New AFSA National Committee member Rob Arcidiacono is in Rome for ten days of meetings of the Civil Society & Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism (CSIPM), followed by meetings of the UN World Committee for Food Security (CFS). Check back for regular updates as Rob shares what he learns and contributes!
Day 0: Introducing Rob Arcidiacono, from a farming family to a doctorate on the problems of digital agriculture
I’ve landed in Rome, ready for 10 days of food sovereignty and solidarity with like minds from around the world. We have five days of CSIPM (Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples Mechanism) facilitated workshops and working group discussion, before another five days of sharing these collective CSIPM messages with the CFS Plenary (Committee for Food Security at the Food and Agriculture Organisation). It’s going to be a big few days!
I wanted to pen this post to share with AFSA members how the voice and concerns about our food system across Australia are translated into conversation on a global stage. It is also a chance for me to share a little about myself with AFSA readers, and also for me to reflect on the position I hold as the son of my Italian father, who has taught me about the cultural connection with food; as my mother’s son from a fourth generation family farm in Stanthorpe (on Kambuwal land); and as someone who has come to a food sovereignty position through academic and applied projects in Australia and abroad. It is with this context that I come to listen, learn and share the work and voice of farmers, eaters and everyone in between who share the vision of the food sovereignty movement in Australasia.
The Australasian region has not sent a delegate to the CSIPM meetings in person since 2022. Due to personal circumstances, Sári and Keitha, who have been holding the Coordinating Committee space for the Australasian region, were not able to come to Rome this October. I’ve filled in at the last minute and am still pinching myself that I’m here. I do want to acknowledge both Sári and Keitha, plus the AFSA international team who have quickly thrown their weight and support behind me, being incredibly helpful and supportive in getting me up to speed and prepared for this forum. The AFSA Agroecology Dialogue at Echo Valley farm on Githabul Country was also an inspiring and grounding day to reconnect with those putting connection with landscapes and people into practice. Attended by local farmers and farmer allies from SE QLD, it was a great way to connect with the AFSA members, and with Tammi and Jessie, both seasoned in putting AFSA on the world stage!
My own interest in food sovereignty, and questioning how and who grows our food was introduced to me, not through working on the family farm but as part of a university course years later. In connecting dimensions of social and ecological justice with food production and regional development, this new learning in food sovereignty and indigenous connection to land allowed me to look at the family farm with a new light. This farm, which after four generations of working with the land and employing countless locals, fell into the same trap as countless other small and medium farms across the country where the lock-in of industrial supply chains and the exploitative duopoly of supermarkets resulted in them succumbing to market pressure and shutting their doors. The farm, along with countless others in the local district, is now leased to an agri-business entity that manages upwards of 800 hectares of land across the Granite Belt, increasing mechanisation and intensifying monoculture production across the district. This trend is not new, or for that matter unique to Australia, but is representative of how powerful agricultural interests are eroding rural identities and exploiting landscapes, in the same way First Nations people have experienced exclusion from the land and destruction of knowledge systems and culture since colonisation. Since that university course back in 2010, my journey has taken me to explore CSA schemes in East Africa, climate change mitigation projects in Afghanistan that centres artisans and food growers in decision-making processes, and projects on energy access (which has more to do with food than you might realise) at Syrian refugee camps in Jordan.
More recently, and with relevance to the mandate of the CSIPM, my PhD focused on how digital and data driven technologies are perceived and understood by agroecology-oriented producers in Australia. Concerned that new digital and data driven technologies will only reinforce the inequity of power within the agricultural landscape in Australia, I wanted to critique the tech-utopian discourses at the national level that focused on how digital technologies will increase productivity and efficiency. By contrast, I was to hear the voices of smallholder farmers, and particularly those who follow agroecology in Australia, about how they perceive and use digital technologies in their farming and land management. The research highlighted that these agroecology-oriented farmers were not against the use of digital technology, but were selective in what they adopted, seeking to utilise technology and tools that did not take away their sovereignty as farmers, respecting their knowledge of landscapes and allowed them to make decisions based on their values and how they sought to steward their land. Despite these views, these farmers are almost entirely excluded from digital agriculture and wider agricultural innovation conversations in Australia. Instead start-ups and tech entrepreneurs, agri-business, the big four consulting firms and investors primarily dictate government innovation and future agriculture policy and funding priorities at a national level.
