Schuftan, C., A global perspective on right to food campaigns: some questions and answers, World Nutrition, Vol 13 No 3 (2022)  DOI: https://doi.org/10.26596/wn.202213360-65

schuftan@gmail.com

Are we holding the governance of zero hunger accountable?

A reminder: Sustainable Development Goal(SDG) 2 says “End hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”. (See https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/)

How and where have right to food (R TF) campaigns evolved, how have they connected to each other, what have been their achievements?

Allow me to perhaps take a devil’s advocate position in my analysis on global perspectives on right to food campaigns with the specific intent to provoke a discussion. You can write letters to the editor to react.

Providing a global perspective on RTF campaigns is not easy; it would have to be interpreted in the various national contexts, particularly given that both South Asia and Africa are so different. There are not many functioning campaigns as such (and less so RTF movements proper). There are thus more emerging lessons learned than actual achievements or positive experiences to report on. There are not many tools used and to be shared in this endeavor as such either.

So, has it been two steps forward and 1 3/4 steps backwards?

The following is just an informal sample of campaigns involved in RTF activities for long periods of time. Details about them are provided in an Appendix available from the author:

•From 1980s: Movimento sin Terra, Brasil,

(https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimento_dos_Trabalhadores_Rurais_Sem_Terra)

  • From 1984: UBINIG, Bangladesh (https://www.ubinig.org )

•From 1986: FIAN (https://www.fian.org/en/fian-international)

•From 2000: Roppa (Network of Farmers Organizations and Agricultural Producers of

West Africa), (https://roppa-afrique.org/),

•From 2007: La Via Campesina’s Nyeleni Declaration (Mali)

(https://viacampesina.org/en/declaration-of-nyi/),

•From 2010: CSM (the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples Mechanism – (CSIPM) (https://www.csm4cfs.org/what-is-the-csm/),

•From 2013: Global Network for the Right to Food and Nutrition (GNRtFN) (https://www.righttofoodandnutrition.org/)

•From 2013: Red Calisas, Argentina

(https://www.biodiversidadla.org/Autores/RED_CALISAS) and food sovereignty. More academic.

So, why are we not on track, then, to achieve zero hunger?

Despite the RTF being enshrined in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in 2015, the RTF was not even mentioned in the SDGs. (http://gh.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000040) Is this a failure of the various RTF campaigns?

What are challenges with regard to the above-mentioned points + others?

Covid and war have been an additional easy excuse for a lack of progress; moreover, most SDGs have been off track anyway. There are many other factors mentioned as excuses challenging the fulfilment of the RTF. Among them:

-the collapse of the global food system (with no mention of the resilience of the agroecological system);

-the negative influence of foreign trade agreements;

-the dependency on food imports;

-the global debt problem and structural adjustment;

-no integration of the RTF into social protection schemes;

-restricted access to land;

– absence of a food sovereignty focus;

-constant corporate interference;

-The Committee on Food Security (CFS) of FAO not helpful enough;

-voices from the ground not heard;

-crisis of multilateralism…

Each of these factors calls for actions by RTF activists. But tackling each in isolation by pushing governments to implement, one-by-one, many individual top-down measures/policies addressing each factor is a dead-end street. Why? Because all of them are the consequence of an economic and political system that is deaf to the food and nutrition needs of hundreds of millions of people the world over.

Given all the factors enumerated above, I further ask: Is it through the promotion of ‘good policies’ on the RTF that RTF campaigns will move nutrition ahead?

-Are there good practices in the promotion of RTF government policies available to share?

-Are the latter really pushed by organized RTF campaigns? I am skeptical.

On the one hand, there are good examples of dedicated groups monitoring the failure (or successes) of food and nutrition policies on the ground. But is this enough? Not without following this up with stern demands of accountability and of greater transparency.

What actions are needed in the monitoring domain?

I am not going to be prescriptive, but leave it for the discussion I hope to generate.

What are the lessons learned that can provide guidance for the future?

Good policies on the RTF are sparse and many are not the result of demands tabled by actual campaigns on the RTF, but the result of high level progressive political decisions (such as has happened in Brazil and Ethiopia). Networking is indeed a most important activity to more proactively embark on so as to make public interest CSOs and social movements converge in their actions towards the RTF. But what is this convergence to be on?

On ‘advocacy’ on/for specific nutrition policies/interventions …or addressing the social determination of malnutrition?

The former clearly may be necessary, but surely not sufficient. So, what will this mean in practice? The difference between advocating and demanding is at the center of the HR framework — not only in nutrition. Advocacy usually lacks a structural focus.

The experience of the CSIPM (see Appendix) actively participating on the FAO’s Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition and beyond has included a rich participatory public interest CSO process that led to a key vision document that radically diverged from the official Guidelines. The negotiations were challenging and the outcome document crossed several red lines the Civil Society and Indigenous People Mechanism of the CFS (CSIPM) had clearly set. The mobilization on this (March-July 2021) included hundreds of organizations and individuals setting a precedent for real people’s power. This, then, has proven an important lesson learned for the future especially in relation to the follow up of the UN Food Systems Summit where the CSIPM is also very active.

Furthermore, a good beginning has just been completed by the CSIPM with regional consultations of nutrition activists in all continents focused on assessing the local problems faced by the ongoing ‘food crisis’, as well as assessing what governments (and activists) have been doing in this realm. The results are being tabulated at this moment.

A promising approach to have voices from the ground heard and to really count?

An insufficiently explored/applied approach to the RTF is for campaigns on the RTF to take a central role in the monitoring of progress made by

Setting annual benchmarks for the progressive realization of government plans to fulfill the RTF, i.e. annual benchmarks of processes-set-in-motion (or not!) have to be agreed upon so that public interest civil society organizations (PICSOs) can assess progress, stagnation or retrogression on an annual basis with something akin to annual shadow reports. Networking on this approach can prove crucial.

If shy on this, we will be discussing the same shortcomings by the end of the SDGs in 2030.

Other lessons learned:

•engage in political alliances,

•mobilize the youth,

•globalize local issues,

•increase emotional vs rational messaging.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

By admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *