Is the Committee on World Food Security fit for purpose?

The Committee on World Food Security is the United Nations’ “most inclusive body,” providing a seat at the table for governments, civil society, academia, and the private sector. It operates by consensus, negotiating policy documents on key food security themes line by line — until everyone agrees. But the inclusivity that some see as the body’s greatest asset is a hindrance to others, dragging down its ability to reach deals and affect policy on important issues affecting global food security — such as land tenure and nutrition — as prices of key staples remain elevated globally and hunger spikes. The relatively little known CFS was created in 1974 and reformed in 2009 after a global food price crisis which resulted in a drastic increase in the number of people unable to feed themselves. It meets once a year and operates on what it calls a “multistakeholder approach,” ensuring everyone’s opinions are heard even as member governments have the final say. It also prioritizes the principle of the right to food, which recognizes an economic, social, and cultural right of all people to have adequate food. But this makes it difficult for CFS to pivot quickly from its bureaucratic, slow-moving agenda negotiating food system policy documents to respond to events such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine and its effect on the world food supply. It’s not structured for speed, but rather to deliberate on big picture policy guidance that it’s powerless to enforce on other U.N. bodies or countries — even after spending considerable time and money. This has caused some to question whether CFS lives up to its name and mission to ensure global food security in times of crisis and geopolitical strife, even as others insist that while imperfect, its rare model of inclusivity is “much better than nothing” and should be preserved. There’s a clear divide between governments that support CFS and those that don’t, said Francesco Rampa, head of sustainable food systems at ECDPM, a European think tank. Some governments urging immediate action on food security are the same ones holding up progress at CFS, he said. “There are basically two groups: those who like the CFS and those who don’t,” Rampa said. CFS has very few resources to achieve its large mandate, counting on collective support from the Rome-based U.N. agencies. It is hosted by the Food and Agriculture Organization, while the World Food Programme and International Fund for Agricultural Development also provide funds and staff. Instead of enhancing FAO and WFP global influence on food and agriculture policy, it’s become “the red-headed stepkid of the U.N. Rome system,” one person familiar with CFS operations said. Too often the different constituencies represented in CFS become entrenched — civil society vs. the private sector, the West vs. low-income nations, the person said. “The big question is, is the committee fit for purpose any longer, given those issues, and should it not be closed down or reformed again into something more effective?” Deliberation battlefield The dysfunction — or necessary pains that come with negotiating tough multistakeholder issues like the right to food, agroecology, and biofuels, depending on who you ask — is evident in recent efforts to negotiate the Voluntary Guidelines on Gender Equality and Women’s and Girls’ Empowerment. “Every single national food plan for food systems transformation … will fail without international coordination.” --— Michael Fakhri, United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food Last year, the gender guidelines became mired in controversy when a small group of countries opposed what they felt was overly progressive language with regards to women and girls, with particular aversion to any references to the LGBTQ community. It was led by Indonesia, with support from China and Russia, among others. One of CFS’ main mandates is to negotiate policy documents it dubs “voluntary guidelines,” which it hopes countries will use as a baseline for national policy on food security issues. But ultimately the guidelines are just that — voluntary, with no way for CFS to force countries to adopt them. One success story is the 2012 guidelines on land tenure, considered among the most successful because many countries used them to develop their laws. “We see our role as providing policy … guidance,” a U.S. diplomat based in Rome told Devex on background. “We’re not under any illusion that governments that were quite resistant to some of these products, specifically on gender, are necessarily going to change their ways because the CFS passed these policy guidelines.” The gender guideline process was meant to conclude by the plenary gathering in October 2022, but CFS failed to reach consensus. Negotiations dragged into 2023, with multiple sessions finally wrapping in June with an agreement. Protesting countries argued that CFS was not the appropriate forum to establish policy on women’s rights, which should be the remit of UN Human Rights. There were differences between the private sector and civil society, which both have official seats at the table during negotiations. Civil society often objects to what it feels is overly corporate control by private interests of the global food system that focuses on international trade, which disenfranchises rural poor. “Unfortunately the way they have organized and entrenched themselves in their own ideological battles or lack of capacity to listen to one another to me is a big pity,” Rampa said. “It’s a bit of a battle” between civil society and the private sector, “like a battle between north and south … that adds to its lack of efficacy in the end.” But others argue that CFS's ability to finally reach an agreement despite agenda differences is one of its strengths. Drawn-out negotiations