By Jorge Soriano Bugnion (voluntary professional interpreter and activist. Original article in Spanish http://www.fao.org/wsfs/; http://peoplesforum2009.foodsovereignty.org/

The World Summit for Food Security was recently held in Rome (16th – 18th November) under the auspices of the FAO (the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation), headquartered in this city. The timing could not have been more appropriate, as the pretentious title of the meeting suggests: “Imagine. Achieving food security in times of crisis”. This notion of food security is aimed at food for all, even at the height of current global financial turbulence, with over one billion people in the world suffering from hunger. The aim of the first Millennium Development Goal – to halve the number of people suffering from hunger by 2015 compared with the figures for 1990 – is far from today’s reality. If we add the uncertain impacts of climate change on agriculture, the profit-driven interests of agribusiness and predatory attitudes of governments, the outlook for the most vulnerable is indeed pessimistic.

A parallel meeting: People’s Forum on Food Sovereignty

Civil society rose to the occasion, and organised their own space for discussion in the People’s Food Sovereignty Forum that was also held at the same dates in Rome, parallel to the FAO Summit. I had the privilege of being a member of the volunteer interpreting team that was responsible for supporting the communication between over 400 delegates who had come from all over the world. The objective was to promote the right of rural communities to define their own agricultural model that respects their ecological, social, economic and cultural traditions. Food sovereignty prioritises local consumption, access of small farmers to natural resources, to land, seeds and agricultural biodiversity. It condemns the use of food production as either a trade or a political weapon. A great number of civil society organisations participated in the Forum. The International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty represented them in their discussions with the “United Nations system”, mainly the FAO and IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development).

The final declaration text from the People’s Forum, from which I have extracted a few key points, mentions the importance of considering the Food Security Committee of the FAO as the privileged body for developing international policies on food and agriculture, especially as the recent reform that has been approved confers a greater role on the representatives of civil society. The declaration also discusses the appropriate financial support provided by members of the FAO to enable the Committee to carry out its work in an adequate manner, guided by the human right to food. Financial resources have been proposed by the World Bank and other international financial institutions, whose past mechanisms of governance have shown a lack of democracy and transparency; this means there is a risk of the same mistakes being made as in the past. “As long as institutions such as the WTO continue to privilege commercial interests over the globally marginalised and malnourished, hunger will continue to stalk the world”.

The text also defends the need to respect ecological supply chains, and condemns the aggressive mercantile approach to nature and knowledge. It requests a global moratorium on GMOs and invites all States to take immediate adequate action to protect and regulate national food markets by managing supplies to guarantee the availability of food, decent pay and fair prices. States should guarantee joint control of land through integrated agrarian reform that respects both individual and collective access to land, and control over territories.

Concerning the control of resources for food production, the Declaration condemns the alarming land- and water-grabbing currently practiced by certain countries and multinationals. In less than one year, 40 million hectares of fertile land in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe have been usurped through agreements that favour this practice and displace local food production in favour of export crops. The Declaration also opposes intellectual property rights aimed at protecting living resources such as seeds, plants and animals.

Finally, the text commits civil society to building alliances via the International Planning Committee and presents the input from the different work groups that took place during the Forum: Women, who defend their role in food sovereignty, youth who plead for education and training in agricultural practice, fishing and animal husbandry, indigenous peoples who demand the right to land and who consider nature as a living being that is essential to the identity and culture of their communities.

The FAO Summit Declaration

The official declaration of the FAO Summit expresses good intentions and pompous commitments in their five Principles of Rome for sustainable global food security: 1) invest in national plans to channel resources aimed at NGOs and well-designed results-oriented programmes, 2) encourage strategic co-ordination of national, regional and global plans in order to improve governance and promote a better distribution of resources, 3) work towards food security through direct emergency measures aimed at the most vulnerable groups, in order to fight hunger and poverty, 4) guarantee the role of the multilateral institutions, 5) guarantee the commitment of all to investing in agriculture, food security and nutrition, in order to fund pluri-annual plans and programmes.

The civil society Forum criticised the FAO for grounding the achievement of the above principles in the creation of a High Level Action Group on the crisis in food security at the instigation of the Secretary General of the United Nations. This is in the context of the reform of the Committee for food security. Civil society’s disagreement is due to the fact that the Action Group supports the multinationals that are patenting seeds and commercialising GMOs in order to implement projects with many large international philanthropic foundations who are operating on funds from the World Bank.

Civil society condemns the fact that the FAO also delegates “the strategic co-ordination of national, regional and global plans” to a “global Alliance for agriculture, food security and nutrition”, created by the industrialised countries of the G8 that – and this is no mere coincidence – control most of the food system by imposing production models that are contrary to the interests defended by small-scale farmers.

The principle of Rome also includes the World Trade Organisation, and suggests on paper that global markets become more open to small-scale farmers from developing countries, in order to enable them to increase their productivity, and compete in more equal circumstances. Civil society organisations again reproached this attitude: Although the WTO is a multilateral institution representing countries of all sorts, and with a decision-making system based on the principle of “one country, one vote” it is important to realise that in the corridors of power some countries club together to defend their interests more than those of others, in terms of the available resources, the size of the economic and legal lobby and their influence. Once again, the developing countries have a handicap in negotiations before they even begin.

Challenges for the years to come

It’s time to square up on the chess board: one camp defends food sovereignty, protected by rural tradition and the ancestral knowledge of peoples and communities, while the other is in favour of technological green revolutions, the industrialisation of agriculture and GMOs. These are the black and white, even grey squares on the board… Can there be no meeting of the ways in this struggle for power?

Ethical commitment and respect of the environment, of ecosystems and subsistence means of rural populations should take priority; it is necessary to avoid ideological and political prejudice as well as economic interests that may block the path. If we really wish to reach a reciprocal commitment of all stakeholders, we need to consider that achieving a joint solution is a moral obligation that broadens our field of vision.

Food sovereignty implies a sense of responsibility. On one hand, governments need to guarantee supplies of accessible food that is culturally acceptable and nourishing, and to facilitate emergency access to those in need of help, without undermining the principle of sovereignty. On the other, farmers and producers should participate in the decision-making process as to how to grow and distribute food. Their know-how is both their heritage and their contribution. Food is life. It comes from the land that we work and from animals that we raise or hunt. It is nature, culture, tradition, religion, the identity of peoples and nations. We savour it, appreciate it, dream about it; it awakens feelings and emotions in our hearts; it brings us together, satisfies us, makes us aware of our essential being and our shared identity. As citizens, we can, through our acts, set the example for future generations, through responsible consumption, by cultivating our curiosity as to the origin and way in which food is produced, and by drawing closer to nature. We are all involved in the future of our planet and we can no longer remain dependent on decisions taken by others.

Published in International Newsletter on Sustainable Local Development,  Newsletter # 65. February 1, 2010