Global Governance and Food Security as Global Public Good

cic.nyu.edu

Global Governance and Food Security as Global Public Good

NEW YORK UNIVERSITYCENTER ON INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIONThe world faces old and new security challenges that are morecomplex than our multilateral and national institutions arecurrently capable of managing. International cooperation is evermore necessary in meeting these challenges. The NYU Center onInternational Cooperation (CIC) works to enhance internationalresponses to conflict, insecurity, and scarcity through appliedresearch and direct engagement with multilateral institutionsand the wider policy community.CIC’s programs and research activities span the spectrum ofconflict, insecurity, and scarcity issues. This allows us to see criticalinter-connections and highlight the coherence often necessaryfor effective response. We have a particular concentration on theUN and multilateral responses to conflict.


Table of ContentsGlobal Governace and Food Security as GlobalPublic Goodby Hans PageAbbreviations 2A. Context for Food Security 31. Food security as an international issue requiring collective global action 32. Evolution of thinking on food security 43. Food security today 54. Global trends impacting on food security duringthe forthcoming 30-40 years 6a) Desirable scenarios and challenges 6b) Demand for food and agricultural products 7c) Natural resource base 7d) Agriculture and energy 8e) Research and Development (R&D) 8f) Agricultural productions systems 9g) International agricultural and fisheries trade 10h) The role of climate change 10i) Impact of climate change: change of production systemsand natural disasters 10B. Collective responses of the international community 111. Evolution of positioning of UN food agencies 112. The UN within the context of changing development paradigms 133. Global governance as key to resource management and issue resolution 144. The Way Forward: recognition of the Need for EnhancedGlobal Governance for Food Security 145. Embedding food and nutrition security into the global agenda 17C. Global Governance of food security: Issues and Challenges 201. Challenges and threats 202. Cooperation and collective response mechanisms 203. Governance and Food Security as Global Public Good andFood Insecurity as Global Public Bad 214. Food and nutrition security in a global multi-stakeholder systemand the role of the United Nations 235. Possible course of action 25


2List of AbbreviationsABNJAreas Beyond National JurisdictionACC SCNAdministrative Committee on Coordination Sub-committee on NutritionAFSIAquila Food Security InitiativeAMISAgricultural Market Information SystemBRIC Brazil, Russia, India, and ChinaCAADPComprehensive Africa Agriculture Development ProgrammeCARICOM Caribbean Community and Common MarketCFAComprehensive Framework for ActionCFSUN/FAO Committee on World Food SecurityCSOCivil Society OrganizationECOEnvironmental Conservation OrganizationECOWASEconomic Community of West African StatesEUEuropean UnionFAOFood and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFPIC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeG8/G20 Group of 8/Group of 20GAFSPGlobal Agriculture and Food Security ProgramGEF Global Environmental FacilityGPBsGlobal Public ‘Bads’GPGsGlobal Public GoodsHLTFHigh-Level Task ForceIAASTD International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for DevelopmentIAFNInternational Agri-Food NetworkICNInternational Conference on NutritionIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIGAD Intercontinental Government Authorities For DevelopmentIGCInternational Grain CouncilINGOInternational Non-Governmental OrganizationIPBESIntergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem ServicesIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeIT PGRFAInternational Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and AgricultureMDGsMillennium Development GoalsNGOsNon Governmental OrganizationOECDOrganization for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentR&DResearch and DevelopmentSUNThe Scaling-Up Nutrition MovementUCFAUpdated Comprehensive Framework for ActionUNICEFUnited Nations International Children's Emergency FundUSUnited StatesWEFWorld Economic ForumWFPWorld Food ProgrammeWTOWorld Trade OrganizationNYUCICGlobal Governance and Food Security as Global Public Good


A. Context for Food Security1. Food security as an international issue requiringcollective global action1. Food is essential for any living being. As a result, whenand where it is scarce, it provides power for those whocontrol it and the resources required for producingfood. Food is also a commodity and a source ofwealth: control over some elements of the food chainimpacts on food prices, availability and access, andthe ethics of speculating in food commodities arebeing debated. 1 Production of food also competeswith other areas, including technology research, forenergy, natural resources and space. Food insecurityhas been one of the engines for technological andsocial innovation, productivity and organization. Theperceived or actual shortage of food, or the need forresources for producing food, has been a driver ofmigrations for entire populations and has been at theroot of many political conflicts.2. With the expansion of global networks for trade,since the second half of the 19th century there hasbeen increasing awareness of the interdependency ofnations’ agriculture and food systems. This translatedinto the establishment of the International Instituteof Agriculture (1905), the first intergovernmentalinstitution with the mandate of addressing foodand agricultural issues. After World War I, the Leagueof Nations had issues relating to food supplies andnutrition on its agenda. 23. Hunger and famine in Europe in the aftermath ofWorld War II brought the issue of food as a threat tonational and regional security back to the forefront. 3This culminated in the recognition that a formalintergovernmental institutional framework wouldbe required: the FAO of the United Nations wasestablished (1945) as the first international institutionwith the mandate to deal specifically with hunger,1. w ww.oxfam.org/en/grow/policy/not-game-speculation-vs-food-security.2. Source: FAO: Its origins formation and evolution 1945-1981, www.fao.org.docrep/009/p4228e/P4228e01.htm3. See also the Marshall Plan Speech in /en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Marshall_Plan_Speech.food and agriculture 4 as an international responsibility.New and unforeseen issues during subsequent yearsrequired the intergovernmental community to adaptthis institutional framework. 54. In the second half of the 20th century, newcommunication technologies and access to instantinformation 6 about events in other continents –combined with international mass tourism, includingto developing countries - generated a sense of a “globalvillage” and of interdependency and responsibility forthe welfare of people living in other parts of the world.5. In the late nineties, and particularly since 2000, foodsecurity has become a standing item on the globalagenda and the object of various intergovernmentalprocesses (most notably a series of world food summitsdealing with food security in 1996, 2002, 2008); thefirst of the eight Millennium Development Goals(MDGs) deals with poverty and hunger. 7 The food riotsin several countries after the hike in food commodityprices in 2008 reaffirmed the links between foodsecurity and development and broader security, andthe need to address food insecurity through crosscuttingcollective action.6. The topic of food security expanded from beingaddressed only in specialized fora (e.g. internationaland national organizations dedicated to food and foodproduction) to being included in the broader spectrumof governance mechanisms, through revamping ofexisting tools, creation of dedicated high-level groups,and placing food security as a standing item of themeetings of the G8/G20. International NGOs also playa critical role in raising global awareness about theglobal dimension of food security/insecurity.4. For the origins of FAO please refer to: www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/getinvolved/pdf/FAO_Italia_per_web_19ott.pdf. FAO’s goals were stated as: “raising levels of nutrition and standards ofliving of the peoples under their respective jurisdictions; securing improvements in the efficiencyof the production and distribution of all food and agricultural products; bettering the conditionof rural populations; and thus contributing towards an expanding world economy and ensuringhumanity’s freedom from hunger”.5. 1961: WFP to deal with food shortages in developing countries, 1971: CGIAR as worldwidenetwork of agricultural research centers to coordinate international agricultural research effortsaimed at reducing poverty and achieving food security in developing countries, 1974: IFAD to dealwith funding requirements for investment in rural development, 1964: joint activities betweenFAO and the World Bank, 1965: UNDP to fund technical cooperation including rural development.6. TV in the sixties and internet in the late nineties.7. www.un.org/millenniumgoals/poverty.shtml3Global Governance and Food Security as Global Public GoodNYUCIC


