La Vía Campesina and the UN Committee on World Food Security

The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) will meet next week in Rome for its 43rd session.  It is thus rather good timing that a new paper on the CFS has just been published in the Review of International Studies. 

The paper, written by Josh Brem-Wilson, Research Fellow, Coventry University, is called “La Vía Campesina and the UN Committee on World Food Security: Affected publics and institutional dynamics in the nascent transnational public sphere

Continue reading La Vía Campesina and the UN Committee on World Food Security

Global food crisis brought lasting changes to the food people eat

precarious-lives

 

Last week, IDS and Oxfam released a new report: Precarious Lives: Food, Work and Care After the Global Food Crisis

The report found that the global food crisis of 2007-11 changed the relationship between the work people do and the food they eat. The report notes that the costs of these changed relationships have gone uncounted by global policymakers.

 

 

 

Continue reading Global food crisis brought lasting changes to the food people eat

Solutions for a Food Secure World: Special Issue

I am very please to announce that a special issue of the journal Solutions showcasing a diversity of solutions for future food security has just been uploaded online. The diverse range of solutions have been proposed by young thinkers from around the world.

Megan Bailey and I would like to thank everyone who worked hard to get this issue out!

contributors solutions.png

Here is the link to the issue and below you can find a list of the contributions! Happy Reading.

Editorial


Solutions for a Food Secure World by Jessica Duncan and Megan Bailey

Shifting Power Relations and Poor Practices in Land Deals through Participatory Action in Marracune, Mozambique by Helena Shilomboleni

Food Sovereignty in Rebellion: Decolonization, Autonomy, Gender Equity, and the Zapatista Solution by Levi Gahman

Perspectives

Valuing What Really Matters: A Look at Soil Currency by Randall Coleman

Decreasing Distance and Re-Valuing Local: How Place-Based Food Systems Can Foster Socio-Ecological Sustainability by Susanna E. Klassen

Reversing the Burden of Proof for Sustainable Aquaculture by Simon R. Bush

Alternative Foods as a Solution to Global Food Supply Catastrophes by Seth D. Baum, David C. Denkenberger, and Joshua M. Pearce

Black Soldier Fly: A Bio Tool for Converting Food Waste into Livestock Feed by Marwa Shumo

Features

The Importance of Hunting for Future Inuit Food Security by C. Hoover, S. Ostertag, C. Hornby, C. Parker, K. Hansen-Craik, L.L. Loseto, and T. Pearce

Crediting Farmers for Nutrient Stewardship: Using Carbon Markets to Create Positive Environmental Change by Elizabeth Hardee
Circular Solutions for Linear Problems: Principles for Sustainable Food Futures by Stefano Pascucci and Jessica Duncan

Transparency for Just Seafood Systems by Megan Bailey and Niklas Egels Zandén

Interview

India’s Pastoralist Communities: Solutions for Survival Monika Agarwal Interviewed by Jessica Duncan

Book Review

Cities at the Forefront of Future Food Solutions by Aniek Hebinck

Join the #CFS43 social media bootcamp!

A great opportunity to update your social media skills and to spread the word about the Committee on World Food Security

THE GFAR BLOG

Join our social reporters team and sharpen your online media skills Join our social reporters team and sharpen your online media skills

The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) and the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) are joining forces to extend the social media outreach for 43rd session of the CFS (#CFS43). #CFS43 will be held in Rome on 17-21 October 2016.

CFS is the foremost inclusive platform for all stakeholders to work together to ensure food security and nutrition for all. As well as the official #CFS43 session, “CFS week” also includes a wide range of side events on a variety of themes as well as other activities.

View original post 650 more words

Call for Papers – Reclaiming the political: Reflections on the tactics and strategies of actors in the quest for just and sustainable food governance

CfP Image

Abstract:

Food security is a “wicked” development problem which is deeply political and for which there is no single solution. Re-imagining how to reshape the existing governance arrangements that have facilitated a world where more than one billion people are obese, and almost another one billion are under-nourished at a time of increased resource scarcity and climate change, requires deliberate and committed politicization of related policies.

