this agenda. Surely so many organisations and people cannot be wrong?

The logic is that of the Green Revolution: introduce yield- and sales-enhancing technologies and systems, provide credit for producers to access these technologies, and anticipate increasing returns from sales to cover the increasing cost of inputs. Expand access to markets globally and regionally to absorb increased production.

This model can benefit some, as Green Revolutions in Asia and to a lesser extent in Latin America have shown. However, it also has negative social and ecological side effects. Green Revolution technologies benefit relatively few farmers, often at the expense of the majority. These technologies produce concentration of land ownership, increasing economies of scale (production has to be at a large scale to get into and stay in markets), and a declining number of food producing households in a context of limited other livelihood options.

Ecological concerns about Green Revolution technologies are rising to the top of the global agenda, especially loss of biodiversity when commercial hybrids and GM seed dominate (especially maize as a staple crop in Africa, and the introduction of soya as the basis of biofuels and commercial intercropping approaches), soil degradation and water pollution caused by excessive use of manufactured chemicals in synthetic fertilisers, and water shortages caused by wasteful water use in irrigation.

The Green Revolution produces uneven benefits, favouring farmers with financial resources of their own, with access to more land, and with some formal education. The majority of resource poor farmers are excluded from public support for agriculture, with infrastructure and institutional frameworks designed for the minority to benefit.

Currently African food security rests fundamentally on small-scale and localised production. The majority of the African population continue to rely on agriculture as an important, if not the main, source of income and livelihoods. In most sub-Saharan African countries, agriculture is the primary economic activity for between 50% and 90% of the populationⁱⁱⁱ. Even though there is growing urbanisation, the majority will continue to rely on agriculture for their livelihoods for decades to come. The rural population continues to grow in absolute terms even while the urban population grows as a proportion of the total population.

We know that all of these people will not benefit from these new investments. Seen as more inefficient than those producers who are in a position to adopt the new technologies, many will be forced out of agriculture to become passive consumers. Instead of building the broad base of producers, G8 and AGRA investments, supported by African government policies and resources, will narrow the base of producers.

The practical results of the recent surge in investment in African agriculture expose the empty rhetoric of African food security. Blatant land grabs are well known across the continent. Mega projects such as the ProSavanna project in northern Mozambique are displacing farmers from their lands and imposing large-scale production structures for export. Favourable investment terms (for example tax free zones and laws on repatriation of profits) undermine even the questionable benefits increased foreign exchange brings. Meanwhile actual farmers are separated from the land and the only realistic option for a livelihood. African governments and their investment ‘partners’ enable and implement these projects.

Alternatives

First and foremost, differentiated strategies are required, so that local and informal markets, proven low-input and ecologically sustainable agricultural techniques including intercropping, on-farm compost production, mixed farming systems (livestock, crops and trees), on-farm biofuel production and use, and intermediate processing and storage technologies are recognised and vigorously supported. The emphasis here is on individual and household food security first, with trade arising from surpluses beyond this. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) provides detailed and scientifically sound proposals in this regard.

Open access technologies are an essential principle, especially seed, where all recent technological advances are based on 10,000 years of collective experimentation and sharing. No-one and no corporations should be allowed to privatise the results of ongoing research. Companies can sell their new varieties, but once sold, they re-enter the common pool that anyone should be able to use and improve on at will.

Green Revolution technological development leads to an ever-increasing gap between conception and execution, that is between the knowledge that goes into producing a new seed variety and those who use the seed. An alternative, based on open source technologies, is a far closer working relationship between decentralised technicians and producers to define the research and development agenda (what traits are farmers looking for in specific locations, what crops are priorities for further development etc). Plant breeders are still able to make profits by selling new varieties to those who want to buy fresh seed, especially commercial farmers. But if farmers choose to reuse and adapt seed once they have bought it, that must be their right.

