NGLS Roundup 86, January 2002

NGOs Prepare For The World Food Summit: Five Years Later

Originally scheduled to take place from 5 to 9 November 2001, the World Food Summit: five years later (WFS:fyl) will now be held at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome from 10-13 June 2002. The meeting will consider the progress achieved since the 1996 World Food Summit, and ways and means to accelerate the process of reducing the number of the world’s hungry.

1996 world food summit

During the 1996 World Food Summit, Heads of State or Government and high-level representatives from 185 countries and the European Community committed themselves “to achieving food security for all and to an on-going effort to eradicate hunger in all countries, with an immediate view to reducing the number of undernourished people to half their present level no later than 2015.” WFS:fyl will reaffirm the commitments made by world leaders to the Rome Declaration on World Food Security and the World Food Summit Plan of Action, adopted at the Summit.

Civil society played a prominent role in the World Food Summit. Non-governmental and civil society organizations (NGOs/CSOs) contributed to the World Food Summit documents and pre-Summit consultations. Some 500 national and international NGOs/CSOs attended the Summit itself, while a parallel NGO Forum brought together 1,300 NGO representatives from 80 countries. These events and activities have stimulated national, regional and global networking on food security issues throughout the follow-up of the World Food Summit.

world food summit: five years later

FAO's latest assessment of the global food security situation shows clearly the slow progress being made towards the reduction of hunger in the world. During the 1990s, the reduction in the number of undernourished people was six million people a year on average, compared to the 22 million people a year needed in order to meet the World Food Summit target, according to the latest figures from FAO's State of Food Insecurity in the World (see Go Between 88). FAO says it is all the more crucial that governments, with the support of NGOs/CSOs, take measures to accelerate the pace of change. “Only through the direct involvement of decision makers and those that lobby governments to effect urgent changes in policy, will it be possible to mobilize the necessary political will and ensure that vital decisions are taken by leaders in a position to influence policy at every level,” says FAO.

The four-day Summit in June will include a plenary debate as well as three Roundtables involving Heads of State and Government, and a multistakeholder dialogue in which civil society participants and other stakeholders will exchange experiences and views with government delegations.

The WFS:fyl will be preceded by the 28th Session of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), whose dates have been brought forward from September 2002 to 6-8 June 2002 to coincide with the Summit. The CFS will consider two documents related to the Summit—the Assessment of the World Food Security Situation and the Report on Progress in Implementing the World Food Summit Plan of Action.

The outcome documentation of the Summit is being considered by an Open-Ended Working Group, which submitted a draft proposal to the FAO Council at its 120th Session in June 2001. The CFS will reconvene the Working Group at its session in June 2002 and will forward the results of their work to the Summit. The negotiated outcome is expected to be a renewed declaration of commitment to the World Food Summit goals and to the actions that are required to achieve them.

Background Documents

Among the documents which are available for the WFS:fyl is a compilation document entitled The World Food Summit: five years later, Mobilizing the Political Will and Resources to Banish World Hunger. This is composed of three background documents on the themes of:

—Fostering the Political Will to Fight Hunger;

—Mobilizing Resources for Agriculture in Support of Food Security; and

—New Challenges to the Achievement of the World Food Summit Goal.

ngo/cso involvement

An international NGO/CSO Planning Committee (IPC), composed of around 25 NGOs and other CSOs representing a range of regional and thematic networks and major constituencies involved in food security and agricultural issues, met respectively in March, May and November 2001 to prepare civil society activities in the build-up to, and during, WFS:fyl. As the core NGO/CSO planning committee, the IPC is coordinating a series of national and regional consultations as well as the preparation of thematic case studies before the event.

The consultation and coordination structure set up by the Committee includes an international focal point who is also the coordinator of the Italian NGO host committee, a coordinator for the preparation of position papers and case studies, and regional focal points for Africa, Asia-Pacific, Near East; European Union and East and Central European countries, Latin America and North America. There are also constituency focal points for, among others, farmers, indigenous peoples, sustainable agriculture/food security NGOs, trade unions, international NGOs and youth organizations (see contact box).