One challenge is that while development is inherently political the governance arrangements (formal and informal) that coordinate development practices are often organised in ways that have de-policising effects. More concretely, when it comes to food security governance trends towards multi-stakeholder platforms, data-driven indicators with related monitoring and evaluation frameworks, and consensus-based decision-making processes, serve to conceal relations of power and the agendas of particular actors in the name of consultation, technocracy, and democracy.

This panel invites papers that:

– Identify and analyse ways in which actors, especially civil society and social movements insert politics and issues of power into governance spaces;

– Reflect on similarities, differences and interconnections across the practices, tactics and strategies used by actors to politicise the space and to push for alternatives to the dominant food systems.

– Comment and advance theorizing on emerging trends across the debates of food governance and the potential of civil society to envisage alternative scenarios and affect the policy process.

For more information, and to submit an abstract click here

Call for papers is 21 March to 25 April, so submit soon!

#DSA2016

Global governance for ecologically integrated food security policy

Next week (March 22) I will be speaking in Paris at INRA for a workshop on Food Security and Democracy. The title of my talk is Global governance for ecologically integrated food security policies: Reflections on reflexive governance  but if all goes well in the next week, I plan to use the talk to present some of my thinking on justice in global governance. More specifically, when I say I want to understand how we can design governance arrangement to support pathways to just and sustainable food futures, how can we start to qualify “just”.

Programme:

10h30 – 12h, Jessica Duncan (Rural Sociology, Wageningen University), Global governance for ecologically integrated food security policies: Reflections on reflexive governance

13h30 – 15h, Delphine Thivet (CMH, EHESS, Paris), Politiques agricoles et droits des paysannes : retour sur l’émergence de la notion de “souveraineté alimentaire”

15h30 – 17h, Nora McKeon (Rome 3), Food Security Governance: empowering communities, regulating corporations

Where: AgroParisTech, Salle 30, 16 rue Claude Bernard, Paris 5e, Métro : Censier-Daubenton

Free entry but limited spaces available.

More info here: https://www6.paris.inra.fr/ritme/Projets-en-cours/SAGE/Seminaire/Seance-1

 

Podcast – civil society participation global governance of food security

The Perfect Storm scholars

As part of the perfect storm seminar series (see poster), Dr Jessica Duncan, Assistant Professor in Rural Sociology at Wageningen University (The Netherlands), gave a seminar about civil society participation in the global governance of food security on the 26th of January at the University of Edinburgh.

She kindly made the time to talk to me (Sara) about her seminar and research when she was in Edinburgh. You can find the result of this conversation in a podcast. Click HERE to listen to it.


Podcast structure

We talk about her seminar and research until around 24:40 min. From that point onwards we discuss the practical dynamics of undertaking empirical research in general, and specifically on global governance. At 30:00 min she shares her views on interdisciplinary research.


Podcast notes:

You can find out more about Jessica’s research in her latest book: Global Food Security Governance: Civil society engagement in the reformed Committee on…

View original post 233 more words

Where have all the sustainable tuna gone?

PhotoSkj (1)

By Megan Bailey

Where have all the sustainable tuna gone, long time passing?
Where have all the sustainable tuna gone, long time ago?
Where have all the sustainable tuna gone?
You have eaten them everyone.
Oh, when will you ever learn?
Oh, when will you ever learn?

Actually, it’s not entirely true. You have eaten them, surely. But actually, you have been eating mostly unsustainable tuna for a long time. So while there may still be some sustainable tuna out there to eat, likely it doesn’t find its way to your plate too often. We will explore why that is here.

In late October, Greenpeace and Hugh Fearnley-Wittingstall (for the non-UK crowd, read about him here) launched an art installation to protest tuna importer John West and its parent company Thai Union. In 2011, John West committed to sourcing 100% of its tuna from sustainable sources by 2016. When they stay sustainable, John West was referring to sourcing from pole and line fisheries and from free-school fisheries. Greenpeace reports that they have only sourced about 2% of their tuna sustainably, leaving a whopping 98% to address in the next year. Additionally, and perhaps of more importance in my opinion, Thai Union was implicated in a New York Times exposé on slavery at sea, and thus the art installation calls out John West on this issue as well. This naming and shaming is a form of market-based governance, a growing approach to promote environmental sustainability through use of the market as a governing institution that incentivizes behaviour outside of traditional government interventions.

A little about pole and line fishing: it dates back hundreds of years. A fairly recent NGO, the International Pole and Line Foundation, highlights the mantra One hook, One man, One fish. Check out some youtube videos of the fishery in action, it is amazing to watch. Unbaited hooks on long fiberglass or bamboo rods are used to bring in skipjack tuna, while some of the crew throw bait off the sides of the boat, a practice called chumming. Chumming brings skipjack tuna to the surface and they are easily snared and flung aboard. The Maldives, Solomon Islands, Indonesia and Japan all have sizeable pole and line fisheries. The Maldives fishery obtained certification by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) in 2012, arguably the biggest name in the seafood eco-labeling game. The sustainability gains for pole and line fishing are purported to be ecological (due to a selective fishery with zero non-target catch, and the reason for MSC certification) and social (due to high amounts of labour required). Personally, I agree with the latter and think the jury is still out on the former.

PhotoMaldives

Absolutely it is more selective than say a non-free school fishery (more on that next), but it is absolutely not the case that pole and line only catches skipjack tuna. One can find canned yellowfin tuna that is labeled pole and line caught, and in fact in the MSC certification documents it is recognized on page 20 that in the Maldives fishery, “the main by-catch species is yellowfin, which comprises about 10% of the total catch”. In this case, said yellowfin are indeed bycatch and are immature (i.e., juveniles, have not reached maturity). IPNLF also writes on their website “zero bycatch”. Perhaps when they say zero bycatch they mean only of non-tuna species? But the MSC report also mentions rainbow runners and other finfish that are retained in the pole and line fishery. So perhaps they mean only non-fish bycatch? This may not entirely be the fault of IPNLF. As another leading tuna foundation (International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, ISSF) states, “It
 is
 important
 to
 always
 define 
how the term is being used in a given context. Otherwise, people who cite a bycatch of x% in this fishery and a bycatch of y% in that fishery, too often
 end 
up
 mixing
apples
 and oranges because each study may be using the term “bycatch” to mean a different thing.” But NGOs communicating about sustainability, and requiring sustainable sourcing commitments from their partners, need to be transparent and realistic about what sustainability gains are in fact reachable.

But I digress. This post is about John West sourcing sustainably from pole and line and free-school fisheries. What about that second part then, what are free-school fisheries? Most of the global tuna catch (about 60%) comes from the purse seine fishery, whereby a large net is cast around a school of tuna, closed at the bottom, and the school slowly hauled in to be offloaded onto a boat. Purse seine boats have a couple of choices when they do this. They can either set their net around a school that is associated with a floating object (which can be anything from a drifting log to a large man-made structure called a fish aggregating device or FAD), or they can set it on a free-school. About 65% of the total global purse seine catch was made on floating objects in 2014. So what? Floating objects attract schools of tropical tuna, as well as other fish and marine life like rainbow runners, dolphinfish (a fish, not a dolphin…), sharks and rays, and sea turtles. PEW Charitable Trusts has a short video of how FAD fishing works. FAD fishing is thought to be a less-sustainable form of tuna fishing than free-school fishing and pole and line fishing because of the high catch of non-target species, and is specifically villanized for its catch of immature yellowfin and bigeye tuna (although as we just read, pole and line also catches immature yellowfin). Notably, if we combine the numbers above, purse seine fisheries setting on FADs make up 40% of all tuna caught, traded and consumed. Additional to that is the fact that pole and line and handline fisheries also catch fish on FADs, so demonizing FADs is a blanket way of demonizing the majority of tuna catches worldwide.