It is with this aim to render visible the unheard voices within the Australian agriculture context that I come to Rome. In the same way core stakeholders in Australia are doubling down on the status quo to reinforce their exploitative positions within the global food system, I’m here to amplify the voices of those smallholder farmers, First Nations people and food sovereignty activists in Australia. Let’s challenge the corporate, neo-colonial vision of industrial agriculture and speak truth to power to advocate for a more fair and just food system.
I’m humbled to be in Rome on behalf of AFSA, standing on the shoulders of the giant farmers, First Nations peoples, advocates, activists, and eaters in the food and agriculture space to put our regional voice forward. I hope, through the occasional blog post over the next 10 days, that I can transport you, the reader, into these workshops and meetings on the other side of the world, at the same time sharing what our food sovereignty comrades and activists from around the world are practising and advocating for within their local contexts.
Day 5: Finding solidarity in Rome
In addition to AFSA’s work at home, we are honoured to share the perspectives of our members on the global stage. Within the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples Mechanism (CSIPM), Sári and Keitha have been flying the AFSA flag for Australasia over the last 12 months in a series of online meetings, virtual working groups and remote solidarity. This October, in order to maintain this presence at the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), I have had the privilege to be in Rome for the last five days with the Coordinating Committee (CC) of the CSIPM, to bring the voices of our region. The first three days included CSIPM CC members holding space for concerns from the regions and different constituencies to formulate a coordinated voice from our struggles. The next two days then opened the space to all of the civil society and Indigenous organisations and movements present in Rome, to consolidate these messages before taking them to the CFS52 Plenary forum hosted by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
How we are able to bring AFSA voices from the local stage to the global involves a range of different actors, institutions, mechanisms and meetings. I did a ‘small library’ of reading before arriving, but only after five days of workshops and facilitated sessions is the puzzle that is the global governance of the CFS starting to fall into place. I wanted to share these Rome-based conversations and messages of collective struggles from civil society organisations around the world, before we roll into the next five days of the CFS52 Plenary and side events.
It’s worth providing a quick overview of what the CSIPM is and how it relates to the AFSA struggle (or a refresher for those who have followed this work for the decade AFSA has been involved). Coordinated by a Secretariat in Rome, the CSIPM is a facilitation body that seeks to collectivise the voices of civil society and Indigenous Peoples, then bring these forward into the CFS. The membership is made up of seven sub regional voices (AFSA is the movement providing a voice for Australasia), and two constituents from each of the 11 groups represented. These include Smallholder Farmers, Pastoralists/Herders, Fisherfolk, Indigenous Peoples, Consumers, Urban Food Insecure, Agricultural and Food Workers, Women, Youth, Landless and NGOs. You can learn more about this organisation and governance architecture in the CSIPM on the website.
The CSIPM meets twice a year; once online and once for the five days prior to the CFS plenary hosted by the FAO in Rome. It has been a privilege to bring the Australiasian region’s voice to Rome, sharing and learning from peasant farmers, Indigenous Peoples, and activists from all around the world who share the struggles for their rights to be represented, and their voices heard in how they grow their own food, access and practice agroecology on their lands, and continue cultural connection to food. Many of the contributions shared from our region were based on conversations with AFSA members, the Peoples’ Food Plan, and issues raised during the recent Agroecology Roadshow. While Australian agriculture is quite unlike most other parts of the world (with a competitive productivist, export-orientated, industrial approach) the struggles of farmers practising agroecology and food sovereignty in Australia still share common ground with others around the world. Land grabbing by powerful corporate actors and facilitated by governments, consolidation of power by supply and distribution chain actors, the erosion of Indigenous rights and access to land, and the importance of women and gender diverse groups within agricultural discourses are just some of the common struggles highlighted in the CSIPM that resonate with realities in Australia.