____________________________________________________________________________________

“Food sovereignty is the means to eradicate hunger and malnutrition and to guarantee lasting and sustainable food security for all peoples. We define food sovereignty as the peoples' right to define their own policies and strategies for the sustainable production, distribution and consumption of food that guarantee the right to food for the entire population, on the basis of small and medium-sized production, respecting their own cultures and the diversity of peasant, fishing and indigenous forms of agricultural production, marketing and management of rural areas, in which women play a fundamental role.”

—Final Declaration of the World Forum on Food Sovereignty, Havana (Cuba), 7 September 2001

____________________________________________________________________________________

Priority Issues for NGOs/CSOs

In their preparatory work, NGOs and CSOs have focused on a number of what they consider to be key issues concerning WFS goals, and thematic background papers have been prepared on the following subjects:

—Food Sovereignty in the Era of Trade Liberalization: Are Multilateral Means Feasible?;

—Alternative Approaches to Food Production;

—Access to Land;

—The Right to Adequate Food; and

—Access to Genetic Resources: Sustaining Agricultural Biodiversity and the Free Flow of Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

At the same time, a draft position paper has been prepared to serve as the basis for NGO/CSO advocacy at WFS:fyl and which will be discussed and approved at the NGO Forum. It is based on three clusters of issues:

—Rights to food and resources (including issues of land rights and security of tenure, water, biodiversity, workers' rights, indigenous peoples' rights);

—Alternative agricultural models (including a critique of industrial models, presentation of existing alternative models, access to and choice of technology, GMO issues); and

—Food sovereignty (including issues of democracy and participation, countries'/peoples' right to determine their agricultural and food policies, trade issues, prices, dumping, food safety).

NGO/CSO documents can be accessed on the website of the NGO Forum: www.forumfoodsovereignty.org.

During WFS:fyl, a parallel NGO/CSO Forum will provide an opportunity for groups and organizations to discuss and debate the full range of food/hunger-related issues including the outcomes of the trade negotiations held at the Fourth Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Qatar in November 2001. Strategic dialogues between NGOs/CSOs and governments and representatives of other international organizations are also being organized by the NGO/CSO Forum. NGO/CSO activities around the WFS-fyl will be coordinated with efforts to put food security and sustainable agriculture issues high on the agenda of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg (South Africa) in August-September 2002.

Below are highlights of some of the key issues of concern to NGOs based on the material circulated at the November 2001 IPC meeting. Many of these relate to the concept of food sovereignty, which will be the overarching theme of the Rome 2002 NGO/CSO Forum.

Trade-Related Issues

In the NGO preparatory work thus far, trade-related issues have taken a prominent place in the regional and issue-based papers. Many civil society organizations involved in the process have defined food sovereignty as the right of people to choose their own food policy irrespective of international trade rules in this regard.

Much of the background work presented at the November 2001 IPC meeting will need to be re-assessed in the light of the outcome of the WTO's Ministerial Conference in Doha (Qatar).

Thus far, issues highlighted in the background papers concern the impact of trade liberalization in developing countries on the ability of small food producers to survive competition from the ensuing surge of imports. These policies result from both the implementation of structural adjustment programmes promoted by the international financial institutions (IFIs) over the last decade and a half, and the requirements to conform to the liberalization provisions under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. The negative impact of these policies on small developing country agricultural producers has been amply documented in a 14-country case study produced by the FAO (Agriculture, Trade and Food Security: Issues and Options in the WTO Negotiations from the Perspective of Developing Countries, Vol. II, Country Case Studies, FAO, 2000).

In order to address these concerns, a proposal by an important group of developing countries (currently on the table of the on-going negotiations on agriculture at the WTO) introduces the concept of a “Development Box” in the Agreement on Agriculture. In essence, a Development Box would exempt developing countries from having to conform to WTO provisions, if and when these provisions clash with policies (such as the introduction of new subsidies or tariff readjustments) designed to protect small farmers' livelihoods, rural employment and food security. Such a proposal is supported by a broad spectrum of NGOs. The current wording in the final WTO Ministerial Declaration adopted at Doha on special and differential treatment for developing countries in the context of agriculture is viewed by many as providing sufficient scope for meaningful inter-governmental discussions on this proposal in the near future (see box below).

