Category Archives: CSM Updates

***Summary Report***

In January, the CSM held a meeting with several of it’s Coordination Committee members to prepare for the upcoming civil society regional consultations during the FAO Regional Conferences throughout 2012.  Follow the link for the initial information note:  http://cso4cfs.org/2012/01/05/csm-preparatory-meeting-for-regional-civil-society-consultations-on-cfs-issues/

The summary report highlights the main conclusions coming out of the meeting, including proposals for CSM ways of working in relation to the upcoming regional consultations and conferences.  The report is available in english, french and spanish and can be found here:

• January Summary meeting Report_EN
• Informe Resumen_ES
• Rapport de Synthèse_FR

Recruitment for the Secretariat of the International Food Security & Nutrition Civil Society Mechanism

The International Food Security and Nutrition Civil Society Mechanism (CSM) for relations with the United Nations Committee on World Food Security (CFS) is recruiting the following members  of its permanent Secretariat:

• Secretariat Coordinator (Location: flexible)
• Communications Officer (Location: Rome, Italy)
• Finance & Administration Officer (Location: Rome, Italy)

Please click on links above for the Terms of Reference for each position!

The CSM is the largest international mechanism of civil society organisations (CSOs) working to eradicate food insecurity and malnutrition by promoting effective agriculture, food security and nutrition policies, at the national, regional and global levels. The CSM gives particular priority to peoples organisations and social movements consisting of the people most affected by hunger and malnutrition. For more information on the CSM please consult the website www.csm4cfs.org

In 2009, the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) underwent reform in order that it could become the foremost international and intergovernmental platform for promoting coordinated action amongst governments and other stakeholders in order to ensure food security and nutrition for all human beings. CFS Member States recognised the right of CSOs to autonomously establish a global mechanism for food security and nutrition to function as a facilitating body for civil society consultation and participation in the CFS.

The CSM Secretariat, maintains a politically neutral role within the CSM, and is dedicated to provide support to all CSOs working on food security and nutrition issues, to enable them to participate in, and influence, policy processes. The Secretariat supports, and reports to, the Coordination Committee of the Mechanism.

In addition to meeting the specific requirements of each position, successful candidates should have a strong commitment to empowering civil society organisations to promote better policies and actions to eliminate food insecurity and malnutrition and should have substantial experience working with peoples organisations and social movements.

An appropriate remuneration and a rewarding work environment await the successful candidates. Further details can be provided in the event of an interview.

Please send your CV and a covering letter explaining how you meet the selection criteria to csmrecruitments@gmail.com by 20^th March 2012. Please include the contact details of three referees who are able to comment on your ability to perform the role and meet the selection criteria.

All applications will be treated in confidence. Only short-listed candidates will be contacted.

News Update from Indigenous Constituency 

En Lucha por sus Derechos/ Fighting for their Rights (scroll down for english)

Cientos de hermanos indígenas del Pueblo Ngäbe Buglé, bajan de las montañas, cierran calles en protesta por la explotación minera de sus territorios. El pueblo Ngäbe desea que se incluya el artículo 5 que fue eliminado de la Ley especial por la Asamblea Nacional de Diputados, en donde indicaba categoricamente la no explotación minera en los territorios comarcales indígenas Ngäbes. Actualmente, se encuentran cercados por la policia nacional los cuales decomisan viveres, agua, comida que son donadas por organizacions solidarias para la continuación de su lucha.

El pueblo Ngäbe hace un llamado nacional e internacional para la solidaridad y hermandad de su lucha contra la minería y con las constantes amenazas de violaciones a los derechos humanos de parte del gobierno panameño. Recordemos que cientos de ngábes sufrieron en julio del 2010, 10 asesinatos, cientos fueron afectados por perdigones y más de 50 sufrieron lesiones en la vista por la policia nacional. Por el momento, el pueblo Guna, se une a la lucha de sus hermanos Gnäbes. Otras organizaciones tambien muestran su apoyo a la lucha contra la mineria.

Desde Panamá.

Mani Stanley

*****
[EN]
Hundres of indigenous brothers from the mountain Village of Ngäbe Buglé, have closed the streets in protest against the mining laws and exploitations of land in their territory. The people of Ngäbe are protesting the elimination of Article 5, and have proposed a Special Law prohibiting mining in

the Ngäbe territory to the National Assembly. National police have confiscated their supply of water and food that had been donated by oragnisations that are supportive of their continued strugle. The peole of Ngable are now calling for the solidarity in their struggle against mining, and the constant threat of human rights violations that the elimination of Article 5 and the Panamanian Governments pose.
To remind you, in July 2010, Hundreds from the Ngabe village suffered during a protest, where 10 were murdered, and over 50 injured by the the National Policy. For now, the People of Guna join their brothers in the struggle, as well as other organisations, who show their support for the fight against mining.
From Panama,

Mani Stanley

The next meeting of the CFS Open-ended Working Group on Programme of Work and Priorities will take place on 7 February 2012 (9.30-12.30) in FAO HQ. This meeting is open to all CFS participants.

The proposed agenda for the meeting will be:

1) Review draft results-based Programme of Work for CFS
2) Review concept note and modalities for the information session

The following background documents will be used as a basis for discussion:

1. Draft Results Based Framework for the CFS
2. CFS 38 Prioritization Framework_Draft_30.01.2012
3. CFS Planning Gantt Chart_Draft
4. CFS Information Session Draft Proposal

The following is a letter  from Christina Grandi (IFOAM):
(Scroll down for attachment)

“As probably you know, after our reaction during the last CFS, IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements) and SOCLA (Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology) sent the attached letter to the HLPE regarding the misuse of the principles of agroecology and the scientifically incorrect reference to the use of nitrogen in organic farming systems as stated in Appendix 1 of the its document on Land Tenure and International Investment in Agriculture (submitted by HLPE to the CFS).

We would like also to share our position with members of the CSM.”

All the best,
Cristina Grandi

IFOAM_SOCLA__HLPE_EN.pdf

A message from the GSF Task Team Members

Draft GSF Timetable – 13.01.12
General Points Arising from GSF Task Team Meeting – 13.01.12

Dear GSF working group members,

On 13 January 2012, the first Task Team on GSF Meeting was held at FAO in Rome. The meeting was attended by the CS Members of the Civil Society Task Team, Andrea Ferrante (La Vía Campesina/IPC), Gisele Henriques (CIDSE), Svetlana Boincean (IUF/CC) and Natalia Landivar (FIAN/CC), together with Martin Wolpold-Bosien as facilitator (replacing Flavio Valente), with the support of Luca Chinotti and Maria Pizzini, with the purpose of discussing a draft GFS prepared by the Secretariat taking into account comments received by 6 January. Other participants included WFP, IFAD, FAO (via the right to Food Unit), the new chair of the CFS (briefly), HLTF, Biodiversity international,etc. No governments were present at the meeting. During the meeting the chair presented a synthesis of the replies received on six questions from different actors.

Most of the civil society priorities and contentious issues, identified by a preparatory meeting the day before, were included in the synthesis. In general, we think the meeting was very productive in highlighting civil society’s main position based on the GSF Working Group regarding draft zero. However, there is no clarity on the process of how contentious issues will be incorporated into the text.

A brief summary:

• There was an agreement between all actors in recognizing the GSF as the overarching framework, on better mainstreaming the right to food in the policy recommendations and monitoring, in reference to the VGRtF as an international consensus, on including the right of women and youth as well as the lack of basic social protection in rural areas and exclusion of rural workers from labour law coverage and minimum wage policies as a cause of hunger, etc.
• No clarity was made on what kind of international consensus is required for being integrated into the GSF when we came to the question of how we can integrate the recommendations made by the IAASTD report.
• Other issues like trade, the conclusion of the Doha Round and the role of private investment in agriculture were highly controversial and civil society presented alternative wording and suggested further discussion on those issues.
• There was also an agreement on the need of further discussion on a monitoring mechanisms and accountability in the GSF. The TT agreed to refer to the Voluntary Guidelines on Land, Fisheries and Forest, indicating that it is still under discussion.
• The issue of what is meant by private investment as also blurry and merits further clarification. As it stands the term is being used too broadly with CSOs considering small farmers as the main investor while the private sector appropriates the use of the term to fit their needs.

