Sincere thanks from the PSM for setting up this valuable E-consultation and the chance to give our views. It is an extremely good idea to reach out to try to get a full set of responses from stakeholders before we get into the nitty gritty of the text later in the year.
I was interested to read the comments of Mr. Rigterink - many thanks for kicking off the debate!
The Zero Draft we have seen is a good starting point but the big job now for those involved in the CFS principles is to create a document that everybody can work to and one that gets the best possible benefits from all types of investment.
As far as views from the International Agri-Food Network go, it is clear that agriculture has been undervalued for too long and all forms of investment in agriculture - public and private, foreign and domestic, small and large - will be needed to increase food production sustainably.
Investment is needed to foster food production, avoid waste, and create value added products. When it comes to assessing investments, this should take place not only at the local level but also at the national and regional level, taking into account potential food security impacts and potential trade offs.
To pick up on Mr. Rigterink's points on smallholders, investments that support smallholders in moving from subsistence farming to creating surpluses are advantageous to help support food security through local, regional and international trade.
On environmental impacts of investment projects, these should be assessed and measures should be taken to encourage sustainable resource use while minimizing the risk of negative impacts and mitigating them.
Perhaps not stressed enough in the current draft, are the exciting and very positive prospects that investments in the transportation, storage, and handling of grains can bring. All of these things can help to minimize post harvest losses and increase overall food availability.
There are many more specific aspects of the text that I could draw upon but I will throw the debate open to others for the time being!
One final suggestion would be to shorten and clarify the draft, especially when it comes to roles and responsibilities. This is no doubt going to be an interesting debate when you consider all of the actors and countries involved in the CFS process, all with specific national contexts! For now, why don't we think about joining the roles and responsibilities into one section and perhaps putting it at the end?
Dear Christina Blank,
Sincere thanks from the PSM for setting up this valuable E-consultation and the chance to give our views. It is an extremely good idea to reach out to try to get a full set of responses from stakeholders before we get into the nitty gritty of the text later in the year.
I was interested to read the comments of Mr. Rigterink - many thanks for kicking off the debate!
The Zero Draft we have seen is a good starting point but the big job now for those involved in the CFS principles is to create a document that everybody can work to and one that gets the best possible benefits from all types of investment.
As far as views from the International Agri-Food Network go, it is clear that agriculture has been undervalued for too long and all forms of investment in agriculture - public and private, foreign and domestic, small and large - will be needed to increase food production sustainably.
Investment is needed to foster food production, avoid waste, and create value added products. When it comes to assessing investments, this should take place not only at the local level but also at the national and regional level, taking into account potential food security impacts and potential trade offs.