Speakers'Corner

World Food Summit: five years later (WFS:fyl)
A tripartite view
-An update on SCN News 23

On 10-13 June 2002 in Rome, FAO hosted the WFS:fyl, a follow-up summit to the 1996 World Food Summit. The Declaration for the WFS:fyl can be viewed in its entirety at http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/MEETING/004/Y6948E. HTM. The features section of SCN News 23 focused on the progress made leading up to the WFS:fyl. Here three members of the SCN share some of their perspectives on the outcomes of the summit and the next steps needed.

WFS: fyl - Reflections from a Bilateral Delegate

After a decade of summits we are now in a rush of follow-up meetings, such as the UN General Assembly Special Session on Children, WFS: fyl, and Rio+10 later this year in Johannesburg. An outcome of another follow-up meeting, the Millennium Summit in 2000, was the Millennium Roadmap. One can say that it was based upon all the summits and big conferences of the past decade - meaning nothing new. The Millennium Roadmap basically reiterates the goals and objectives of these meetings and summits, and in fact has somewhat lower ambitions than several of them. The semantics (and ambitions) have been changed from eradicating extreme poverty and hunger to reducing substantially or reducing by half. Other issues mentioned included poverty, education, hunger, infant and maternal mortality, water, rule of law, human rights and freedoms, democracy and good governance, equality, solidarity, tolerance, HIV/AIDS, peace, security and disarmament.

With so many meetings and summits, politically correct words, goals and objectives that have not been achieved and the painfully slow progress in poor countries, it is easy to become cynical. Concurrently there is growing global wealth and awareness about the problems and solutions needed to help the poor. Words such as 'window dressing', 'lack of political will', 'lies', 'greed', 'dishonesty', 'bluff' and 'political acrobatics' can be heard from disillusioned individuals. It is in the context of these new events and mounting criticism that WFS: fyl was held. The rationale for the WFS: fyl was exactly the slow improvement, and in fact, the worsening situation in Sub-Saharan Africa since 1996. Key issues in various FAO discussions the last years have been fostering political will and generating resources for the poorest.

In the preparatory process for the WFS: fyl (which was short and limited) it was agreed by all countries during the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) 27th session in May 2001 that the Declaration and the Plan of Action of the World Food Summit of 1996 should be reaffirmed, but not opened for new negotiations unless there were new developments. An Open Ended Working Group with the mandate of negotiating a draft Declaration was established. This working group had a draft Declaration ready by June 2001, with WFS: fyl to be held in November of the same year. September 11 changed all that, and the Summit was postponed until June 2002.

In June 2002 in Rome, there were two different but closely related events that influenced the outcomes of the summit. First, the negotiations of the Open Ended Working Group led to an apparent agreement on many issues formulated in paragraphs without brackets, but left at the same time a number of issues in brackets that were not agreed upon. It was a common understanding that the negotiations should focus on those paragraphs and not bring in new issues. The Norwegian Delegation was therefore quite surprised when suggestions for changes were introduced in the Open Ended Working Group at the 28th session of the CFS. In particular, it was the rich countries that had many additions to almost all of the paragraphs of the Draft Declaration, and suggested additional new paragraphs. The mandate of the delegation I belonged to was to strengthen, or at least safeguard, the issues agreed to in the WFS Declaration and Plan of Action in fighting against poverty and strengthening food security work. Our main concern was to ensure food as a human right and as an important development tool for food security. Preferably this would be done by developing a code of conduct on the right to adequate food.

The negotiations were arduous. Issues that several of the rich countries opposed in the final WFS:fyl Declaration included food as a human right, code of conduct, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, any negative comment to genetically modified organisms (GMO), biological diversity, precautionary principle, multifunctional character of agriculture, and any negative comments about trade. Food as a human right turned out to be the most difficult and was the last issue to be resolved, with negotiations finishing in the early morning hours. Given the fierce opposition from many powerful countries, it is amazing that we were able to get paragraph 10 in the Declaration. The aim of many countries, including the G 77 (a group of developing countries throughout the world), Norway and Switzerland, was to have a similar paragraph mentioning a code of conduct for the right to adequate food. This was not possible and the compromise was to develop guidelines for the right to adequate food. Personally I think that we should be quite satisfied with the result on this particular point given the strong opposition from very influential countries. The process that was initiated by the work of Objective 7.4 of the WFS Plan of Action in 1996 and the fulfilment of this by the development of the General Comment 12¹ on the Right to Adequate Food as reported by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, in her report to the WFS: fyl, can now be continued.