We therefore call on the G8, AGRA, CAADP and other similar institutions to:

Acknowledge variation amongst farmers and commit to providing appropriate, dedicated support to all food producers rather than only a thin commercial layer;
Abandon efforts to assert private ownership of germplasm, agricultural techniques and knowledge and to accept that these all emerge from a common pool
Invest in and facilitate open source technological development together with farmers;
Invest in ecological agriculture following the IAASTD proposals;
Development finance to be based on grants and public programmes not for profit;
Ensure smallholder women and men farmers are at the centre of any strategy for increasing investment in this sector. There should be recognition of the ongoing broad consultation of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) on Responsible Agricultural Investments (RAI). This process was the result of a decision of the CFS in 2011 following their rejection of the World Bank blueprint for Principles on Responsible Agricultural Investment in 2010.

For more information and to sign on: http://www.acbio.org.za/activist/index.php?m=u&f=dsp&petitionID=3

Networks:

Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), comprising of the following members: African Biodiversity network (ABN), Coalition for the Protection of African Genetic Heritage (COPAGEN), Comparing and Supporting Endogenous Development (COMPAS) Africa, Friends of the Earth- Africa, Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC), Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) Association, Eastern and Southern African Small Scale Farmers‟ Forum (ESAFF), La Via Campesina Africa, FAHAMU, World Neighbours, Network of Farmers’ and Agricultural Producers’ Organizations of West Africa (ROPPA), Community Knowledge Systems (CKS) and Plate forme Sous Régionale des Organisations Paysannes d’Afrique Centrale (PROPAC).
Tanzania Biodiversity Alliance comprising of: ACRA, ActionAid International Tanzania; African Biodiversity Network; African Centre for Biodiversity (South Africa) Bioland; BioRe; BioSustain; Community Water & Environmental Association; (COWEA); CVM/APA (Comunità Volontari per il Mondo / AIDS partnership with Africa); Envirocare; ESAFF; MVIWATA;PELUM; Sustainable Agriculture Tanzania; Swissaid; ANCERT; Tanzania Organic Agriculture Movement and Tushiriki.
Alliance for Agro-Ecology and Biodiversity, Zambia
People’s Dialogue
Rural Women’s Assembly

Organisations:

African Centre for Biosafety
Biowatch South Africa
Surplus People Project
JINUKUN, Benin
FoodMattersZimbabwe
Women and Resources, East and Southern Africa
Kasisi Agricultural Training Cetnre, Zambia
Trust for Community Training and Outreach, South Africa
Inades Formation

i World Bank 2009 “Awakening Africa’s sleeping giant: Prospects for commercial agriculture in Africa’s Guinea Savannah zone and beyond”, World Bank Agriculture and Rural Development Unit, Africa Regional Office

ii McMichael, P. 2009 “A food regime genealogy”, Journal of Peasant Studies, 36: 1, pp.139-169

iii World Bank, “World Databank”, http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx

Equality or bust for post-2015 global development goals

foodgovernance — Tue, 21 May 2013 10:45:10 +0000

For those of you interested in post-2015:

GENEVA (21 May 2013) – A group of United Nations human rights experts today called* for the post-2015 development agenda to be urgently refocused on equality, social protection and accountability. The statement came as UN Member States will discuss this week in New York how to shape a new set of global development goals.

“As we enter this crucial phase we must not forget the failures that have left nearly one billion hungry and poverty still rife. The rise of inequality has severely undermined the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals,” the independent experts said.

“Future goals must be sensitive to who benefits and at whose expense, and must go beyond blunt, aggregate targets that allow us to pick the ‘low-hanging fruit’ and ignore the most vulnerable groups, while leaving systemic injustices untouched,” they stressed.

The UN Open Working Group on the Sustainable Development Goals will meet from 22 to 24 May to discuss the contours of a set of post-2015 targets to succeed the Millennium Development Goals.

The experts called for the post-2015 agenda to include: stand-alone and cross-cutting goals for eliminating inequalities; a goal on the provision of social protection floors; and a double accountability mechanism to hold countries to account for their commitments at national and international level.

“Political commitments are a stepping stone towards the fulfilment of legally binding human rights, and should therefore be as universal and ambitious as possible,” they underscored.