Although we felt the meeting was fruitful with our position expressed, the extent to which they will be reflected in the document remains to be seen. A first draft of the GSF was supposed to be submitted to the OEWG for review prior to electronic distribution on Monday 16 January, but we haven’t received it yet. Over a three-month consultation period all CFS members, participants and observers will be invited to provide detailed feedback on the first draft. As the regional consultations will be an important opportunity for civil society to further discus the first draft, a limited number of CC and Task Team Member will deal with the GSF issue this weekend in Rome, briefing, discussing and strategizing for the next months. We will keep you informed on the next steps.

Please see attached to this email following documents, unfortunately only in English:

·         Report from the GSF Task Team Meeting January 13 2012,

·         GSF Timeline 3

·         General points arising out of the GSF

Best Regards,

Svetlana, Gisele, Andrea and Natalia, 4 GSF TT

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Queridos miembros del grupo de trabajo sobre el MEM,

El día 13 de enero de 2012, se llevó a cabo la primera reunión del Grupo Tarea sobre el MEM en FAO, Roma. En la reunión participaron los miembros del Grupo Tarea de la Sociedad Civil Andrea Ferrante (La Vía Campesina/IPC), Gisele Henriques (CIDSE), Svetlana Boincean (IUF/CC) y Natalia Landivar (FIAN/CC), junto con Martin Wolpold-Bosien como facilitador (en reemplazo de Flavio Valente), con el apoyo de Luca Chinotti y Maria Pizzini, con el propósito de discutir el borrador sobre el MEM preparado por la Secretaria considerando los comentarios recibidos hasta el 6 de enero. Otros participantes fueron PMA, FIDA, FAO (a través de la Unidad por el Derecho a la Alimentación), el nuevo presidente del CSA (su participación fue muy breve), HLTF, Biodiversity international, etc. No hubo participación de los gobiernos durante la reunión. Durante esta, el presidente presentó una síntesis de los insumos recibidos por diferentes actores sobre las 6 preguntas.

La mayoría de las prioridades y temas controversiales de la sociedad civil, que fueron identificados en una reunión preparatoria el día anterior, fueron incluidos en la síntesis. En general, pensamos que fue una reunión productiva en señalar la posición principal de la sociedad civil basada en el documento de trabajo sobre el MEM en relación al borrador cero. Sin embargo, no hay claridad en el proceso sobre cómo los temas controversiales serán incorporados ahora en el texto.

Un breve resumen:

• ·         Hubo un acuerdo entre todos los actores en reconocer el MEM como el marco más amplio, en trasversalizar mejor el derecho a la alimentación en las recomendaciones de políticas y monitoreo, haciendo referencia a las directrices voluntarias como un consenso internacional, en incluir el derecho de las mujeres y los jóvenes así como la falta de protección social en áreas rurales y la exclusión de trabajadores rurales de la cobertura de las leyes laborales y políticas de salarios mínimos como una causa de hambre, entre otros.
• ·         No hubo claridad sobre el tipo de consenso internacional que se necesita para ser integrado en el MEM cuando se trata de la pregunta sobre cómo integrar las recomendaciones hechas en el informe del IAASTD,
• ·         Otros temas como comercio, la finalización de la ronda de Doha y el rol de la inversión privada en la agricultura fueron muy controversiales y la sociedad civil presentó texto alternativo y sugirió seguir discutiendo sobre estos temas,
• ·         No hubo un acuerdo sobre la necesidad de continuar discutiendo el tema de mecanismos de monitoreo y rendición de cuenta en el MEM. El Grupo Tarea acordó de referirse a las Directrices Voluntarias sobre Tierra, Pesca y bosques, indicando que este todavía está en discusión.
• ·         El tema del significado de inversiones privadas es también borroso y amerita más clarificación. Como está en el texto, el término se utiliza demasiado abierto y las organizaciones de la sociedad civil consideran a los pequeños productores como los mayores inversionistas mientras que el sector privado se apropia del uso del término para ajustar sus intereses.

