1. If FAO were serious about reducing socio-economic inequalities and leaving no one behind, it would consult meaningfully with civil society in the formation of policy advice and studies that it proffers to states. Rather, FAO in our region (NENA) has produced studies and policy advice on support for small-scale family farming (but not farmers), agricultural water investment (toward privatization of water) and, more generally, the State of Land and Water that are rich in data, but poor in analysis. They clearly favor the dominant corporatist approach to food and related natural resources. FAORNE has actively ignored and dismissed the advice of civil society, even in the biennial regional consultations.
FAO should respect and collaborate with CSOs in the country sphere. However, FAO’s CSO engagement by design has been episodic in the form of (disingenuous) biennial regional consultations and channeled through the regional office only.
2. In NENA, for example, CSOs already made clear and negotiated a medium-term plan with FAORNE on how to contribute to such transformation through agroecology and practical application of the VGGT in specific countries. However, FAO dropped that collaborative program at thew same time as the new Director General and new Regional Director came into office. Years of effort have been lost in the process, and FAO’s engagement in both the headquarters and in the region have deteriorated with the manifestly uncooperative behavior of FAO leadership in those offices. An enduring example was the meeting with the Director General on 4 June 2023.
3. As mentioned, the promotion and development of agroecology has been the main field of collective action to both mitigate and adapt to climate change. Responsible water management is another area where current development patterns and state behavior are exacerbating the crisis. FAO could revive and greatly improve the cooperation with CSOs, if it had the political will to do so. However, that is becoming increasingly elusive.
4. We used to raise FAO as an example to other UN agencies of how civic engagement should look, especially for those—e.g., UN Habitat—new to the status of a full-fledged agency with a stakeholder-engagement mandate. Since FAO has made liars out of us in that case, we can no longer refer to that model. Instead, certain experiences such as the UNDRR mechanism for civic engagement and advice have emerged as worthy of emulation. Perhaps that example is working well because of a sense of urgency and commensurate political will to solve problems, without the pressure of corporate and corporatist interests (yet) that seek to capture or destroy meaningful CSO engagement for private gain.
Mr. Joseph Schechla