The Reformed Committee on Food Security. A briefing paper for ...

A confused and irrelevant bodyFollowing the successful conclusion of the Contact Group process and the production of its reformdocument, the renewed CFS stumbles through the implementation phase, before finally witheringaway into irrelevance. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, States fail to follow through with the resourcesnecessary for successful implementation, leading to a CFS suffering chronic undercapacity. Overwhelmedby the sheer range of inputs it receives without having a clear idea of how to process them, CFSPlenaries soon become associated with strong feelings of dissatisfaction and irrelevance amongst allthe major stakeholders. CSOs in particular find the experience especially frustrating, as despite theclear commitment in the reform document, there is little or only limited signs of those steering theprocess taking the pledge to hear the voices of “those most affected by food insecurity” seriously. <strong>The</strong>lack of political commitment and a meaningful inclusivity leads to the body being ignored by otherinstitutions and the private sector. <strong>The</strong> prospect of establishing effective public authority over theglobal food security agenda is abandoned for at least another decade, resulting in continued chronicmalnourishment for millions of people.Overview<strong>The</strong> previous three sections have discussed different elements of the reformed CFS – its vision androles; actors and mechanisms; and levels and relations. Summing up, we can say that the renewedCFS:• Is both a body which meets annually and an “Intersessional” process with a continualwork programme;• Retains its status as an intergovernmental body - in which states both are ultimatelyheld accountable for the realisation of food security and the right to food, and hold executivepower within the <strong>Committee</strong>, yet;• Provides significant participation opportunities for a wide range of actors in every aspectof its work, including civil society but also others including IFIs, the WTO, and theprivate sector;• Has a work programme which includes receiving inputs and producing outputs acrossits different roles;• Has roles that – overlapping and interconnected - include generating policy conver-gence and coordinated food security action, and of which the formulation of a GlobalStrategic Framework is a central part;• Has a number of different components at the global level to facilitate its work and toprovide representation during the intersessional period for those entitled to participate inits work (Bureau, Secretariat, Advisory Group, High Level Panel of Experts);• Seeks to establish strong and meaningful linkages with the “reality on the ground”.29