Equality

“Development targets that pay no attention to which groups are being left behind are just like economic growth targets – they can be met without having any real impact on ensuring a more equal and just world,” the experts warned.

Inequality takes various forms, from income divides to unequal political access, and originates in a variety of factors, such as gender, ethnicity, disability, legal status, caste, skin color, language and economic status. The richest 1 per cent of the world’s population now own 40 per cent of global assets, with the bottom half holding just 1 per cent of global wealth. Meanwhile, over the past decades inequality has also risen within most countries, in nearly every region of the world.

“Inequality is self-reinforcing,” the experts said. “Inequality itself often triggers social problems that further marginalize groups that are left behind and neglected, while unequal access to wealth allows runaway resource use by the wealthy, leading to environmental degradation and climate change, whose impacts fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable.”

“Making equality a cross-cutting priority would mean every new goal will confront head on the systemic injustices that drive inequalities, from institutional discrimination against minority groups to uneven investments in social services in different regions of a country,” they noted.

Social Protection

The experts identified social protection as an indispensable part of the policy toolkit for tackling inequalities, to ensure that the post-2015 agenda leaves no group, community or region behind.

“As many as 80 per cent of families today have no access to social protection, despite clear evidence that social protection systems can contribute significantly to reducing poverty, creating social cohesion, realizing human rights and protecting people from shocks such as food price spikes,” the UN experts said.

“The right to social protection is absolute,” they emphasized, warning that the post-2015 agenda should not subsume social protection under employment goals. Rather, the creation of social protection floors should be a goal in itself, prioritising provision for the most disadvantaged and marginalised groups.

In their view, “the post-2015 agenda should link to the International Labour Organisation’s Recommendation 202 on social protection floors, and help establish a funding mechanism for supporting the establishment of developing countries’ social protection schemes.”

Accountability

As the first strand of a ‘double accountability mechanism,’ the UN experts urged States to establish independent monitoring bodies with civil society and public participation to ensure that the next round of commitments made at the global level are fulfilled.

“Progress should also be monitored on an international level by existing intergovernmental institutions in a process similar to the Universal Periodic Review system employed, since 2007, by the UN Human Rights Council,” they said.

The experts emphasised the importance of reliable, disaggregated data for setting and monitoring targets on inequality, social protection and other areas, highlighting the need to account for gender, age, disability and demographic factors (e.g. rural and urban, informal and formal settlements), as well as including criteria such as access to basic rights and services, in addition to income inequality.

(*) Check the full statement: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13341&LangID=E

ENDS

The experts: Verene SHEPHERD, Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent; Alfred de ZAYAS, Independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order; Magdalena SEPÚLVEDA, Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights; Olivier De SCHUTTER, Special Rapporteur on the right to food; Cephas LUMINA, Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights; Frank LA RUE, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Anand GROVER, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; Gabriela KNAUL, Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers; François CRÉPEAU, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; Pablo De GREIFF, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence; Puvan J. SELVANATHAN, Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises; Rashida MANJOO, Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences; Catarina de ALBUQUERQUE, Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation; Kamala CHANDRAKIRANA, Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice; Surya Prasad SUBEDI, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia.

What does it mean?

foodgovernance — Tue, 21 May 2013 10:26:59 +0000

Today’s post is all about confusion, contradiction and perspective. At times like this I think of a dear friend and colleague of mine. When we are in meetings and things stop making sense, we look at each other and quote Yosemitebear’s viral youtube video about a double rainbow: “what does it mean?”. To be fair, by this point we are 6 espressos in and working on very little sleep.

This morning I read Prof. Pablo A. Tittonell’s inaugural lecture upon taking up the position of Chair in Farming Systems Ecology at Wageningen University. The lecture was called “Towards ecological intensification of world agriculture” and argues that models of intensification promoted since the green revolution generation are obsolete.

” Agriculture needs knowledge-intensive management systems to improve food security and incomes in the South, and to reduce the dependence on external (fossil fuel) inputs in the North. The design of landscapes that support an ecologically intensive agriculture creates opportunities for synergies between food production and ecosystem services. Most importantly, this can contribute to detoxify our food and the environment.”

