Proceedings
/ Proceedings
Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investments
Collection of contributions received
Discussion No. 95 from 13 January to 20 February 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction to the topic 4
Contributions received 6
1. Paul Rigterink, Potomac Technical Advisors, United States of America 6
2. Katy Lee, International Agri-Food Network, Italy 6
3. C.Palanivelayutham Chokkalingam, India 7
4. Alexander Sagaydak, State University of Land Use Planning , Russian Federation 8
5. Abdul Razak Ayazi, Afghanistan Embassy, Italy 9
6. Botir Dosov, CACAARI, Uzbekistan 11
7. Luca Chinotti, Oxfam International, Italy 12
8. Rahul Goswami, Centre for Communication and Development Studies / Economic Research Foundation, India (first contribution) 12
9. Rahul Goswami, Centre for Communication and Development Studies / Economic Research Foundation, India (second contribution) 14
10. Serigne Sarr, Senegal (first contribution) 17
11. Rahul Goswami, Centre for Communication and Development Studies / Economic Research Foundation, India (third contribution) 19
12. Serigne Sarr, Senegal (second contribution) 22
13. Manuel Castrillo, Proyecto Camino Verde, Costa Rica 24
14. Said Zarouali, Haut Commissariat au Plan, Morocco 26
15. Christine Andela, Cameroon 27
16. International Food Security Network 28
17. Riikka Sievänen, University of Helsinki, Finland 39
18. Global Renewable Fuels Alliance, Canada 40
19. Tina Goethe, Bread for all, Switzerland 42
20. Bernd Steimann and Peter Schmidt, HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation, Switzerland 44
21. World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) 45
22. Kien Nguyen Van, Vietnam 45
23. Kyungmee Kim, Stockhols International Water Institute, Sweeden 46
24. Senait Regassa, The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Ethiopia 46
25. Jean-Laurent Bungener, consultant, France 47
26. Kjell Havnevik, Sweden 48
27. ActionAid 52
28. Subhash Mehta, Devarao Shivaram Trust, India 62
29. Groupe Interministériel sur la Sécurité Alimentaire, France 65
30. Jean Paul Beens, Belgium 72
31. Katy Lee, International Agri-Food Network, Italy 72
32. Cathleen Kneen 73
33. Glenn Ashton, Ekogaia Foundation, South Africa 74
34. Stefan Bringezu, Wuppertal Institut, Germany 76
35. Hans Morten Haugen, Diakonhjemmet University College, Norway 77
36. Renat Perelet, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian Federation 78
37. CIDSE, Belgium 78
38. Lalita Bhattacharjee, FAO, Bangladesh 79
39. Gitte Dyrhagen Husager, DanChurchAid, Denmark 81
40. Aksel Naerstad, Development Fund, Norway 82
41. Helen Medina, US Council for International Business, United States of America 84
42. International Institute for Sustainable Development, France 85
43. Greenpeace International 88
44. Pradip Dey, Indian Society of Soil Salinity and Water Quality, India 93
45. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and Grassroots International and International Development Exchange (IDEX), USA 93
46. Christina Blank, CFS RAI Open Ended Working Group Chair 98
Introduction to the topic
Dear Forum Members,
Investing responsibly in agriculture, and particularly in smallholder agriculture, is essential for reducing poverty, creating decent employment opportunities, enhancing food security and nutrition, and ensuring environmental sustainability. Agricultural investments can generate a wide range of developmental benefits. In order to do so, however, they need to be responsible and specifically directed towards the achievement of such benefits, while aiming at avoiding potential negative consequences.
To address these needs, the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) has launched a consultative process to develop and ensure broad ownership of principles for responsible agricultural investments (CFS-RAI). The CFS-RAI principles are expected to promote investments in agriculture that contribute to food security and nutrition, and that support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security.
The principles are intended to provide practical guidance to governments, private and public investors, intergovernmental and regional organizations, civil society organizations, research organizations and universities, donors and foundations. They will be voluntary and non-binding and should be interpreted and applied in line with existing obligations under national and international law.
Consultations will be held from November 2013 to February 2014 and will include regional meetings as well as electronic consultations. The e-consultation aims to build on the feedback and input received in the regional consultations by providing an opportunity to individuals and organizations that have not yet been able to participate in the physical meetings.
All consultation outcomes will contribute to the preparation of the First Draft which will subsequently be negotiated by the CFS-RAI OEWG in Rome in May 2014. The resulting CFS-RAI principles will then be presented to the 41st Session of CFS in 2014 for endorsement by the Plenary.
We welcome your feedback on the Zero Draft following the questions below:
1. Are all relevant issues and areas related to fostering responsible agricultural investments adequately addressed in the Zero Draft? If not, what should be changed?
2. Are the roles and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders clearly defined in order to facilitate implementation of the principles? If not, what should be changed?
3. Does the Zero Draft achieve the desired outcome to promote investments in agriculture that contributes to food security and supports the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security? If not, what should be changed?
4. The principles are intended to provide practical guidance to stakeholders; therefore:
a) Are the current structure and language used clear and accessible for all relevant stakeholders to apply?
b) What steps need to be taken for the CFS-RAI principles to be used and implemented by different stakeholders after endorsement by CFS?