A pesar de que consideramos que la reunión fue buena porque pudimos expresar nuestra posición, está por verse en qué tanto estas serán reflejadas en el documento. Un primer borrador del MEM se debió haber enviado el lunes 16 de enero al Grupo de Trabajo abierto para su revisión antes de la distribución electrónica, pero no lo hemos recibido hasta ahora. Durante una consulta de tres meses todos los miembros del CSA, participantes y observadores serán invitados a proporcionar insumos detallados sobre el primer borrador. Como las consultas regionales serán una oportunidad importante para la sociedad civil de continuar discutiendo el primer borrador, un numero pequeños de miembros del CC y del Grupo Tarea tratarán el tema sobre el MEM este fin de semana en Roma, informando, discutiendo y estableciendo estratégicas para los próximos meses.

Les mantendremos informados sobre los  próximos pasos.

Vean en adjunto (lamentablemente solo en inglés) los siguientes documentos

-          Informe sobre la reunión del 13 de Enero del Grupo Tarea del MEM

-          Cronograma sobre el MEM

-          Puntos generales levantados del MEM

Saludos cordiales

Svetlana, Gisele, Andrea y Natalia, 4 GSF TT

A message from Natalia Landivar, Southern NGO rep for the Coordination Committee and co-facilitator of the CSM Working Group on the GSF

CSO Working Document on GSF – December 2011
Documento de Trabajo sobre el MEM – diciembre 2011
Document de Travail sur le Cadre Stratégique Mondial – décembre 2011

Dear CC members,

On 20 December we sent out the last version of the Working Document on GSF (only in English), which is the result of the autonomous CSM consultation by email held during August (parallel to the electronic CFS Consultation on the GSF annotated oultline), the work done during a special consultation meeting held in September (Rome), the discussions carried out during the CSM Forum in Rome last October, and another consultation held in November to guarantee a broader CSO consensus to the text.

After integrating comments with the objective of improving the working document and identifying critical points which require more discussion (please see our email from 20 December), we handled out the Working Document (only in English). We do not consider the Working Document to be a public statement, but a living document that civil society can further discuss and develop in the next months towards the approval of the final version of the GSF. For that reason, we raised the question to the CC Members whether this document, including the points raised for further discussion, was an appropriate basis for further discussion and could serve as a base for our input in the drafting process of the Global Strategic Framework.

As there was no objection from CC Members, the Civil Society Task Team on GSF started to use the CSO Working Document as a reference to build up the CSO contributions to the GSF Draft Zero, which we submitted last week to the CFS Task Team on GSF.

For our preparation to the Regional Conferences and Consultations regarding the GSF we would like to encourage all CC Members to consider the GSF Working Document, which now contains the main consensus of civil society regarding the GSF, including the points raised for further discussion.  In our meeting on this Weekend this document will be used to identify the main civil society consensus as well as issues where there is unclarity or not (yet) a consensus. During the regional consultations these points can be discussed and proposals can be made to be integrated in the text.

Please see now attached the translation into Spanish and French.

Looking forward to see you soon

Natalia

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Estimados/as miembros del CC,

El día 20 de diciembre les enviamos la última versión del Documento de Trabajo sobre el MEM (solo en inglés). Este es el resultado de la consulta autónoma hecha por correo electrónico durante agosto (paralela a la consulta del esquema anotado CSA), el trabajo realizado durante el encuentro de consulta mantenido en Septiembre en Roma, las discusiones realizadas durante el Foro del MSC en Roma en Octubre, y otra consulta llevada a cabo en noviembre para garantizar un mayor consenso de la sociedad civil al texto.