While the discourse of intensification in an ecological context is problematic, the ideas he presents seem sound. We need to put ecology at the core of agriculture and food policies. This is a big part of what people over at the Centre for Food Policy are working on with respect to Sustainable Diets (look out for Prof. Tim Lang’s new article in the Grocer this week).

Interestingly,

Professor Tittonell refers to the generally accepted calculation that between now and 2050 the world-wide demand for food will increase by 70%. He is firmly convinced that conventional agricultural production will be unable to meet the needs created by that increase, one reason being that the growth in use of nitrogen-containing fertilisers is gradually reaching its limits. However, Tittonell regards the exploitation of fossil energy as even more discouraging. His calculations demonstrate that feeding nine billion people solely from conventional agricultural production will cause the world’s oil reserves to be totally exhausted within about twelve years.

For Tittonell, the problem is not distribution but production. He argues the West needs to lower production and the global south should be supported to increase their production, acknowledging that the majority of food production and food producers live in these regions.

After reading that I headed over to Global Journal to read an article on The Future of Food that completely contradicted the previous piece:

Based on FAO data, the world produces enough food to feed the entire global population. The problem is this food does not reach everyone in the same way. According to prominent author, professor and activist, Raj Patel, the ratio of chronically hungry to overweight individuals is currently one billion to nearly two billion – a substantial increase from the figures of 800 million to one billion cited in the first edition of his influential book Stuffed and Starved upon its release in 2007.

The problem of distribution then, is critical. It is also fundamentally rooted in the logic of market capitalism: food is treated like any other commodity and is sold to the highest bidder.

Here the problem is cited as one of distribution and the commodification of food. Yes, this is a serious problem but I am leaning towards a re-visioning and focus on production. This is tricky as it will certainly affect food prices and farmers but the ecological imperative seems to win out in the long run.

This all links to the post I put up yesterday about a call to remove ourselves from the “fight against hunger” as it has become an effort to feed corporate interest. Chatting about this with one of my Professors, he noted that this was the argument made by Susan George in her 1976 book How the Other Half Die which was written in response to the 1974 World Food Summit. The book can now be downloaded for free from the Transnational Institute website.

In the book, George argues:

The reason why hunger exists on such a vast scale is because world food supplies are controlled by the rich and powerful for the wealthy consumer. The multinational agribusiness corporations, Western governments with their food ‘aid’ policies and supposedly neutral multilateral development organizations share responsibility for the fate of the undeveloped countries. Working with local elites, protected by the powerful West, the United States paves the way and is gradually imposing its control over the whole planet.

George paints a bleak picture, but things are arguably more extreme today than they were in 1974 in terms of corporate engagement and concentration of power (albeit with shifting geopolitics).

As David Cameron gears up to “unleash the power of the private sector” at the 2013 G8 Summit in Lough Erne, the G8′s New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition is focussing on private sector engagement in Africa as a means for improving food security. The focus on Africa is interesting in so far as the continent holds the majority of arable land left in the world.

We are back to square one.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Food policy research in a time of unprecedented challenges

foodgovernance — Mon, 20 May 2013 15:03:22 +0000

IFPRI have just released their strategy for 2013-2018. You can download it here: http://www.ifpri.org/publication/ifpri-strategy-2013-2018

The global food policy landscape is rapidly changing. Food prices are increasingly volatile. Rising incomes, urbanization, and changing dietary preferences are transforming food supply chains. Climate change and weather-related shocks are escalating. And the growing scarcity of water, energy, and land means that in order to feed a growing global population, agricultural and food systems must do more with less. As the world faces unprecedented challenges, IFPRI has developed a new strategy to address the most critical food policy issues.

The new strategy identifies six research areas focused on ensuring sustainable food production, promoting healthy food systems, improving markets and trade, transforming agriculture, building resilience, and strengthening institutions and governance. The important role of gender is addressed throughout these research areas. Specific priorities are articulated for each major region where the Institute conducts its research. This is particularly important as the Institute has increased its country presence significantly to support country-led agricultural and food security strategies. There is also a sharp focus on achieving impact, with the recognition that evidence-based policies can help achieve high returns on investment, particularly for policymakers operating with limited financial resources.