don’t mean CFS is dysfunctional, said its chairperson Gabriel Ferrero. While “the deliberations are a bit more complicated sometimes,” they are “far more accountable, far more inclusive, and far more impactful,” he argued. “On many issues that are difficult to agree … they have been agreed. This is a very good signal to the world in general that tough things can be agreed, even on gender equality,” said Fererro. No authority to ‘change the system’ CFS has a “tiny budget” of about $2 million per year for its mandate, and because it only meets once a year is restricted in what it can accomplish, according to the person familiar with its operations. The body also has a scientific arm, where experts produce research on food systems topics which are used for guideline negotiations. “CFS was never given either the resources or the authority to really change the system. It became a debating society with an open tent, rules to guide it, and a new high level panel of experts to give it some technical credibility,” the person said. “But it was never going to fundamentally change the way food trade is done, how food is grown, if it’s healthy.” The last CFS secretary resigned before his term ended late last year and he has not been replaced — which some say shows a lack of commitment to the body from Rome. And the CFS chair, held by a rotating country representative, is vulnerable to political maneuvering: Spain’s Ferrero won the election in October 2021 to lead the body, despite it being Africa’s turn in the typically regional rotation. The prior summer, Spain pledged €300,000 to CFS. Ferrero does see a need for an overhaul of resources and staffing, which he believes will allow CFS to achieve full potential. Currently, staffing largely hinges on secondments from the Rome-based agencies. Earmarked contributions from donors would allow CFS to plan better, he said. “With more resources the committee would achieve a tipping point where it would really hugely flourish in terms of impact, and this is something that I hope to be able to transmit clearly to all the donor community,” Ferrero said. “It’s not much money.” Limited resources also create problems for governments represented at CFS: Small countries often have only one embassy acting as liaison to Italy, the Vatican, and the Rome-based U.N. agencies. This leaves diplomats little bandwidth to engage at the level of larger countries like the United States, which has three ambassadors in Rome, one for each entity. ‘It’s the best we have’ Despite the body’s challenges, members of civil society and proponents of the right to food say CFS remains vital for ensuring everyone has a seat at the table when it comes to food system reform, and governments can be held accountable. “It’s difficult, it’s complicated, but it’s the best we have. And it’s much, much better than nothing, and it’s much, much better than a multistakeholder approach in which it’s the corporations and the big commodity exporters who totally lead the show,” said Nora McKeon, a former chief of civil society relations at FAO. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Michael Fakhri called it “remarkable” that CFS was a place where the right to food wasn’t “abstract,” but had “real institutional clout.” “It’s when governments listen to people that they’re the most responsive,” Fakhri said. “And this is the forum where you can get that.” But he wants the body to be more nimble in confronting crises, including the current spikes in prices of key staple foods in some of the world’s poorest countries. The recent CFS gender guideline negotiations are “very frustrating,” he said, but admitted that people prioritizing human rights, like him, were “slowing them down.” Vision and direction needed In 2021, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres convened the UN Food Systems Summit to spur action to reform the way food is produced, transported, and consumed, and ensure an affordable, nutritious diet for all. But supporters of CFS saw this as a snub because it failed to include a guarantee for inclusivity or designate an entity with clout to follow up on outcomes of the summit. “There was a lot of concern from civil society that the summit was hijacked by corporate interests,” said William Moseley, who serves on CFS’s steering committee of experts on food security and nutrition, which produces scientific research documents to inform CFS’ policy work. He noted that there was no requirement for the summit process to operate on consensus, which left some feeling as if they’d been left out of key decisions. “Yes, it was probably more expeditious. It was probably more efficient. But when you cut corners like that, you don’t get the same kind of buy-in. People don’t feel like they’ve been heard.” The U.N. convened last week in Rome for its biennial progress “stocktaking,” and civil society groups have repeated their concerns from the original summit that they are not adequately included in the process, and some have chosen to boycott the gathering. “Every single national food plan for food systems transformation … will fail without international coordination,” special rapporteur Fakhri said. “So it always goes back to the CFS.” The CFS needs to be “a place of vision and hope and direction, otherwise nothing will work,” he added. CFS is currently negotiating its next “program of work,” or the issues and topics it will take on over the next three years. It will be up for approval in October at CFS plenary. Ferrero remains convinced that CFS can deliver on its mandate, and that narrowing the scope of its work will help it do so. “What I would like to see in the future is being capable of saying in four very short sentences the concrete ways in which the right to food is being advanced through this committee,” Ferrero said, leaving it “ready to address current and future food crisis.”