We thank you in advance for your time and for sharing your knowledge and experiences with us.
Christina Blank
CFS RAI Open Ended Working Group Chair
Contributions received
1. Paul Rigterink, Potomac Technical Advisors, United States of America
1. Are all relevant issues and areas related to fostering responsible agricultural investments adequately addressed in the Zero Draft? If not, what should be changed?
Farmers living on a small plot of land need better information and access to supplies.
For example,
Does an agriculture investment organization supply information on the right type of fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, and seeds to use for a particular type of crop?
Does an agriculture investment organization insure that the appropriate supplies needed by a small farmer are available including tools, nursery stock, veterinary supplies, fencing, irrigation equipment, packaging, transport, marketing information, crop insurance, fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, etc.
Without all the proper supplies and better information, small farmers will not be able to increase their cash crops and small animal production; Often they will not be able to pay back their investment if there is unusual weather. An agriculture investment organization needs to insure that all the supplies and information are available so that their investments are appropriate. This is currently not being accomplished.
2. Katy Lee, International Agri-Food Network, Italy
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.
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?
Looking forward to hearing from others.
Katy
3. C.Palanivelayutham Chokkalingam, India
Dear sir,
I have read the zero draft on principles of responsible Agriculture investment.
1. Are all relevant issues and areas related to fostering responsible agricultural investments adequately addressed in the Zero Draft? If not, what should be changed?
In this topic I want to include some of the areas related to fostering responsible Agriculture investment.
1. The government organisation, or private public participation mode the investment should be focussed in the area of irrigated Agriculture. Investment towards the development of irrigation facilities, water harvesting technologies, Drip, sprinkler irrigation, and improved agronomic practices are to be given primary importance.
2. Either private sector or ppp mode more investment are needed in the area of certified seed production which will pave the way for better production in this crop and sustainable income for Agriculture investment.
3. More investment should be added in formation of cold storage, supply chain management, retail marketing, door to door supply of farm products and value added service.
4.Future market in agriculture commodity (on line market) should be strictly prohibited for sustainable Agriculture investment.
4. Alexander Sagaydak, State University of Land Use Planning , Russian Federation
In my opinion, the Zero Draft of the RAI is a logical development of the VGGT. It establishes a comprehensive approach to responsible management of investments in agriculture. It is very important for Russia and other post-Soviet countries. As for the questions that can be answered as follows.
1. Almost all major aspects of the responsible agricultural investing are adequately described in the Zero Draft.
2. The roles, rights and responsibilities of the main parties involved in the investment process in agriculture are also described clearly.
3. The Zero Draft is quite perfect document, which I believe have a major impact on improving the efficiency of agricultural production, providing its sustainable development in the context of national food security.
4. The Zero Draft is written clearly, understandable and accessible.
I especially appreciate that the Zero Draft pays great attention to the environmental aspects of investment process in agriculture. This reveals the connection between the Zero Draft of the RAI and the VGGT.
However, in my opinion, it should be noted that investing in agriculture should be carried out on the basis of project analysis using international indicators to measure the effectiveness defined by using international accounting standards. This requirement is especially important for Russia and other post-Soviet countries. Implementation of the RAI should be started with the launch of the pilot projects in the different parts of the world. The experience should be scrutinized, disseminated and replicated.
5. Abdul Razak Ayazi, Afghanistan Embassy, Italy
I note that the four questions on which you wish to receive feedback from Permanent Representatives are not exactly the same that were posed to the Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) on 19 September, 2013. Nevertheless, I shall try to respond to all the four questions.
Question 1 : Are all relevant issues and areas related to fostering responsible agricultural investment adequately addressed in the Zero Draft? If not what should be changed?
As I understand it , the Zero Draft has a special intent, namely to elaborate the Principles that need to be observed when investment is planned for agriculture by all stakeholders. From this angle the Zero Draft adequately covers the main issues and areas in making agricultural investment responsible.
However, fostering responsible investment in agriculture at the national and local level, including for food security and nutrition, goes much beyond the 8 RAI Principles. Agricultural investment on a national scale hinges on such important consideration as macroeconomic environment, political stability, growth prospects in the sub-sectors of agriculture, suitable land and water resources, enhancing the productivity and competitiveness of agricultural commodities produced domestically, size of the internal market, choice of technology, institutional services, infrastructure, access to finance, tax and credit policies, incentives etc. At project level, the decision is based on social cost/benefit analysis in which it may prove difficult to factor in one or more of the 8 Principles into the analysis.
The notion that the eight Principles provide all the elements required for investment decision at national or project level would be an exaggeration.
Question 2 : Are the roles and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders clearly defined in order to facilitate implementation of the Principles? If not what should be changed?
The inclusion of a section on “Roles and Responsibilities” in part I, II and III is appreciated. The question is how detailed these role and responsibilities be spelled out. In Part I, it covers two full pages. Taking Part I, II and III together there are 35 bullet points on Roles and Responsibilities for States, 18 for Investors and 4 for others, making a total of 57 bullet points. We think that in order to avoid a shopping list, there should be few bullet points of high relevance. Given the wide range of capabilities and resource availability among states and given the diverse profile of investors, a short list will be more desirable. This is more so as RAI Principles are voluntary and non-binding as underlined on page 2 of the Zero Draft.