Legal pluralism in Madagascar: can customary and statutory law be reconciled to promote women’s land rights?

foodgovernance — Mon, 20 May 2013 14:55:26 +0000

For those of you following issues of land rights and gender, this ILC discussion for you!

Online discussion, 3-14 June 2013

Country focus: Madagascar
Topic: Legal pluralism

Introduction

Launched in 2010, the Gender and Land Rights Database (GLRD) was developed with civil society organizations, national statistics authorities, academics and other sources to highlight the major political, legal and cultural factors that influence the realization of women’s land rights throughout the world. The GLRD is a practical tool for policy makers and advocates of women’s land rights, providing relevant arguments and information to support processes aiming at more gender-equitable land tenure.

Expert and civil society contributions are essential to the proper functioning of the database as they help generate quality information to users. To this end, you are invited to take part in the on-line discussion that will be held through the Land Portal on 3-14 June 2013.

The subject of the discussion will be “Legal pluralism in Madagascar: can customary and statutory law be reconciled to promote women’s land rights?”.

As Madagascar is moving into Phase II of its tenure reform, it provides an interesting case study of how legal pluralism may restrict or promote women’s access to land.

Your contributions are expected to provide valuable input from the field that will feed relevant sections of the database. In particular, the discussion should help identify key initiatives in Madagascar that preserve and promote women’s land rights in the context of legal pluralism.

The discussion will be facilitated by experts from FAO, ILC, Landesa and the Observatoire du Foncier in Madagascar. The discussion will be run in French but we welcome contributions in English.Contributions in English will be synthesized and translated on a regular basis.

How can I contribute?
If you already have an account, log-in on the Land Portal and answer to one or more questions posed by the facilitators. If you are not a member yet, sign-up before posting your comments.

For more information on the Gender and Land Rights Database, please visit the website or contactNaomi.Kenney@fao.org or AnaPaula.DelaOCampos@fao.org

Reject the Fight Against Hunger?

foodgovernance — Mon, 20 May 2013 09:26:52 +0000

I read a very interesting article this morning by Gustavo Duch in LaJornada (if you read Spanish, you can read it here).

He concluded the article in a way that really resonated with me, especially as I gear up for a Policies Against Hunger conference in Berlin next month and for a meeting later this week about the G8′s New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition.

In the article he wrote:

We reject the fight against hunger. It has been converted into a way of feeding the agroindustries and financial speculators. We are against the hunger for profit and we are for the food sovereignty of African communities and the world.

This is a very interesting point and one I have reflected about a lot in the context of discussions around nutrition and food security.

Would like to hear your thoughts on this!

Global Land Forum forges international agreement on territorial development

foodgovernance — Fri, 17 May 2013 10:40:30 +0000

From the International Land Coalition:

Antigua Declaration outlines strong international commitment to land rights for indigenous peoples, human rights defenders and women

ROME, ITALY (17 May 2013)— As the global population continues to grow and the demand for food and the land to produce it on increase in lock step, the International Land Coalition brought together 273 people from 47 countries in Antigua, Guatemala from April 23-27 to discuss territorial governance and food security in the context of rapid urbanisation and shifting patterns of land use throughout the developing world.

This global event included extensive participation of the government of Guatemala, including a speech by President Otto Pérez Molina during the opening ceremony, in which he expressed a renewed commitment to the Integrated Rural Development Law.

The 36-year civil war suffered by Guatemala led to both the fragmentation and concentration of land. In response to these disturbing developments, the forum aimed to create a new platform for dialogue and consultation in Guatemala and to forge a more just and inclusive process for this country.