The North-South asymmetries in the ability to compete are reflected in the heavily supported agricultural sectors of the major industrialized countries. Agricultural support in the rich-country members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development  (OECD) amount to nearly US$1 billion a day. One of the most contentious issues at the Doha Conference was the question of phasing out agricultural export subsidies, which isolated the European Union in the final stages of the negotiations (see Go Between 89). Meanwhile, IFIs continue to promote the reduction—or discourage the increase—of agricultural subsidies in developing countries as part of their lending policies, as was testified by the current head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) at the High Level Segment of the substantive session the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in July 2001 (see NGLS Roundup 77).

In a draft position paper submitted to the November 2001 IPC meeting, Steve Suppan of the US-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) examines this issue from another angle, one that concerns primarily agricultural dumping by the United States (through other forms of agricultural support than just subsidies, notably export credits and tax incentives). Mr. Suppan proposes to address these concerns by strengthening the WTO's anti-dumping clauses, which are widely recognized as hitherto ill-defined and weak. This could be achieved by way of a “full cost of production” formula that would allow exports that are below the full cost price to be subject to countervailing duties in an amount equal to the level of dumping.

Alternative Models to Food Production

However, for the NGOs preparing for WFS:fyl, the issues go further than stepping up productive capabilities in developing countries and “levelling the playing field” of North-South competition in agricultural products. It is the industrial (and heavily export-oriented) model of agricultural development itself that is called into question, on both social and ecological grounds, notably by the North-South movement of small agricultural producers, Via Campesina. One of the background papers for the IPC outlines the prospective benefits of agroecological development, building on the knowledge and existing agrosystems of small-scale farmers which, the authors say, face not only domestic difficulties in becoming economically viable (such as control by middlemen), but also unfair competition resulting from trade liberalization.

According to Jean Marc von der Weid, key author of the background paper entitled Alternative Approaches to Food Production, resources for agricultural development in the developing world, either from national governments or international cooperation, have dwindled continuously in the last five years. The report paper notes that “these shrinking resources have been mostly used to promote unsustainable development approaches, bringing the already critical situation of small farmers to an extremely serious point.”

The paper says that introducing agroecological techniques demands a more complex extension approach while suggesting that CSOs have found a participatory generation/ dissemination of technology approach to be the best solution. It also calls for appropriate policy support at a range of levels, as well as “external help and money.” Even though considerable global progress towards the recognition of the need for policies to support agroecology has been made, the paper suggests that very few countries have translated this into integrated policy frameworks, adding that sustainable agriculture policies remain at the margins.

The paper also cautions that governments and international research centres are supporting the use of GMO technology and accepting an increasing role of transnational companies (TNCs) as a solution for agriculture development.

____________________________________________________________________________________

“We agree that special and differential treatment for developing countries shall be an integral part of all elements of the negotiations and shall be embodied in the schedules of concessions and commitments and as appropriate in the rules and disciplines to be negotiated, so as to be operationally effective and to enable developing countries to effectively take account of their development needs, including food security and rural development. We take note of the non-trade concerns reflected in the negotiating proposals submitted by Members and confirm that non-trade concerns will be taken into account in the negotiations as provided for in the Agreement on Agriculture.”

—Ministerial Declaration at the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference, Doha (Qatar), 9-14 November 2001

____________________________________________________________________________________

Access to Land and Land Reform

A key issue prioritized by NGOs/CSOs is access to land and related questions of land reform and security of tenure. At the World Forum on Food Sovereignty held in Havana (Cuba) in September 2001 as part of civil society preparations for WFS:fyl, participants adopted a final declaration which states that “agrarian reform...should be recognized as an obligation of national governments, as this process is necessary within the framework of human rights and as an efficient public policy to combat poverty. These agrarian reform processes must be controlled by peasant organizations—including land rental markets—and must guarantee both individual and collective rights of producers over shared lands, and be articulated within coherent agricultural and trade policies.”