This afternoon (Monday the 21st in Rome), the CSIPM will make a targeted intervention, spoken by our Palestinian sister Lisa, about the use of food as a weapon of war, in direct response to the genocide systematically unfolding in Gaza on Palestinians. This statement will be made at the CFS Plenary. Michael Fakhri, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food has recently highlighted that the spread of disease and Israel’s “starvation campaign” in Gaza is “killing more people than bombs and bullets.” The struggle of the Palestinian people is all of our struggle. AFSA has reaffirmed to the CSIPM our solidarity with the Palestinian people in their fight for liberation in the face of illegal Israeli occupation.
This is a forum hosted by FAO, a space where member states ultimately negotiate and decide policy positions. While the CSIPM is present and engages both in the CFS Plenary and all year round via working groups to develop and negotiate our positions, our voices are constantly under threat and marginalised. FAO is making the CSIPM’s engagement in these fora more difficult, with corporate interests and powerful States working to squeeze out civil society and Indigenous voices.
At a time when climate change, conflict and increasing inequalities around the world are growing worse, CSIPM plays an important role in putting the grassroots voices of civil society and Indigenous Peoples who suffer these ills most directly on the global stage. I will report back at the end of the CFS52 Plenary week to highlight where the struggle for food sovereignty has found allies and opportunities to support wider food systems transformation. Given the powerful voices and the dominant discourses of financialization, private sector investment and technology adoption, the next report will also outline current and new battle lines where we will continue to mobilise in our struggle for food sovereignty for all.
Day 10: Taking the Struggle to the FAO Committee on World Food Security
Now that the dust has settled and jetlag has abated slightly, I wanted to take a moment to share with AFSA members some of the core takeaways from the CSIPM engagement in the Committee for Food Security (CFS) Plenary. The last blog post, summarised the CSIPM Coordinating Committee’s week together to formulate a collective voice. I was hopeful, and maybe a little naive that this collective voice of farmers, fishers, Indigenous Peoples and those within the CSIPM would find a space within the broader food security and nutrition discourses in the UN system. Although there were some positive outcomes for Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples in the CFS conclusions documents, this week also highlighted fundamental challenges that need to be addressed in the food system. I will reflect on what stood out for me at the CFS and these wider food system challenges, some wins for the CSIPM in these negotiations, and some personal reflections based on my own worldview and how this 10 days has inspired and motivated me moving forward.
While I was aware of this theoretically, one of the most stark observations from the CFS was that, despite celebrating its inclusion of different voices, it is based heavily on Western-centric, world views that privilege Anglo-phone countries. CSIPM members came together, from different language, cultures and ethnicities, recognising and celebrating the diversity present, creating spaces for everyone to be heard and appreciating the different word view and ontologies represented. This contrasted starkly with the approach taken on the floor of the CFS.
The CFS represents a diversity of languages and cultures through its 141 member states. Nevertheless, the realities of the UN systems architecture, the location in Rome (where FAO, WFP and IFAD, all of the UN food and agriculture agencies are based) is based in Western hegemony. The indigenous world views, feminist methodologies for facilitation and diversity of ontologies highlighted in the previous week with CSIPM members did not fit, and were not given space within this broader UN forum. CSIPM members, particularly those from the global south were required to actively realign or reposition their world views to a western way of thinking in order to be accommodated. CSIPM representatives from Nicaragua for instance, speaking of spiritual connections to land, or Brazilian youth representative talking about water in rivers symbolising blood in ones veins were concepts that did find space on the CFS Plenary floor. This was compounded by the dominant use of English as the language of operation. While there was interpretation across most sessions, and most documents had been translate and available online prior to the CFS commencing, new material that was developed over the course of the week, in addition to negotiations of document texts in the main Plenary were all undertaken in English. For many CFS colleagues, this meant they could not contribute in these parts of the discussion. As an anglophone who has grown to understand this westernised, Anglo worldview, it was frustrating to see comrades, many of whom had deeper and richer understanding of food and nutrition challenges than anyone else in the room, be actively excluded from the conversation. This was a conversation they were already bending over backwards to engage in; a conversation rooted in the perspective of the imperialist, historically oppressive states, and often in their third or fourth language.