“Given the extent of commoditisation of farmland, transnational land transactions, severe land degradation, and the profound transformation of rural landscapes as a consequence, we have reached a critical period in which states must make genuine efforts to protect the rights of impoverished and vulnerable groups, in particular small-scale farmers and indigenous peoples, or increased conflict and instability may jeopardise the economic stability of countries, including Guatemala”, said Madiodio Niasse, Director of the International Land Coalition, based in Rome, which works for secure and equitable access to and control over land. “We hope that the discussion we have started will open a new era of dialogue and consultation to have better equity in the way this country addresses land issues.”

The Global Land Forum and Assembly of Members culminated in the approval of the Antigua Declaration by ILC members. The declaration recognises the need for land to be looked at not just as a productive asset, but to be valued for the various functions that it plays, including cultural, spiritual and ecological functions; it highlights that land is a means of establishing the dignity and inclusiveness of people. A notion of territorial development that reflects this multiplicity of functions was the first element of consensus of ILC members.

Importantly, the declaration recognises the commitment of the government of Guatemala to compensate the families evicted in the Polochic Valley in the name of agricultural investment.

Consensus was also achieved concerning the that idea that investment in land is indeed needed, but that models of investment should take into consideration the need to mobilise resources directly from smallholder farmers, as they are uniquely positioned to maintain the integrity of the land, taking into account territorial perspectives.

Moreover, noting the impact of increased commercial pressures on land, the territories most at risk are those of indigenous peoples. The rights of indigenous peoples to protect their land must be defended, as land is the source of cultural identity. Through the declaration, ILC members have made the commitment to support indigenous peoples more effectively in their struggle for territorial rights and the protection of their environments.

Other issues in focus during the forum including strong support for promoting women’s land rights and gender justice, denouncing all forms of human rights violations, the importance of environmental sustainability for achieving the Right to Food, and transparency and accountability in dealing with land issues.

In a re-affirmation of their commitment to promotion and supporting the operationalization of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Governance of Tenure and the Framework and Guidelines on Land Policy in Africa, ILC members also approved a proclamation on people-centred land governance as an annex to the Antigua Declaration, which outlines ten specific actions that are essential for furthering the pro-poor dimensions of these international norms.

“The realisation of the Global Land Forum has benefited both Guatemalan civil society and peasant organisations in Guatemala, enabling us to share learning on themes of agriculture and rural development, and serving as a bridge that allows us to communicate directly with the state, national government and private sector˝, said Helmer Velásquez, Director of ILC member CONGCOOP, representing the national organising committee.

“Securing land rights for all, especially for the rural poor, for the landless and for women is an unparalleled means to achieving redistributive justice, especially in agrarian economies. It helps mobilise investment from the bottom, increase agricultural outputs, boost trade, expand food processing capacities and accelerate the development of rural infrastructure, hence triggering a virtuous circle of growth, prosperity and equity in wealth distribution”, said Madiodio Niasse. “The results of the Global Land Forum, including the Antigua Declaration, will help to guide and transform the way ILC members, from grassroots organisations to intergovernmental agencies, treat these issues for years to come”.

The organization of the event was supported by a national organising committee composed by the Asociacion Comité de Desarrollo Campesino (CODECA), Comité Campesino del Altiplano (CCDA), Coordinacion de ONG y Cooperativas (CONGCOOP), Unión Verapacense de Organizaciones Campesinas (UVOC) and Oxfam-Guatemala.

Background
Every two years, ILC organises an international Forum to convene its members and other stakeholders on land to advance understanding of the complex and dynamic political, economic, environmental and societal linkages between land governance, food security, poverty and democracy. ILC’s ultimate objective is to mobilise its members and partners to influence land-related policy practice. In pursuit of this objective, the Coalition facilitates multi-stakeholder processes in the search for people-centred responses to land governance challenges.