In a paper submitted to the November 2001 IPC meeting, Peter Rosset of the US-based Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy notes that equitable access to land and, where necessary, “the effective implementation of land reforms” are widely mentioned in the World Food Summit Programme of Action as essential means to fulfill the Summit commitments. Yet the follow-up and progress since 1996, according to Mr. Rosset, have been “disconcerting at best.” Overall, since 1996, “States have continued to preside over a set of trade, macro-economic and sectoral policies which have conspired to undercut the economic viability of peasant, small and family farmers, and cooperative/collective agriculture.” These policies, he says, have included trade liberalization, cutting price supports and subsidies for food producers, privatization of credit, excessive export promotion, patenting of crop genetic resources, and a bias in agricultural research toward expensive technologies like genetic engineering. Mr. Rosset argues that States, by and large, have “dragged their feet in implementing already existing land reform and land re-distribution policies, and have...resisted efforts—sometimes using force—by civil society organizations, such as the movements of the landless, to push the implementation of these policies.” Moreover, States have “stood by as land has increasingly been commercialized,” he says, “and watched passively as business interests—both agricultural (i.e. plantations) and non-agricultural (i.e. petroleum)—have encroached on communal and public lands, and territories of indigenous people.”

In contrast, Mr. Rosset outlines alternative land reform initiatives by civil society movements, which he calls “land reform from below.” He gives the example of the Landless Workers' Movement (MST) of Brazil, which since 1985 has been organizing landless workers to occupy idle lands, using a clause in the Brazilian Constitution to legalize their claims—although this goes with the risk of having to “defend themselves against the hired guards of the landowners and government security forces.” According to Mr. Rosset, today 250,000 families have won title to over 15 million acres of land through MST-led takeovers.

Citing studies by the Brazilian social and economic research centre IBASE, Mr. Rosset notes that legalizing MST-style land occupations is economically far more viable than resettlement of landless workers in urban areas. For instance, the cost of legalizing an occupied holding (including compensation to the former landowner, legal expenses and credit for the new farmers) is about twelve times less than the cost to the State of maintaining the same number of people in urban shanty towns, including the services and infrastructure they use.

“These movements are growing rapidly around the world,” Mr. Rosset argues, “from Honduras and Nicaragua to South Africa and Indonesia, and countless other countries....At a time when governments fail to live up to their commitments, these grassroots movements are showing the way toward an alternative future.”

The Right to Adequate Food

The right to adequate food is widely recognized as a fundamental human right firmly established in international law. This right flows from the Charter of the United Nations of 1945, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966. The Rome Declaration on World Food Security adopted at the 1996 Summit opens with the reaffirmation that it is “the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger.” Objective 7.4 of the World Food Summit Plan of Action calls for both clarifying the content of the right and giving “particular attention to implementation and full and progressive realization of this right as a means of achieving food security for all.”

According to Michael Windfuhr of Food Information and Action Network (FIAN), “never before did the right to adequate food get such a prominent place and recognition in the framework of FAO documents.” He notes that much work has been undertaken since 1996 to better clarify its content and identify new means for implementation. In cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the FAO held three expert consultations on the right to adequate food between 1997 and 2001. The first two contributed to the elaboration of General Comment No. 12 of the UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), which provides an authoritative legal interpretation of the rights related to food in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The third expert consultation focused on new means of implementation, including an “International Code of Conduct on the Right to Adequate Food.” The formulation of such a code had already been advocated by NGOs at the 1996 World Food Summit and is said to have made its way in the final text of the Programme of Action through a reference to “the possibility of formulating voluntary guidelines for food security for all.”