Another challenge for me within the UN system is the idea of needing consensus across all member states. When conflict, famine and climate related challenges are ever-increasing the achievement of global food and nutrition security, the need for sharp, clear pointed messages from these global gatherings of member states is critical. However, such sharp, precise and honest representations of challenges were often chipped away at, whittled down through the changing words or the placements of commas by certain member states. In seeking less critical or less committed language, the final consensus document, that was negotiated and ultimately passed by member states was then a series of non-binding paragraphs that could be interpreted different ways or manipulated based on the differing interests of the member states. One particular negotiation point I raised was based on the phrase ‘climate and biodiversity protection,’ that certain member states sought to, and successfully change to ‘climate and biodiversity concerns.’ Given farmers and particularly Indigenous Peoples are on the front lines of the broader ecological challenges that climate change presents, it was important for us to have strong language on this issue. This however was not achieved, and in the name of consensus, ‘concern’ remains. This makes me question whether pandered to the most obstructionist voices in the room will achieve the transformation of the food systems that is required to address the gravity of challenges we face globally.
This approach to consensus also reflected and laid bare the broader macro political allegiances and relationships. Negotiations around the terms of conflict and war for instance broke down along old Cold War allegiances. This resulted in Israel not being named across any of the documents despite the famine and genocides in Gaza looming over the room. Australia, relying on export orientation of our production not surprisingly aligned with other exporting nations around international trade. Interestingly, The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) leads Australia’s engagement with FAO in Rome, and had trade delegates representing Australia’s interests. While this trade agenda differs starkly from that of AFSA and the CSIPM more broadly, it was also a shame there was little acknowledgment by the Australian delegation on other conversations around Indigenous Peoples’ recognition, women’s and gender equity, and good and fair work discussed during the plenary. I took particular offense to the Australian delegate speaking on behalf of the Pacific Nations, noting they were in Rome for the World Food Forum (WFF) the previous week, stating that Pacific states appreciated Australian and international trade of food and commodities as it was improving their domestic food security. While CSIPM does not currently have a representative from the pacific-sub region (it is in the process of being filled), I wonder if small farmers in Vanuatu, or fisher-folks from the Solomons agree to the extent that international trade and the erosion of their ability to access land and sea-waters is really beneficial for their ability to grow, catch and eat culturally appropriate foods?
Despite the many challenges and contradictions that the CFS presented, CSIPM also was able to use this space to contribute constructively across a range of topics. Our strong intervention on food as a weapon of war, with reference to Gaza was widely supported by member states (if not adopted in the texts); the promotion of agroecology to address urban and peri-urban food challenges into the future was noted in the draft text; and the advancement of women’s and gender equity within agriculture was adopted, despite the exclusion of ‘intersectionality’ by some member states at the last minute. During draft text negotiations and across the week, CSIPM received broad support from EU represented states, plus Brazil and Switzerland, to name a few, with these member states also highlighting the need to have a strong civil society and indigenous peoples voice within these meetings. Given CSIPM does not vote on the floor of the Plenary, the support of these member states, and identifying core themes to lobby others and leverage their support into the future will be a critical parts of CSIPMs work prior to CFS53 in 2025.
All in all, the CFS week was long, intense and illuminating. While there was something grand about being in this FAO Plenary Hall (which ironically was a building commissioned by Mussolini in the 1930 Fascist, Italian Era), and just a stones throw from Circus Maximus and Colosseum, for me the week illustrated how unequal power relations in our food system that privilege certain member states and private sector voices, while suppressing that of the CSIPM and similar actors highlights issues of the UN system architecture. Diplomats wearing fancy suits and their delegations of advisors are detached from the realities of those working and connected to the land and waterways. This therefore reinforced to me the need for civil society and Indigenous Peoples mechanisms, and all of their representative organisations and member bodies like AFSA to continue to bring the challenges and voices to the global stage.
Personally, inspired by colleagues from around the world, I’ve returned to Australia with a refreshed energy and a reignited fire to fight for a more equitable and just food system. Despite the Australian agricultural context being quite different in terms of size, population density, rural compositions and national export orientation, the challenges of Australian farmers, First Nations peoples, and farmer allies resonate closely with those topics raised from CSIPM constituents from around the world. Collectively we are stronger when we actively come together to challenge the wider power dynamics within the food system, and continue to hold truth to power. Moving forward, Keitha and I will continue to ensure these critical voices are shared to CSIPM and beyond as we continue this struggle together.