¹ E/C.12/1999/5, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 20th Session, Geneva, 26 April-14 May 1999.

Second, the location of the parallel NGO forum was unfortunate. Only one event each day of the NGO forum was located in the FAO building, while for participating in other events one had to move downtown. For a person taking part in an official delegation this was not possible. Several of the other side events gave a more vivid experience than the long and often tedious presentations in the plenary by heads of state or ministers from member countries (it should be mentioned that several of the presentation were both interesting and impressive). Side events worth mentioning include the Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue, the Anti-Hunger Programme, FAO helping the Hungry in Case of Crisis: The Emergency Programme, Rural Women: Crucial Partners in the Fight Against Hunger and Poverty, and the Right to Food. In these parallel events several NGOs participated. This was important because NGO presence raised several critical issues, brought real life aspects into discussions, and acknowledgement for well-designed interventions, which is uncommon in diplomatic circles. We need a stronger involvement and presence of NGOs in all UN fora where the direction for the future work to achieve the WFS and Millenium goals is discussed.

In the Millenium Declaration the Government representatives agreed that 'we will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing condition of extreme poverty', which is seen as both the cause and affect of hunger and malnutrition. Professor Jeffrey Sachs during the Anti-Hunger Programme side-event stated, in his charismatic way, that this time the world has decided not to tolerate this suffering (of extreme poverty and hunger), and he repeated this in his intervention at a World Bank research conference hosted by the Norwegian Government just one week after the WFS: fyl. I hope this reflects a new momentum and drive in the rich as well as the poor countries so that the WFS goals and objective can be achieved. What worries me is that the statements from the Millenium Declaration and Professor Sachs sound like an echo from the World Food Conference in 1974 - a conference which to many represents broken promises. For the moment I choose to remain optimistic.

Arne Oshaug, member of the Norwegian Delegation to WFS:fyl: This note is personal and should not be seen as reflecting the opinion of the Norwegian Government. arne.oshaug@basalmed.uio.no

No more of the same remedy - Reflections from an NGO

The Civil Society Global Forum on Food Sovereignty - held in parallel to the WFS: fyl - was very clear in its message. The failure of the WFS Plan of Action to achieve its proposed goals was not due to lack of political will or resources. In reality it was a reflection of the strong political will of governments and international finance and trade institutions in implementing a trade liberalization lead development paradigm. The outcry of civil society was: ' No more of the same remedy'. Civil society dismay was even greater in face of the WFS: fyl Declaration that did not add anything new to the scenario. In fact, it watered down the move towards the elaboration of an International Code of Conduct on the Human Right to Food into a mere set of voluntary guidelines, under pressure of the US and UK governments. It also strengthened inter-governmental commitment towards genetic engineering research, giving more room for increased pressure from the private sector to liberalize the utilization of GMO food.

FAO lost one more opportunity to effectively transform the World Food Security Committee (CFS) into a UN forum to discuss integrated policies towards the food and nutritional security of the peoples of the world. During the preparation for the summit, the CFS and the final Declaration were kept within the narrow borders of agricultural issues, totally avoiding the discussion of nutrition and other themes relevant to the effective implementation of food and nutritional security for all.

On the other hand, the Civil Society Forum on Food Sovereignty produced a Plan of Action including close to 180 proposed initiatives, clustered around four thematic areas: the human right to food, access to productive resources (water, land, genetic resources and credit), sustainable agricultural production and agroecology, and trade and food sovereignty.

Among those, the Forum identified strategic priorities to be promoted by civil society movements and organizations throughout the world: to defend the concept of food sovereignty and the elaboration of an International Convention on it, to withdraw WTO from the negotiation of the International Agricultural Agreement, to defend a full blown moratorium on GMO foods, and to oppose patents on life.