Después de integrar comentarios con el objetivo de mejorar el documento de trabajo e identificar los puntos críticos que requieren más discusión (por favor vean nuestro correo del 20 de diciembre), enviamos el documento de trabajo (solo en inglés). Este no lo consideramos como una declaración pública, pero como un documento vivo que la sociedad civil puede seguir discutiendo y desarrollando en los próximos meses hacia la aprobación de la versión final del MEM. Por esta razón, hemos preguntado a los miembros del CC si este documento, incluyendo los puntos levantados para futura discusión, era una base apropiada para discusiones futuras y si puede servir como una base para nuestra contribución en el proceso de elaboración del Marco Estratégico Mundial.

Como no hubo ninguna objeción de parte de los miembros del CC, el Grupo Tarea de la Sociedad Civil sobre el MEM comenzó a utilizar el Documento de Trabajo como una referencia para construir las contribuciones de la sociedad civil al Borrador Cero del MEM, las cuales fueron presentadas la semana pasada al Grupo Tarea sobre el MEM del CSA.

Para nuestra preparación hacia las conferencias y consultas regionales relacionadas sobre el MEM nos gustaría motivar a todos los miembros del CC a considerar el Documento de Trabajo sobre el MEM, el cual ahora contiene los consensos más importantes de la sociedad civil en relación al MEM, incluyendo los puntos levantados para futuras discusiones. En nuestro encuentro este fin de semana este documento será utilizado para identificar el consenso más importante de la sociedad civil así como los temas donde no hay claridad o (hasta ahora) ningún consenso. Durante las consultas estos puntos pueden ser discutidos y se pueden hacer e integrar propuestas al texto.

Por favor, vean en adjunto la traducción al Español y al Francés

Hasta muy pronto,

Natalia

The provisional agenda for this meeting will be:

1. Update from Working Groups and Task Teams on:

•  Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the context of National Food Security (VGGT)
• Global Strategic Framework (GSF)
• Mapping
• Responsible agricultural investment
• PWB/prioritization

2. Update on HLPE

3. Draft CFS 38^th Timetable: preparation process and proposals/options

4. Including CFS in FAO Regional Conferences

5. CFS information session on priority areas

6. Confirm updated calendar of CFS bureau and AG meetings for 2012

7. Other matters

These views have been submitted to the CFS Chair of the OEWG on the Programme of Work and Priorities

Draft views of civil society organisations on CFS priorities for 2012 and 2013
10^thJanuary 2012 

Some CSM Coordination Committee members are still in the process of consulting with their constituents on CFS priorities due to the difficulties of contacting some CSOs electronically and the holiday period in some countries. Therefore, the following represents civil society views based upon feedback so far. An updated consolidation of views will be provided in writing prior to the Bureau / Advisory Group meeting on 19^th January.

Please note, that we are providing comments on priorities for both 2012 and 2013 given that there is already work in the pipeline for subsequent years. There is a need to develop a 2 or 3-year work programme for the CFS with a more detailed work plan for the current year. This will ensure that everyone can see the longer term plan, when considering shorter term priorities for 2012 and ensure that preparatory work for political discussions in 2013 and beyond is given the necessary priority and commences in 2012. Longer term planning will help increase efficiency, improve the inter-sessional process and reduce the need for word-by-word negotiations during plenary sessions.

I.     CFS work priorities with already agreed processes for political consideration

The CFS must prioritise issues for which political consideration has already been agreed i.e.

• the Voluntary Guidelines,
• the Global Strategic Framework
• the consultation process on principles for responsible agricultural investment.

Consideration by Member States of lessons learnt from the implementation of CFS policy recommendations, guidelines and frameworks at country level during CFS 38 is also essential to inform on-going policy convergence and guidance.

