Protracted Crisis

kola-nut-829934_1280

CSM Working Group on Protracted Crises

Coordinator:

Mariam Aljaajaa – Arab Network for Food Sovereignty

Technical Facilitators:

Razan Zuayter – Arab Network for Food Sovereignty

Gertrude Kenyangi – SWAGEN

Roy Anunciacion – People’s Coalition for Food Sovereignty (PCFS)

Framework for Action for Food Security and Nutrition in Protracted Crises

Process 2016

October 2016

Update from the Protracted Crisis Working Group, including the Report from the CFS Outreach event in Nairobi of September 2016

September 2016

Framework for Action for Food Security and Nutrition in Protracted Crises: Leaving No One Behind

CFS Outreach Event, Nairobi, Kenya 19 September 2016

Objective of the event: The objective of the event is to raise awareness of the CFS-FFA in countries affected by protracted crises and to promote operationalization at field level, capitalizing on existing relevant national efforts.

Participants:  Government, a delegation of the Civil Society Mechanism, private sector representatives and FAO, IFAD and WFP staff from the following countries.

1. Chad

2. Democratic Republic of Congo

3. Ethiopia

4. Somalia

5. South Sudan

6. Sudan

In addition, food security and nutrition actors based in Kenya, including donors, will be invited.

Expected Outcome: Participants will identify action points and recommendations for CFS-FFA operationalization and form communities of practice to lead operationalization efforts in their countries (depending on available resources).

March 2016

Read the Working Group contribution to the Agenda item “Dissemination of the Framework for Action” of the CFS Bureau and Advisory Group Meeting of 31 March

Background 2012-2015

The CSM Protracted Crises Working Group had been deeply involved in the CFS Protracted Crises Process since its materialization in 2012. Through its membership in the CFS Steering Committee and Technical Support team and its participation in the e-consultations, OEWG meetings and Global Consultation in Ethiopia, the CSM Working Group managed to greatly contribute to the preparation process of the Agenda for Action for Addressing Insecurity in Protracted Crises (CFS-A4A), bringing on board the experiences, opinions, convictions and needs of communities vulnerable to protracted crises.

While the CFS-A4A was meant to be endorsed in CFS 41, the lengthy discussions in the July 2014 negotiations made it impossible for the A4A to be finalized in 2014. A revised draft of the now called CFS Framework for Action for Addressing Food Insecurity in Protracted Crises (CFS-FFA) was made available in December 2014.

The CSM Coordination Committee meeting in October 2014 defined protracted crises as a priority work stream for the CSM for 2015 and asserted that full support should be given for the Protracted Crises Working Group during this last period of the negotiation process.

For this purpose, a series of activities were carried out in the first months of 2015, including a strategy workshop of the CSM Working Group and a CSM organized public event with civil society voices from protracted crises countries, well attended by CFS members and participants; participation to the OEWG meetings on FFA; written submissions to the new drafts; bilateral meetings with CFS actors; preparation and participation in the final negotiations from 7-8 and 18-22 May 2015.

The FFA was adopted during the 42nd session of the CFS, from 12-16 October 2015.

Key aspects of the CSO assessment of the FFA:

The CSM Working Group was a highly committed and active actor in the three years of elaboration and negotiation of the CFS Framework for Action for Food Security and Nutrition in Protracted Crises, as it is now presented for approval to the 42nd Session of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS). Throughout the process, the CSO delegation successfully negotiated with states, specialized Rome-based UN agencies, private sector and other stakeholders, making great strides in a three-year effort to define more-appropriate standards for concerted actions in the field and the bureaus for all parties involved in ongoing—and likely future—protracted crises.

The CSM WG welcomes that many fundamental concerns and substantial proposals from civil society were accepted after sometimes-long debates and included into the text. In this regard, the CSM WG highlights the following achievements as enshrined in the different chapters of the final draft of a framework document dealing specifically with the issues of food insecurity in protracted crises. The CSM Working Group also flags the shortcomings of the document, and stresses the challenges for the future.

The Character of the Document

  • The FFA departs from a holistic and a comprehensive understanding and examination of root and underlying causes of food insecurity and under-nutrition, without narrowing the scope to resilience only.
  • The FFA is based on a human rights approach that shall lead all action taken to address food insecurity and nutrition in Protracted crisis, and shall complement the developmental and humanitarian approaches.
  • The concept of Prevention is now well-established throughout the document, as CSM delegates insisted to integrate it in the relevant parts.

Introduction

  • Inclusion of foreign occupation as a root cause for food insecurity and undernutrition in crises areas and as a situation that needs particular attention when ensuring safe and unimpeded access to humanitarian and food aid
  • Inclusion of climate change as an underlying cause of food insecurity and undernutrition
  • Clear identification of the main reasons behind the failure of policies and programs in protracted crises situations including the undermining of local capacities, institutions and priorities by externally driven interventions; a lack of commitment to support small-scale food producers, and vested commercial, political and institutional interest

Stakeholders

  • Ensuring that all relevant stakeholders are clearly listed in the FFA
  • Addition of the words “ or impacting” to the chapeau: “The Framework is intended for all stakeholders who may have a role in improving or impacting food security and nutrition in protracted crises…”
  • Recognition of the central role of smallholders, although state delegations resisted adding “landless” to its definition in the relevant footnote.

Principle 1

  • Integration of policies that foster local food systems as a main component of supporting resilience including through local procurement and building food reserves
  • Removing an article that encourages sustainable adaptation for people’s displacement and including one that supports durable solutions in general, including return to place of origin if possible.

Principle 2

  • CSM managed to include stress on the importance of food safety regulations, as well as the need to strengthen the capacity and participation of local food producer and consumer organizations to improve food safety in protracted crises.

Principle 3

  • Integration of the principles of consistency with international human rights law, the prohibition to use food as a tool for political or economic pressure, and the obligation to refrain from adopting unilateral actions incompatible with international law, including the UN Charter, which endanger nutrition and food security, as stated by the 1996 Rome Declaration.

Principle 4

  • The full recognition that States shall fully observe their human rights obligations under international law in order to achieve the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security
  • The obligation to respect, and to ensure respect to International Humanitarian Law
  • States, parties involved in conflict, and other stakeholders should consider how their policies and actions could impact food security and nutrition in other regions and countries affected by protracted crises and consider relevant appropriate actions.
  • The recognition of the special protection of indigenous peoples affected by, or at risk of protracted crises.

Principle 5:

  • The obligation to ensure gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls in support of food security and nutrition in protracted crisis situations, as recognised by relevant international legal instruments, in particular the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)

Principle 6

  • The recognition of the need to analyse and examine the underlying determinants of food insecurity and malnutrition and the need for analyses to be country owned

Principle 7

  • The recognition of the need for affected countries to own programs and oblige cooperation partners to work through country institutions to avoid undermining them or creating parallel systems.

Principle 8

  • The recognition of the need of debt reduction and relief as a key measure to ensure food security and nutrition in protracted crises

Priniple 9

  • The importance of the link between peacebuilding and tenure rights: “Taking steps by all stakeholders, and in all types of protracted crises, to respect the existing rights under international law of members of affected and at risk populations, and their ability to access and use their natural resources.”

Principle 10

  • Reinstating the reference to the CFS Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (Tenure Guidelines), and the the FAO Guidelines on Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries, emphasizing the respect to the legitimate tenure rights of individuals, farmers, smallholders, small-scale food producers, indigenous peoples and members of affected and at risk populations

Challenges and Omissions

  • The original Action Plan was replaced with another, shorter, diluted section titled “Dissemination, Use and Learning.” The terms application and implementation are used in other parts of the document, but not in the last one.
  • Although the commitment for monitoring is recognized in other parts of the document, there was a strong unwillingness by governments to add monitoring to this section. There is no section on roles and responsibilities, as in previous CFS major decisions ogovernance of tenure and responsible agricultural investment. Reference to “extraterritorial obligations” was not possible to include explicitly; however the following statement was included in principle 4: “states, parties involved in conflict, and other stakeholders should consider how their policies and actions could impact food security and nutrition in regions and countries affected by protracted crises and consider relevant appropriate actions.”
  • Reference to the “do no harm” principle was equally not possible to include as such. However, a statement was included in principle 9: “Working to ensure that food security and nutrition related interventions do not exacerbate tensions or conflict”
  • No references to the concepts of agroecology and transitional justice were included, due to strong opposition of some delegations. No reference to the Universal Health Coverage and the World Health Assembly nutrition targets was included, due to the opposition of several delegations.

In spite of these shortcomings, the CSM WG considers the FFA and all the essential elements listed above as an extraordinary achievement. The main challenge is the path ahead.

The path ahead

The CSM WG on protracted crisis suggest to focus energy and discussions now on the necessary steps to ensure implementation, use and monitoring of the FFA at the national, regional and international levels. This includes the following challenges and tasks:

  • Defining the roles, responsibilities and key actions that should be taken by stakeholders in different contexts, stressing the importance of putting communities in crises at the centre of planning and implementation mechanisms.
  • Discussing how the FFA can be used to guide more effective policies and actions at national and regional levels
  • Defining the roles, responsibilities and key actions that should be taken by stakeholders in different contexts, stressing the importance of putting communities in crises at the centre of planning and implementation mechanisms.
  • Discussing how the FFA can be used to guide more effective policies and actions at national and regional levels
  • Establishing a process for monitoring, evaluation and review of the application and impact of the FFA.