The idea of a Code of Conduct was widely supported by NGOs/CSOs at the 1996 Summit and was supported by a number of governments, notably from Europe and Latin America. Some NGOs were mandated by the 1996 NGO Forum to formulate such a Code of Conduct in the course of 1997. FIAN International coordinated the drafting in collaboration with the World Alliance for Nutrition and Human Rights (WANAHR). The proposal, which was revised through a consultation process (and now called a Sustainable Food Security Convention) states that “the intent of the Sustainable Food Security Convention is to elevate food security to the highest level of priority within international food policy.” Among other things, the Convention could exempt staples essential to domestic food security “from WTO rules and disciplines when said rules undermine national food security plans.” It would also “coordinate the creation and management of an international network of local, national and regional food reserves.” A draft Code of Conduct has been available since September 1997 and has been endorsed by more than 800 NGOs from around the world.

The draft International Code of Conduct on the Human Right to Adequate Food is divided into seven parts:

1. The nature of the Code, its scope of application and relationship with other international instruments.

2. The normative content of the right to adequate food.

3. Corresponding State obligations at national and international levels, responsibilities of international organizations and regulation of economic enterprises and other actors.

4. Responsibilities of civil society actors.

5. Means and methods of implementation.

6. A national framework for monitoring and recourse procedures.

7. International reporting and support mechanisms.

Agricultural Biodiversity and Genetic Resources

Food security, livelihoods and environmental sustainability are underpinned by the agricultural biodiversity and genetic resources that have been developed by farmers, livestock keepers and fisherfolk across the world and throughout history. However, according to a paper presented by Patrick Mulvany of the Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG), “animal breeds, plant varieties and the genetic resources they contain are being eroded at an alarming rate—more than 90% of crop varieties lost from farmers' fields in the past century.” International actions on genetic resources over the past five years, he says, “have rendered more or less ineffective the implementation of any of the activities concerning access to and the sustainable use of genetic resources agreed by governments in Commitment 3 (Sustainable Agriculture) of the Plan of Action of the 1996 World Food Summit.” According to Mr. Mulvany, such actions include:

—allowing the spread of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetic pollution, “despite agreeing to the Biosafety Protocol;”

—allowing on-going research into, patents on and licensing of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs), especially so-called “Terminator” technologies;

—promoting globalization of markets through WTO rules “that reduce local options for socially and environmentally sustainable production that sustains local diversity;”

—failing to implement a substantive review of Article 27.3 (b) of the WTO's Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement on life patents;

—tolerating “widespread patent abuse and biopiracy;” and

—allowing “unparalleled increase in corporate power in the life sciences industry.”

In contrast to these developments, Mr. Mulvany says that the revised International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (IU) adopted by the FAO on 3 November 2001 (see Go Between 89) “has the potential to be a prime example of responsible global governance, ensuring that those genetic resources that underpin social needs are maintained in the public domain….[The IU] will implement a ‘Multilateral System' of access to a list of food and fodder crops essential for food security and interdependence for those countries that sign the treaty. It will implement Farmers' Rights to access genetic resources, to use, save and sell seeds and participate in decision making—although these Rights will be subordinate to national laws. A governing body and a financial mechanism will ensure its operation.”

According to Mr. Mulvany, there are nevertheless a number of outstanding issues:

—Can these resources, if transformed or modified and included in new varieties, be patented without penalties? Civil society organizations (CSOs), he says, think the IU should keep these resources in the public domain.

—Will the IU be subordinate to the WTO and especially its TRIPs agreement? CSOs, he says, think it should have precedence over the WTO insofar as crops are concerned.

—What crops and forages will actually be included in the IU List? Mr. Mulvany says at present only 35 to 40 crops are included, while important crops—such as onion, garlic, palm oil, tomato and sugarcane—are missing from the treaty. Only 29 forages are included. CSOs, he says, think the list should be significantly longer.

preparatory process: national, regional AND global levels

Media and communication strategies are being implemented at the national, regional and global levels, including the preparation of videos which will bring the voices of farmers, women, workers and indigenous peoples' leaders to both the NGO Forum and to the Summit.