Voluntary Guidelines

The adoption of the Voluntary Guidelines on Land Tenure in the first quarter of 2012 is the top political priority for the CFS for the year. All measures should be taken to ensure that the Voluntary Guidelines are agreed in early March and adopted as soon as possible thereafter. CSOs are concerned that some governments appear to be treating the VGs as business as usual. Not only are strong VGs critical for promoting food security and reducing hunger, their adoption during the first quarter of 2012 is essential for the credibility of the CFS. Endorsement of the VGs is by no means the end of the job. It will be critical that the CFS ensures mechanisms are clearly identified to support governments to implement the Guidelines and report on progress and impact.

Global Strategic Framework

The process for the adoption of draft 1 of the Global Strategic Framework (GSF) should proceed according to the already agreed process and timetable in order to ensure endorsement during the 38^th Session in October. Space and resources should be made available at each of the FAO Regional Conferences for multi-stakeholder consultations on the GSF.

Principles for responsible agricultural investment

This issue should be a top priority during the next two years with the aim of endorsing principles at CFS 39 in 2013. The delay in the approval of the VGs which has already occurred should not be used as an excuse to further delay the consultation process on agricultural investment thereby resulting in a loss of political momentum on this issue. It is vital that the process of consultation on principles for responsible agricultural investment commences by the OEWG on agricultural investment promptly after the finalisation of the VGs and should be absolutely consistent with the process approved by the Bureau in May 2011.

The consultation should be as broad and inclusive as possible to ensure the participation of the governments and organisations of the people most affected by food insecurity and malnutrition. A serious estimate of the budget is required. The consultation process does not need to be as heavy and as expensive as for the VGs as demonstrated by the process for the GSF. A Terms of Reference and budget for the consultation should be developed by the CFS Open Ended Working Group and submitted to the Bureau and Advisory Group. As already agreed, the terms of reference should include “the scope, purpose, intended recipients and structure of the principles as well as the format of the consultation process”. The clarification of the Terms of Reference and budget requirements should be initiated immediately by the OEWG to ensure the consultation can commence once the VGs are endorsed.

Mapping & the monitoring of CFS policy recommendations

There needs to be an urgent discussion on how best to monitor and report on the implementation of CFS policy guidance and recommendations at country level, including issues discussed during CFS 37, i.e. agricultural investment (including the alignment of investment in agriculture with food security concerns), food price volatility and gender. It is vital that national monitoring and mapping initiatives are serving the needs of policy makers and helping to promote multi-actor forums at country level responsible for policy formulation and reporting to the CFS.

It is understood the CFS mapping initiative was originally intended to inform policy development in multi-actor governance mechanisms at country, regional and global levels. However, many CSOs are concerned that the initiative has become too technical to be achieving its purpose in a timely manner. There is a need for an evaluation of its functioning in relation to purpose.

Social protection and climate change

The HLPE studies on social protection and climate change should be completed in time for there to be political consideration of the recommendations in country capitals and discussion amongst Member States and CFS participants, prior to CFS 38. This should reduce the need for word by word negotiation of policy decisions during the Plenary Session. The HLPE studies and recommendations should remain independent reports, submitted and presented to the CFS.

II.   CFS priorities for 2013 requiring preparatory work during 2012

There is already work in the pipeline scheduled for political consideration in 2013/14, i.e. food reserves, agenda for action on protracted crises, gender, nutrition, biofuels and constraints to smallholder investment. It is important that the necessary preparatory work and consultations on these issues commence in 2012.

These issues should not result in an overbearing workload during 2012 for the Bureau, other Rome based representatives of Member States, the Advisory Group nor for the CFS Secretariat. Much of the preparatory work, with some exceptions (e.g. the HLEF on protracted crises) could be undertaken at relatively low cost by Task Teams of experts from within organisations / networks represented on the CFS Advisory Group. Task Teams do not necessarily need to be chaired by the CFS Secretariat.

Food reserves

• The assessment of “the constraints and effectiveness of local, national and regional food reserves“

should commence in early 2012. This piece of work should be carried out according to CFS ways of working, i.e. undertaken / overseen by a CFS Task Team on Food Reserves involving experts from all stakeholders, including civil society, identified through the Advisory Group. The AG members should identify qualified experts from the different organisations / networks represented on the AG.