The point of all is this is just that expecting to have your sustainable tuna and eat it too might not be possible. There just isn’t enough sustainable tuna on the market. And actually, it might be disingenuous of NGOs to name and shame companies into making sustainable sourcing commitments that they will absolutely never be able to keep. Rather it needs to be a conversation. Do you want to sell (insert eat here if you are a consumer) tuna? If so, you have choices. You can commit to sourcing only sustainable tuna (but I’m still not convinced what that is…) and drop your supply by half. Or you can acknowledge, as John West has been forced to do here, that in fact the methods by which you wanted to source will not allow you to meet the demand that you have for tuna, and you need to make a revised and more credible sourcing commitment.

For starters, how about committing to slave-free tuna, also demanded of John West by Greenpeace? That commitment ought to be easy to meet, right? Actually, not likely, but more on that in a future post. In the meantime, it’s time for consumers, civil society and the seafood industry to (wo)man up. Sourcing and eating only sustainable seafood is hard. It can be done, but it will require sacrifice and putting your money where your mouth is. Statistically speaking, the fish and seafood you eat is probably not sustainable, because the majority of the world’s fisheries are not managed in a sustainable way, are not operating on healthy stocks, do not employ labour rights or standards in their operations, and are not transparent in communicating practices to regulators and consumers. Sustainability means having fish in the future oceans and having fish harvesters exploiting said fish. If honest conversations and transparent credible commitments are not forthcoming, the next song we sing won’t just be about the missing sustainable fish, but the missing fish harvester too.

Where have all the fish harvesters gone, long time passing?

PhtosMeg

The UN’s most inclusive body at a crossroads

By Matheus Alves Zanella and Jessica Duncan

Posted also at http://globalsoilweek.org/areas-of-work/sustainable-development-goals/the-uns-most-inclusive-body-at-a-crossroads 

The world food price crisis of 2007/08 shook global food governance. Pressured to find solutions for unexpected prices increase of several food products, many initiatives were launched at the global level.  One of those was the reform of the United Nation’s Committee on World Food Security (CFS), who transformed itself from “the most boring UN body of all” – in the words of an experienced diplomat based in Rome – to the foremost inclusive international and intergovernmental platform for food security, with substantive participation of different actors including member states, civil society and private sector.

That was 2009 and there was a general sense of urgency in addressing claims that over 1 billion people were going hungry worldwide. The reformed CFS was well positioned in this debate, by giving voice to all actors, notably those most affected by food insecurity, and transitioning from an inactive talk-shop to a leading intergovernmental body. Through the Committee, member States were able to endorse key policy documents on two major food security issues: land tenure (the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Tenure of Land Fisheries and Forest in the Context of National Food Security – VGGT) and investments (Principles for Responsible Investments in Agriculture and Food Systems – CFS-RAI).

Now, five years after the reform, the CFS just had its 42nd Plenary last week and we, as well as many other participants, sensed a change in the air. First, the initial ambition of the CFS seems to be fading away, and it appears as though the CFS is now entering a phase characterized by a lack of clarity on the future relevance of its decisions. Second, members continue to disagree about which direction the CFS should take – illustrated by relatively weak decision on Monitoring and Evaluation and the mild debates on the positioning of the CFS vis-à-vis the new development agenda launched by the approval of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The decision will not see the CFS featuring prominently in the SDG agenda for another two years, as some have expected. Third, the multi-stakeholder format of the reformed CFS is being put into question, as demonstrated by one very important intervention of the Civil Society Mechanism (CSM) in the closing session of the CFS plenary.

It is up to debate whether the CFS is losing influence or importance, or whether it had much to begin with. Considering that undermining one of the most inclusive UN bodies would consequently further open the door to less-inclusive governance mechanism to occupy its space, we prefer to see a strong and active CFS for years to come. In order to remain relevant, the CFS could avoid two major risks:

  1. Shifting back to the Committee’s pre-reform role of only monitoring international commitments, and
  2. Failing to address controversial topics, such as agroecology or bioenergy, as its strength is based on forging consensus such as those achieved on land tenure and on investment.

In what follows we provide some initial reflections on how the CFS currently finds itself at a crossroads.

Continue reading The UN’s most inclusive body at a crossroads