Civil society's positions reflect the total bankruptcy of the World Food Summit, the CFS and FAO as legitimate fora in which to discuss food and nutritional security. The progressive strengthening of International Trade and Finance Organizations, allied with the growth of unilateral political and military actions and the weakening of the UN bodies and instruments, have lead civil society movement to regroup against those main threats to the sustainability of humankind.

The incipient results of Monterrey, of the WFS: fyl, and the lack of transparency and opportunity for effective participation in WTO meetings, are leading to a severe questioning of the legitimacy of international conferences and summits. Civil society sees itself caught in a fit of 'Stockholm Syndrome' in the labyrinth of summit sites.

At the same time, the enormous impact of the international macroeconomic initiatives on national and local capacity to overcome food and nutritional security issues question the value of dedicating energy and time to discuss small scale local initiatives, which are seen as tokenism.

What civil society identifies is the increasing arrogance, unilateralism and lack of commitment of the rich and powerful countries to face the structural roots of hunger and poverty. Only two out of the 29 OECD heads of state were present at the WFS: fyl. The unwillingness to discuss and to strengthen multilateral instruments go hand in hand with the criminalization of the social movements and the option for military answers to those that oppose the growing world social crisis.

We understand the relevance of the demands placed on the WFS: fyl by the Global Forum on Food Sovereignty. However, the process towards the promotion of nutrition and of the Human Right to Food for all will not be guaranteed by Food Sovereignty alone. Effective national integrated strategies are necessary to achieve that, and people are today in need of those if they are to survive and have productive lives. A balance among the two civil society strategies must be reached. Neither local isolated well-conceived nutrition interventions, nor radical macroeconomic paradigm changes, will be capable by themselves of promoting the human right to nutrition for all.

This highlights even more the need for a stronger participation of civil society organizations and social movements working with nutrition related and development issues both in urban and rural areas. Stronger partnership should also be sought with the work of the SCN, and its member agencies and governments. It is fundamental to break the narrow limits of the discussion of food security and food sovereignty as mere productive and economic issues. Trade, agriculture, finance and development must be seen as instruments to promote quality of life for all. For this a much broader coalition will be necessary.

The SCN, with its tripartite composition, and by placing people s nutrition and quality of life at the center of the political agenda, could take on a relevant role in catalyzing this process and in helping to bring governments, civil society and international institutions together to identify strategies to promote people-centred human development.

Flavio Luiz Schieck Valente, MD, MPH, Ação Brasileira pela Nu-trição e Direitos Humanos and Focal Point for Latin America and the Caribbean, WANAHR flvalente@tecnolink.com.br

Information Informing Action - a view from the FIVIMS project at FAO

The Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information Mapping Systems (FIVIMS) initiative received renewed attention at the recent WFS: fyl. It took centre-stage on several occasions when FAO's Director General, Jacques Diouf, referred to the FIVIMS initiative as the means by which FAO monitors progress in reducing the number of food insecure since 1996.

The WFS: fyl focused on food security and vulnerability at all levels and highlighted the gap between the target set at the WFS and reality, while sharing success stories and experiences amongst countries. The approaches and perspectives of the FIVIMS initiative, which reaches across multiple sectors and brings together all information required for an integrated approach to food security and vulnerability issues, are seen as vital contributions to the achievement of the WFS goals.

An entire side-event of the Summit was dedicated to fighting hunger, with 'Ingredients of Success' being presented as a means to promote lessons learnt from the experiences of specific countries which have managed to reduce hunger. Information was a central factor in the success stories presented by the seven ministers participating in the event.

FIVIMS is responsible for facilitating the exchange and promotion of information that reflects successful initiatives and encourages effective decision-making. The FIVIMS initiative has the potential to combine relevant information at local, national and international levels in an accessible format and in a timely fashion. The two way communication flow between information provider and user fostered by FIVIMS also supports sharing of experiences both horizontally and vertically, across countries and agencies for the benefit of all.