The development of a framework for a draft voluntary code of conduct for emergency food reserves management should also be undertaken according to CFS ways of working.

For both initiatives, the responsible organisations and other involved stakeholders should report back to the Bureau and Advisory Group, as well as the CFS Plenary.

Protracted crises

The High Level Expert Forum on protracted crises should take place during 2012 as a basis for the consideration of the Agenda for Action at CFS 39. It is vital that CSOs are involved in the Organising Committee of the Forum. As with other work requested by the CFS it should be organised in line with CFS principles and ways of working, ensuring the participation of the full range of stakeholders, especially people most affected by food insecurity and malnutrition in protracted crises. The Advisory Group has a key role to play in identifying relevant experts to participate in the planning and facilitation of the Forum.

Gender

The CFS Task Team on gender, food security & nutrition should continue in order to ensure that the CFS incorporates gender issues and perspectives in all of its work as well as to engage with UN Women in the development of specific indicators, targets and time tables to measure progress made towards advancing women’s food security, as requested by CFS 37. However, a separate Task Team is needed on nutrition in order to take forward the work on nutrition terminology – see below.

Nutrition

The work on nutrition terminology is important because lack of agreement on the use of terms often creates confusion, discourages engagement and holds back meaningful discussions on the role of the CFS in contributing to the improvement of nutrition in relation to other international processes and forums working on nutrition. The creation of a CFS Task Team on nutrition, with the full involvement of civil society, is necessary to bring this work forward .

Biofuels and constraints to smallholder investment

The HLPE studies on biofuels and constraints to smallholder investment should commence in 2012 and be completed in time to inform the finalisation of the principles on responsible agricultural investment  and other potential policy outcomes of CFS 39 in 2013.

III. Suggestions for the development and implementation of CFS Work Programme

During the evaluation of CFS 37 significant frustrations were expressed by Member States and Participants regarding the process (both during the inter-sessional period and the plenary) and, to some extent, the outcomes of the 37^th Session.

The need for a longer term work programme has already been stated earlier in this paper to improve efficiency and ensure that preparation work for medium to longer term priorities is undertaken in a timely manner.

In 2011, the task teams responsible for drafting discussion papers and decision boxes began their work far too late in 2011. This did not leave enough time for CFS members and participants to undertake consultations and to develop increased consensus on analysis and policy recommendations during the inter-sessional period. There needs to be much more time and emphasis on the inter-sessional processes in CFS working groups and task teams in order to develop discussion papers and decision boxes which do not require word by word negotiation during the Plenary.

The CFS work plan for 2012, as well as the Working Groups and Task Team architecture, should be agreed by mid January in order that any additional working groups or task teams can begin their work in early February at the latest.

As stated in a letter from the Advisory Group  to the Bureau in July 2011, the Bureau / Advisory Group meetings should focus more on policy content and less on process. Longer term planning of work should assist with this. Open Ended Working Groups and Task Teams should report regularly to the Bureau / AG not only on the work process but also on the progress being made in developing the content of policy guidelines, principles, frameworks etc. There should be regular reports to the Bureau and Advisory Group on progress being made at country level to monitor the implementation of policy recommendations and guidance. The Bureau and Advisory Group should more frequently discuss lessons learnt from implementation and ways of facilitating policy convergence in the inter-sessional period, as well as the Plenary sessions.

The working group on the Programme of Work and Priorities (PWP) should regularly review progress in implementing the work priorities of the CFS and be promoting improved ways of working to enhance efficiency and effectiveness. CFS Reform is an on-going process rather than an historical event. The Reform document provided a lot of guidance on how the CFS could enhance its role in the governance of food security and nutrition. However, further developments are required for the CFS to play its role effectively as the politically central, inclusive, international platform responsible for promoting policy debate and convergence in support of countries’ efforts to eliminate hunger and ensure the right to food and nutrition for all.