National Level

The International Committee has suggested that, at the national level NGOs/CSOs could:

—assess the hunger situation;

—assess government commitments and actions;

—assess foreign cooperation and other interventions;

—assess NGO/CSO commitment and actions; and

—highlight the need for action and provide policy proposals.

To achieve this, NGOs/CSOs are called on to mobilize traditional councils or assemblies; organize national meetings and debates as well as consultations with governments in connection with their official preparations for WFS:fyl; and inform public opinion and the media. Reports or position papers are being prepared at national level for use by government delegations to WFS:fyl, in many cases with the involvement of representatives of national NGOs and of civil society.

In many countries, the national Thematic Groups of the ACC Network, a UN follow-up mechanism for the World Food Summit, can provide a forum for civil society organizations to develop dialogue with member governments and to participate in preparations for WFS:fyl. Information on Thematic Group activities at the national and regional level can be found on the ACC Network website at www.accnetwork.net.

Regional Level

The FAO Regional Offices are facilitating NGO/CSO preparation for WFS:fyl at the regional level. FAO Regional Conferences are taking place in the first half of 2002 to address regional perspectives in the lead up to WFS:fyl. A series of regional NGO/CSO workshops were held during 2001, and reports of these meetings can be accessed on FAO's NGO/CSO website.

Regional NGO/CSO consultations are also being organized in conjunction with the series of FAO Regional Conferences in the run-up to WFS:fyl in early 2002. These consultations will provide an occasion for NGOs/CSOs to discuss and comment on the draft NGO/CSO position paper; to build dialogue with member governments; to feed in their comments regarding the draft Declaration to the Regional Conferences and the Committee on World Food Security (CFS); and to make recommendations regarding on-going cooperation with FAO.

The Regional Consultations are scheduled to take place just before the FAO Regional Conferences as follows:

—22nd FAO Regional Conference for Africa in Cairo (Egypt) 4-8 February 2002;

—26th FAO Regional Conference for the Near East in Tehran (Iran) 9-13 March 2002;

—27th FAO Regional Conference for Latin America and the Caribbean in Havana (Cuba) 22-26 April 2002;

—23rd FAO Regional Conference for Europe in Nicosia (Cyprus) 27-30 May 2002; and

—26th FAO Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific in Kathmandu (Nepal) 13-17 May 2002.

A draft political paper prepared by members of the IPC will be reviewed by NGOs/CSOs attending the various FAO regional conferences planned in the build-up to WSF:fyl, and will be subject to debate, revision, and adoption on the eve of the Summit.

Global Level

Broad NGO/CSO participation is expected at WFS:fyl. Some NGOs/CSOs will be included in national delegations. Others will be accredited in their own right. Ten NGO/CSO caucuses will have an opportunity to present their views to the Plenary sessions. In addition to the multistakeholder dialogue, NGOs/CSOs will have meeting space on the FAO premises.

Contacts

—FAO: Nora McKeon, Resources and Strategic Partnerships Unit, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, I-00100 Rome, Italy, telephone +39-06/5705 3852, fax +39-06/5705 5175, e-mail <TCDS-NGOs-CSOs@fao.org>, website (www.fao.org/tc/NGO)

International NGO/CSO Planning Committee

—International Focal Point: Antonio Onorati, Coordinator, Associazione ONG Italiane (Italian Host Committee), Via Angelo di Pietro 21, I-00165, Rome, Italy, telephone +39-06/3937 7764, fax +39-06/3937 7758, e-mail <ngoforum@libero.it> or <mc2535@mclink.it>, website (www.forumfoodsovereignty.org)

—Coordinator of case study preparation: Jean Marc Von der Weid, Assessoria e Serviços a Projetos em Agricultura Alternativa, Brazil, e-mail <aspta@alternex.com.br>

Regional NGO/CSO Focal Points

Africa

—Ndiogou Fall, Réseau des organisations paysannes et de producteurs agricoles de l'Afrique de l'Ouest, Senegal, e-mail <fongs@telecomplus.sn> or <cncr@cncr.org>