47. Despite a proliferation of global mechanisms since the2008 food crisis, the international system continues tostruggle with integrating international and nationalpolicies, and suffers from a lack of coordinationwith the private sector. This paper discusses foodsecurity/food insecurity in the context of emergingglobal trends, and the mechanisms and processesestablished by governments to manage and govern itin times of shocks and crisis.2. Evolution of thinking on food security8. The term “food security” evolved in response to therecognition of the individual, national, and globalimpacts of production shortfalls and market failures inagriculture. The challenge of finding the appropriatedefinition was on how to link the individual, household,national and global requirements for food security,including aspects of individual nutrition, and to makeit an effective driver for policy making and resourceallocation. Clarity on the definition of “food security”was therefore essential to developing a consistent andcoherent framework for policy responses, “to eradicatefood insecurity, hunger and malnutrition, consistentwith the right to adequate food and the right to be freefrom hunger”, taking into account socio-economic andagriculture contexts. 89. The original definition of “food security” was shapedby the conditions of food shortages in parts of wartornEurope and reflected the aim of restoringproduction and market systems in Europe. 9 In the1960s, the concept was expanded to include foodsecurity and nutrition of individuals. The World FoodConference (1974) – held in response to a food crisisthat was provoked by a succession of productionand market failures in the 1970s 10 - defined foodsecurity as the “availability at all times of adequateworld food supplies of basic foodstuffs to sustain asteady expansion of food consumption and to offsetfluctuations in production and prices.” The already8. A consistent definition across disciplines and languages was found essential for enablingmeaningful discussion on international and interdisciplinary level to deal with food security andimproved nutrition related issues.9. In 1943 forty-four Governments articulated for the first time (Hot Springs) the terms “foodsecurity” and “nutrition security” in the context as we know them today as topics for internationalaction10. Drawdown on global grain stocks, market shortages, rising food prices in many countries anda significant decline in per capita availability of grains and other starchy staples.existing institutional setup (FAO, WFP and IFAD) wasexpanded to include the UN/FAO Committee on WorldFood Security (CFS) and the Administrative Committeeon Coordination Sub-committee on Nutrition (ACCSCN).10. As from 1975, FAO began to argue that malnutritionis not simply a problem of food availability, but also afunction of poverty and of deprivation. This argumentdirectly linked malnutrition to overall developmentplanning as it acknowledged that malnutrition couldpersist despite an increase in overall food supplies.11. In the 1980s, after a series of poor grain harvests, thesecond world food crisis struck. In face of the failure ofglobal food supply to guarantee security, the conceptof food security was broadened to three specific goals:adequacy of supplies, stability in food supplies andmarkets, and security of access to supplies. In 1986,the World Bank 11 deepened the link between hungerand development by attributing both chronic hungerand transitory food insecurity to poverty, adapting itsaid strategy to address factors that kept vulnerablehouseholds trapped in poverty12. Starting in 1990, UNICEF distinguished between foodand non-food factors (care and health) as essentialelements for child nutrition, later institutionalized bythe 1992 International Conference on Nutrition (ICN).In 2010, a range of stakeholders in the nutrition andhealth community (The Scaling-Up Nutrition (SUN)Movement) began to advocate for mainstreamingnutrition considerations into policy making.13. The broadened understanding of what constitutedfood security led the agreement by the 2012Committee for World Food Security 12 that:“Food and nutrition security exists when all people atall times have physical, social and economic access tofood, which is safe and consumed in sufficient quantityand quality to meet their dietary needs and foodpreferences, and is supported by an environment of11. World Bank: “Poverty and Hunger: Issues and Options for Food Security in DevelopingCountries”.198612. CFS, Coming to Terms with Terminology, Revised draft 25 July 2012.NYUCICGlobal Governance and Food Security as Global Public Good


adequate sanitation, health services and care, allowingfor a healthy and active life.”3. Food security today14. From 1990 to 2000, relative stability in the globalfood supply resulted in a period of complacency andreduced investment and innovation in food industriescompared to other sectors. The exceptional food pricehikes in 2008 13 brought back to the forefront theunderstanding that effective markets and nationallevelpolicy decisions are not sufficient for preventingmajor imbalances among nations and among specificvulnerable population groups, and that uncoordinatedshort-term national policies can result in destabilizingglobal impacts on prices and access to food in othercountries. They were caused by a combination of verycomplex factors, such as 14 :• “Increased demand and global economic growth,especially in emerging countries such as China and India;• The world’s economic growth, especially in emergingcountries such as China and India;• An increase in the per capita consumption of meat anddairy products, the production of which requires anintensive use of feed grains;• The reduction of the agricultural product inventory;• The dollar devaluation;• The expansion of biofuel production in Europe and theUnited States;• “Panic” buying by some importing countries;13. Food Security: A G20 Priority: “After one decade of relative stability in global food markets,the period after 2007 was marked by an ongoing increase in prices for the main agriculturalproducts. The international food price index increased by 55.3% between September 2007 andSeptember 2011. This increase basically occurred in two periods. The first was that of 2007 and thefirst quarter of 2008, when the food index increased by 61.6%. The world financial crisis and thesubsequent reduction in aggregated demand led to a reduction in food prices compared to thatperiod, but food price levels remained above those before 2007. The second food price increaseperiod occurred between July 2010 and February 2011, when the index increased by 41.4%. Theeffect of agricultural product high prices has spread relatively rapidly to other sectors of theeconomy through the added value chain, a situation that has led to consumer price increasesfor a series of basic products in several countries, especially those made from corn, wheat, meatand dairies. Consequently, food price increases have, once again, become a global inflationarypressure factor with a particular impact on low-income population segments.”14. Several studies by Trostle, 2008; Mitchell, 2008; Headey and Fan, 2008; Rossett, 2008; Elliott,2008 and poldev.revues.org/145• The reallocation of investment portfolios to raw materialsfuture markets, in many cases with speculative purposes;• A slowdown in the growth of global agriculturalproduction;• The conversion of productive land for use in nonagriculturalactivities;• The increase in water opportunity cost;• Adverse weather phenomena in major production regionscaused by climate change;• Export restrictions imposed by major producer countries incertain periods;• The rise in price of oil and other fuels, which increasesagricultural production costs”.15. These events highlighted that even though effectivemarkets and national-level policy decisions couldensure adequate global and national food supplies,they are not sufficient to prevent major imbalancesamong nations and among specific vulnerablepopulation groups. They also demonstrated thatuncoordinated short-term national policies couldhave destabilizing global impacts on prices and accessto food in other countries.16. FAO reported in 2010 that while the global economicsystems generated global food surplus, the number ofhungry and food insecure people increased to nearlya billion people, falling short of the MDG target onpoverty. Developing countries account for 98 percentof the world’s undernourished people and, as of 2010,had a 16 percent prevalence of undernourishment.The number of malnourished people fluctuatesdepending on the overall economic situation: highfood prices between 2003 and 2005 and in 2007–2008were followed by a rapid increase in chronic hunger.The rapid increase in the number of hungry since 2010is largely influenced by the global food and fuel crisis.5Global Governance and Food Security as Global Public GoodNYUCIC