FAO is charged with monitoring the performance of countries in their efforts to meet the target of halving the number of people suffering from food insecurity. Since 1999 FAO has issued an annual report on food insecurity and related topics as part of its contributions to the FIVIMS initiative. In 2001, as in other years, this report, The State of Food Insecurity in the World (SOFI), illustrated the comparative performance of countries towards the WFS goal. It is apparent that with the current rate at which numbers are declining, only about 50% of the target set for 2015 would be met. This reveals how particularly necessary it was that the WFS: fyl call for a renewal in commitments to address global hunger.

What was made evident in Rome in June, both through Mr Diouf's comments and in discussions throughout the Summit, is that FIVIMS has the potential to play a vital and central role in global food security monitoring. The contributions of FIVIMS figure prominently in the effort to combat hunger. A driving notion for the programme is that effective collection and dissemination of information can have a valuable impact on policies and decision-making and more efficient allocation of available resources.

The collection of comprehensive and accurate information cannot stand alone as a successful effort, however. The appropriate use of information by decision-makers and social actors must be an equal concern. Identifying and including the users throughout the information gathering and disseminating process is key to the effective employment of information and ultimate positive impact on food security. It is therefore essential to understand how information should and could be targeted and most effectively packaged. There is a variety of ways in which information is used, including awareness-raising, policy advocacy, programme targeting, monitoring and evaluation, research, and grassroots empowerment. Though it can often present significant challenges, user information requirement analysis is a valuable component of any information system. Understanding the decision-making process is equally important. Early Warning Information Systems are frequently undermined and undervalued by restricting their utilization to quantitative data, rather than for qualitative and targeting purposes. As part of FIVIMS' commitment to improve how information is used, the Secretariat is assembling examples of where nutrition and food security information made a difference. The Secretariat seeks to document such examples and draw lessons from them which consequently can be shared with partners.

Information is also a means of empowerment. At the WFS: fyl, this was especially emphasized by key note speaker, Prof MS Swaminathan, head of the UNESCO Chair in Ecotechnology and SCN Distinguished Nutrition Advocate. Prof Swaminathan identified education as a key area that should be strengthened to improve awareness of entitlements and nutritional status as a whole.

How information is perceived and interpreted is important too. Information on food security should not be limited to a discussion of tons of food grains or agricultural outputs/inputs, for example. It encompasses details on livelihoods, coping mechanisms, food consumption, purchasing power, knowledge, capacity, and human rights. It is these details that allow a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the status of vulnerability and food insecurity in a given location. It is important to recognize that it be recognized that keeping such details up-to-date and channelled effectively, assists in paving the way to a successful and sustainable reduction in food insecurity.

Contact: FIVIMS Secretariat annalea.jenny@fao.org

letters

Dear SCN News,

Thank you so much for including my letter to the Editor in SCN News #23, I have received two responses up to now!

Prof. M.S. Swaminathan is definitely the best and the most levelheaded among all the nutrition-experts in India. I also enjoyed reading your hard-hitting editorial on Civil Society and the UN System: debate in the Food Security Arena. David Wilcock s article on page 14 was good. How come so much of donor funds go to Africa when it is Asia that has the greatest numbers of underfed? How come developmental nutrition scientists from Asia are not recruited to do more assignments for the UN System?

I also liked Cecilia Florencio s letter (page 51). Why doesn t the Asian Development Bank use some of us for Nutrition Policy papers?

Thanks,
Warm regards,
Tara Gopaldas, MSc, PhD
Director, Tara Consultancy Services
Bangalore, India
keroo@bgl.vsnl.net.in

Dear SCN News,

With great interest I read the SCN News (#23).

I was pleased to see the reference to our SIGHT AND LIFE Guidebook on Vitamin A in Health and Disease. We are now in the process of preparing a French version.

I would like to correct a common misunderstanding about Roche. Roche is a basic producer of vitamin A, however, the capsules that SIGHT AND LIFE donates are not at all a Roche product. They are produced instead by other pharmaceutical companies, such as Rp Scherer.

I hope this clarification is useful information.

Many thanks again for referring to our Guidebook.

Yours sincerely,
Task Force SIGHT AND LIFE
Martin Frigg
Sight.life@roche.com