—Mercy Karanja, Kenya National Farmers Union, e-mail <knfu@arcc.or.ke>

—Elisabeth Atangana, Concertation Nationale des Organisations Paysannes du Cameroun, e-mail <FOCAOB@hotmail.com> or <CNOP-CAM2001@yahoo.fr>

Asia-Pacific

—Nathaniel Don Marquez, Asia NGO Coalition, Philippines, e-mail <angoc@angoc.ngo.ph>

—Biblap Halim, Institute for Motivating Self Employment, India, e-mail <bipimse@cal.vsnl.net.in>

—Sarojeni Rengan, Pesticides Action Network, Malaysia, e-mail <panap@panap.po.my>

Near East

—Fouad Chehat, AREA, Algeria, e-mail <area@wissal.dz>

—Sahar Salama, International Cooperative Alliance, Egypt, e-mail <ica@link.net>

—Taghi Farvar, Centre for Sustainable Development and Environment, Iran, e-mail <taghi@cenesta.org>

Europe (EU and East and Central Europe Countries)

—Daniel Van Der Steen, Liaison Committee of Development NGOs to the EU, Belgium, e-mail <daniel.vandersteen@csa-be.org>

—Annemarija Slabe, Institute for Sustainable Development, Slovenia, e-mail <anamarija.slabe@itr.si>

Latin America

—Alberto Ercilio Broch, Confederação Nacional dos Trabalhadores na Agricultura, Brazil, e-mail <alberto@contag.org.br>

—Rosaura Rodriguez, Unión estatal de organizaciones económicas y mujeres productoras de Guerrero, Mexico, e-mail <uestatal@hotmail.com>

—Francisco Menezes, Instituto Brasileiro de Análises Sociais e Econõmicas, Brazil, e-mail <fchico@ibase.br>

North America

—Stuart Clark, Co-Chair, Canadian Consultative Group on Food Security, e-mail <s_clark@foodgrainsbank.ca>

Major Constituency Group Focal Points

Farmers

—David King, IFAP, e-mail <david.king@ifap.org>

—Paul Nicholson, Via Campesina, e-mail <cpe@cpefarmers.org>

Indigenous Peoples

—Carol Kalafatic, International Indian Treaty Council, e-mail <iitcny@mindspring.com>

Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security

—Linda Elswick, Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Working Group/NGO SAFS Caucus, e-mail <ipsa@igc.org>

Trade Unions

—Peter Hurst, International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations, e-mail <peter.hurst@iuf.org>

Ad Hoc Group of International NGOs in Rome

—Francesca Ronchi-Proja, International Federation for Home Economics, e-mail <ronchi12@interfree.it>

Youth Organizations

—Marita Wiggerthale, MIJARC (International Movement of Catholic Agricultural and Rural Youth), e-mail <world@mijarc.org>

Thematic NGO/CSO Focal Points

Right to Food

—Michael Windfuhr, Food Information and Action Network, e-mail <windfuhr@fian.org>

Food Sovereignty

—Paul Nicholson, Via Campesina, e-mail <pnicholson@ehne.org>

—Steve Suppan, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, e-mail <ssuppan@iatp.org>

Agricultural Production Model

—Jean Marc von der Weid, Assessoria e Serviços a Projetos em Agricultura Alternativa, e-mail <aspta@alternex.com.br>

Access to Productive Resources

Genetic Resources:

—Henk Hobbelink, GRAIN, e-mail <henk@grain.org>

—Pat Mooney, Erosion, Technology and Concentration Group, e-mail <mooney@etcgroup.org>

—Patrick Mulvany, Intermediate Technology Development Group, e-mail <patrick_mulvany@compuserve.com>

Land

—Peter Rosset, Food First, e-mail <rosset@foodfirst.org>

Democracy and Civil Society Involvement

—Elena Mancusi-Materi, Society for International Development, e-mail <elenam@sidint.org>

This edition of NGLS Roundup was prepared by the United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS) in close cooperation with NGOs/CSOs involved in the preparatory process for WFS:fyl and with the FAO secretariat. The NGLS Roundup is produced for NGOs and others interested in the institutions, polic