617. As result, a consensus is emerging of the need toreverse the stagnation of investment in agriculture.International and national policies have evolved, andbilateral agencies, financial institutions, foundations,equity funds and companies are again showingsignificant interest in investing in food industries indeveloping countries.18. In developing countries, agricultural policies alsoseem to be changing, evolving from direct andindirect taxation to less taxation and protection.This is supported by a number of international andregional initiatives, such as the Aquila Food SecurityInitiative (AFSI) of the G8, or the ComprehensiveAfrica Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP).Russia, China and India also emphasize domesticagricultural productivity. Reform of agricultural tradepolicies will need to complement these initiatives.19. The expectation today is that food prices will remainon a higher plateau in real terms compared to theprevious decade and that volatility may continue tocharacterize agricultural markets.4. Global trends impacting on foodsecurity during the forthcoming 30-40years 15a) Desirable scenarios and challenges• Due to urban consumption patterns the share of foodwithin the expenditure portfolio of urban populationswill decline, while remaining high for populations livingin rural areas;• Food demand will increasingly be met through cropintensification, which can only be organized bycomplex commercially organized agro-industrial andfood marketing chains;• Interdependency between the agricultural sector andthe energy sector will increase: the agricultural sectoris a major user of fossil fuel products and energy, but isalso becoming increasingly a source of energy products(biofuel). This will lead to greater competition betweenagricultural production for human consumption andfor energy production; and• That it should be technically feasible, consideringthe existing high productivity differential betweenresearch results and actual farm-level results, to meetrising demand.21. The goals of increasing productivity and foodavailability will be challenged by climate change.The impact of climate change will not be uniformacross the globe, and in terms of food productionsome regions will be positively and others negativelyaffected:20. FAO’s projections indicate that:• In order to feed the world population in 2050 theproduction of food will have to grow by 70%, wherebythe demand in developing countries will be nearlythreefold;• The share of urban food consumption patterns that relyon complex and integrated food chains and a high shareof animal products in global consumption patterns willincrease, due to the increasing urbanization and ruralurbanmigration;15. This section relies heavily on the following document: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/025/GT_WebAnnex_RC2012.pdf but there are many publications that mirror the sameconclusions and that can be searched under the terms “food security and global impact” etc..• Productivity in the agriculture, fisheries and forestrysectors will increase or decrease, as agricultural cropsare sensitive to temperature variations depending onthe region and will be affected differently dependingon how climate change will impact on the ecologicalzones;• Due to rising seawater levels some coastal areas will beflooded and no longer available for agricultural use orhabitation;• Global warming will further reduce glaciers in highmountains which are a key source for fresh water andessential for irrigated agriculture, animal husbandryand aquaculture in many regions;NYUCICGlobal Governance and Food Security as Global Public Good


