By Rob Arcidiacono

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, to think 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 governance of 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 the negotiations, and some personal reflections based on my own worldview and how these 10 days have 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 anglophone countries. CSIPM members came together, from different languages, cultures and ethnicities, recognising and celebrating the diversity present, creating spaces for everyone to be heard and appreciating the different ways of thinking and being in the world. 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 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 worldviews to a Western way of thinking in order to be accommodated. CSIPM representatives from Nicaragua, for instance, speaking of spiritual connections to land, or a Brazilian youth representative talking about water in rivers symbolising blood in one’s 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 translated and available online prior to the meetings, 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, this meant they could not contribute in these parts of the discussion. As an anglophone myself, 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, actively excluded from the conversation. This was a conversation for which they sacrifice a lot to turn up for; a conversation rooted in the perspective of the imperialist, historically oppressive states, often in their third or fourth language. 

Another challenge for me within the UN system is the requirement of consensus across all member states. When conflict, famine and climate-related challenges are increasingly impacting 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 to weaker words or changed placement of commas by certain member states. In seeking less critical or committed language, the final consensus document that was negotiated and ultimately passed had become 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 successfully changed to ‘climate and biodiversity concerns.’ Given farmers and particularly Indigenous Peoples are on the front lines of the 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’ won over ‘protection.’ This makes me question whether pandering to the most obstructionist voices in the room can ever 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. For instance, negotiations around the terms of conflict and war broke down along old Cold War allegiances. As a result, Israel was not named despite the ongoing famine and genocide in Gaza. Australia, a net exporter of the food and fibre we produce (not all of which is food for people, and much of which is ingredients for ultra-processed food), unsurprisingly aligned with other high-exporting nations around international trade. 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, it was a shame there was little acknowledgment by the Australian delegation around recognition of Indigenous Peoples, equity for women and gender diverse peoples, and good and fair work, all discussed during the plenary. I took particular offence 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 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 critical to CSIPM’s 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 stone’s throw from Circus Maximus and the 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 those of the CSIPM and similar actors, highlights issues of the UN system. 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 reinforced to me the need for civil society and Indigenous Peoples mechanisms, and all of our representative organisations and member bodies like AFSA to continue to bring the challenges and voices to the global stage.

Personally, inspired by comrades 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 speak truth to power. Moving forward, we will continue to ensure these critical voices are shared with CSIPM and beyond as we continue this struggle together.