The Antigua Declaration:
http://www.landcoalition.org/news/antigua-declaration-ilc-members

The Outcome Statement of the Global Land Forum:
http://www.landcoalition.org/news/global-land-forum-outcome-statement

The Global Land Forum on the International Land Coalition website:
http://www.landcoalition.org/aom2013

Photographs of the Global Land Forum:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/landcoalition/sets/72157633309385993/

Videos from the Global Land Forum and marketplace interviews:
http://www.youtube.com/user/LandCoalition

New publications on managing food price instability

foodgovernance — Wed, 15 May 2013 13:37:04 +0000

A new article and a book on managing food price instability has been published. The article “Managing Food Price Instability: Critical Assessment of the Dominant Doctrine” is forthcoming in Global Food Security. By examining the degree to which its underlying assumptions are confirmed, and the effects generated if they are not, it shows that the doctrine that has dominated both in academic and political circles since the late 1980s substantially underestimates (i) the magnitude of price instability generated by food markets, (ii) the degree to which farmers and consumers in developing countries are exposed to this instability, and (iii) the resulting effects on welfare (including macroeconomic and long-term consequences). Shifts from doctrine recommendations are therefore justified.

Download the article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2013.02.001(apparently available on line for free, for now)

The book “Managing Food Price Instability in Developing Countries. Critical Analysis of Strategies and Instruments” is published by AFD. Based on a comprehensive review of the theoretical and empirical literature, this book provides a critical evaluation of the different possible strategies for managing food price instability and calls into question the dominant doctrine. The second part of the book provides a detailed analysis of the different instruments that can be employed to implement the strategies.This book builds on the results of a study conducted by a European network of researchers. It benefited from the comments of international experts (a previous version of the first chapter was widely circulated in the form of a Working Paper) and it includes a preface by Peter Timmer and boxes written by Jonathan Coulter, Paul Dorosh, Johny Egg, Thom Jayne, Gerdien Meijerink, Gideon Onumah, Peter Timmer and many others.

Download the book:

http://www.afd.fr/webdav/site/afd/shared/PUBLICATIONS/RECHERCHE/Scientifiques/A-savoir/17-VA-A-Savoir.pdf

Food (In)Security Research Network: International and trans-disciplinary perspectives

foodgovernance — Tue, 14 May 2013 16:43:37 +0000

I am sure many of you students out there will be keen on attending this one-day conference which will be the starting point for a new multi-disciplinary postgraduate community where members come together to discuss important issues and ideas related to their research on food security.

WHAT: Food (In)Security Research Network: International and trans-disciplinary perspectives
WHEN: 16th October 2013, UN World Food Day
WHERE:University of Warwick, Coventry

World Food Day is a fitting day to discuss the international dimensions of food security, a complex topic that is highly affected by international trade regulations, the incorporation of food and agricultural within multilateral institutions, and international actors whose decisions have significant impacts. It is also increasingly elevated to the top of government agendas and the focus of scholarly inquiry; however it has not yet gained a foothold in IR.
Confirmed Speakers: Professor Liz Dowler (University of Warwick), Professor Wyn Grant (University of Warwick), and Dr. Stephen Biggs (University of East Anglia)

Abstract submission guidelines
Maximum 500 words. Abstracts can be for full papers, works in progress or posters. Please include brief details about the Author (e.g. Name, educational affiliation, email address, area of research).
The conference theme strongly supports proposals focusing on the international dimensions of food security; however proposals from various theoretical, methodological and disciplinary perspectives, and empirical papers/posters/presentations based on any regions of the world, such as Africa, Asia, the Americas and Europe are welcome.

Potential sub-themes include:
- The role of international actors and institutions in the global food and agricultural system, and in global food security
- Agrarian social movements and ground-up initiatives to ensure food security at local, national, regional and international levels
- The role of the state in promoting food security and its relationships with other stakeholders
- Green, organic, Geographical Indication and Fair Trade supply chains and markets
- The role of science, biotechnology and businesses
- Sustainable and conventional agriculture and food production, distribution and consumption
- Food security and/or food sovereignty
Selected postgraduate presenters may apply for partial travel reimbursement.
Please send abstracts and questions to Foodsecuritynet@warwick.ac.uk by 10 July 2013. Accepted proposals will be notified by 20 August 2013.

FAO Strategises for Partnerships

foodgovernance — Fri, 10 May 2013 11:44:25 +0000

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/