• Changing rainfall patters will influence agriculturalproductive capacity, including aridification of someareas;• There are indications that the frequency of extremeclimatic events (floods, hurricanes, drought) willincrease.b) Demand for food and agricultural products22. By 2050, the global population is expected to grow to9.3 billion, with a strong trend towards urbanization.FAO’s baseline projections indicate that global foodproduction in 2050 would need to increase by 70percent to adjust to these changing demographics.FAO expects that it should be possible to meet the fooddemand of this projected world population, based onplausible assumptions on yield improvements andrates of expansion of land and water use.23. With overall economic growth and a rise in individualincomes, the relative importance of agriculture,fisheries and forestry is expected to decline andbecome more interdependent and sensitive tochanges and fluctuations in other sectors. With risingincomes, food demand is expected to shift to highstatus(including fish and meat), non-seasonal, andprocessed foods.24. These positive economic trends are expected to beaccompanied by continuing inequalities betweenregions, both between and within countries. Abouttwo-thirds of the world’s populations are expected tolive in urban areas and follow urban consumption anddietary habits. Rural-urban income differentials areseen as a key driver for rural-urban migration, whichoften means the urbanization of poverty.25. As a result, food insecurity will increasingly appear asan urban problem and will make it more visible andpolitically sensitive.c) Natural resource base26. Scenarios for 2050 anticipate the loss, depletionand degradation of soil and water resources, loss ofbiodiversity and loss of productive land to other uses,undermining national and global capacities requiredfor enhancing food security and reducing poverty. Thecauses for diminishing quality and quantity of naturalresources and loss of ecosystem are:• Degradation, depletion, over-exploitation and pollutionof natural resources;• Climate variability and change, and natural disasters(e.g. flooding of coastal areas, erratic rainfall andprolonged droughts);• Land taken out of production through abandonmentdue to civil strife, displacement, land mines, expansionof human settlements, and infrastructure and mineralextraction;• The protection of ecosystems from human pressuresby limiting access to their natural resources throughenvironmental legislation and designation of parks andreserves.27. Growing competition over natural resources maybecome a zero sum game if improperly managed. Thedrivers for increased demand for natural resources willbe:• Population growth;• Increasing urbanization rates;• Changing consumption patterns (such as growth inmeat consumption) that require more land-intensiveproduction;• Bio-energy production;• Increasing food demands for export as a result ofglobalization and food security concerns in investorcountries;7Global Governance and Food Security as Global Public GoodNYUCIC


8• Growth of commercialized production of naturalresources;• Input and production subsidies to the agriculturalsector, such as for energy, fertilizer, water andgovernment purchase of production (which aimto promote production and food security but maypromote the expansion of agricultural lands).28. Most of the additional 70 percent in food productionnecessary to address population growth will haveto come from agricultural intensification. Increasingproductivity requires investment, technologicalinnovation and policies, but crop intensification ishighly dependent on fossil fuels, and most probablyunaffordable to the majority of small farmers indeveloping countries. This will be a risk to the supplyside of food security.29. Commercial investments in food production areexpected to focus on prime agriculture land orfisheries. Where formal property rights are weak,people using that land or fishery may be dispossessedand forced to use less productive resources, creatingoften-ignored social costs. Social safeguards arenecessary to manage trade-offs between measures foreconomic growth and the need to protect vulnerablegroups.30. The expected population increases in poorer and lessdiversified developing economies, where agriculturewill remain predominant, will put further pressureon natural resources, particularly in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. This could also accelerate internationalmigration.31. Agriculture uses about 70 percent of the waterresources of the planet. With the need to increaseagricultural production to meet growing demand,pressure on water resources will increase. Competitionbetween agriculture and non-agricultural uses ofwater will increasingly become an issue.32. Reduction of post-harvest losses is seen by FAO as acompensating strategy to deal with the impact ofreducing natural resources on overall production.d) Agriculture and energy33. Agriculture requires energy. Modern agriculture relieson chemical fertilizers derived from fossil fuels andmachinery. Food storage, processing and distributionare also energy intensive. Higher energy costs directlyimpact agricultural production costs and food prices.34. Bioenergy can also be an output of the agrifood chain.Biofuel production is stimulated through governmentsubsidies, tax incentives and mandates (particularly inthe G20 countries), which remain important drivers formost types of biofuels. Agricultural land that is usedfor bioenergy is not available for food production.e) Research and Development (R&D)35. The gap between average farm yields and the yieldsobtained in experimental fields is considerable, butreaching this potential requires that farmers operatein well-functioning input and output markets; haveaccess to efficient infrastructures; have better financeand risk management tools; and work under aframework of appropriate policies and institutions.36. Global investment in agricultural R&D has increasedin the last three decades, with a rising share investedby the private sector. Private investment in R&D isconcentrated in a few developed countries and ahandful of rapidly emerging countries. The emergenceof biotechnology as a major source of innovationin agriculture will have major consequences forsmall farmers. Intellectual protection instruments,particularly in the seed sector, are increasinglyimportant. The role of public extension servicesis declining, while the role of the private sector inthe dissemination of technologies and practices isgrowing.37. With these changes, Africa is of special concern. Therewill be an increasing need for public policies, publicinvestments and partnerships with the private sectorto ensure a more universal utilization of innovationsfor increasing food production and povertyreduction. Yield gains, food security, and sustainableNYUCICGlobal Governance and Food Security as Global Public Good


management depend on policies and institutions.Appropriate public policies, supplemented byinfrastructures and institutions, are required to ensureand regulate the access of smallholders to technicalprogress generated by investments of the privatesector.38. Agricultural research is essential for meeting theneeds of a growing population. Increasing demand forfood can only be met by more intensified productionwhich is dependent on research and innovation, aswell as on reduction of losses and waste along thefood chain which requires awareness, research andmanagement. The share of agricultural researchthat is managed and funded by private corporationsis increasing; their research focus is dominated bycorporate interests and not necessarily by the needsof vulnerable population groups without resourcesand income that would enable them to participatein the formal food sector. Funding for agriculturalresearch that aims at supporting weak smallholdersand vulnerable population groups depends on thepublic sector. However, with shrinking governmentbudgets worldwide, the share of research in supportof smallholders in developing countries is declining.f) Agricultural productions systems39. Food production systems are going through a strongvertical integration process at the national and globallevels through the development of large and complexglobal value chains. Food production chains havebecome longer, more complex and transnational inall regions. Foreign direct investment plays a key rolein this process, generating income opportunities, butalso speeding up concentration and technical changeand competing with or and even displacing moretraditional production systems.40. Integrated food chains, managed by highly concentratedagro-industrial (often multinational) firms, areexpected to increasingly expand into developingcountries, integrating their agricultural producers intoindustrialized global or regional marketing chains.Agro-industries require standardized products andtimeliness for processors and retailers to remain competitiveand an adequately skilled workforce. Contractfarming - particularly for horticultural crops - linkfarmers to large food chains for which standards andcompliance are key variables. These production chainsand the institutional framework in which these firmsoperate are designed for the international and urbanmarkets. With the increased demand for processedfood products and season-independent food supplies,other dimensions such as management, marketing, information,logistics, food safety and quality standardsbecome relevant.41. Established local firms and small primary producersmay find it difficult to integrate with such modernagrifood production chains that demand adherenceto stringent quality standards, particularly whenadaptation requires capital and variable input use, andto manage related risks too difficult to handle. Smallscalefishing communities face similar conditions.42. There is a trend towards increasing farm size, especiallyin developing countries and emerging economies inland-abundant regions, and a shift from small-sizefamily farming to large-size enterprises based on hiredlabour and higher capital intensity.43. National governments, particularly in smaller ordeveloping countries, are challenged by the increasingeconomic interdependency and transnationalcharacter of private investment. International andnational institutions need to define and enforceregulatory policies that shape the national andinternational economic environment, to counteractmarket failures in the area of competitiveness and antitrust,to manage information asymmetries betweenconsumers and producers, as well as to protect theenvironment and address global environmentalchallenges and manage resources such as land, waterand biodiversity.9Global Governance and Food Security as Global Public GoodNYUCIC


12raising levels of nutrition and standards of living of thepeoples under their respective jurisdictions; securingimprovements in the efficiency of the production anddistribution of all food and agricultural products;bettering the condition of rural populations; and thuscontributing towards an expanding world economy andensuring humanity’s freedom from hunger”.59. It is significant that the major players at the timeof FAO’s establishment were the governments. Itsdesign envisaged that most of its work would beconducted through statutory bodies or commissions,many operating under joint oversight with other UNagencies.60. Other stakeholders (i.e. NGOs, CSOs and the privatesector) 19that have become vocal defenders ofconsumer and producer rights and interests wereassociated as observers. There is an increasinginvolvement of non- governmental stakeholders, withsome establishing formal advisory or consultativemechanisms, including private sector companies.Fostered by the revolutionary progress in informationtechnology and global transport - and supportedby immense low-cost labor markets in manyformerly developing countries – global transnationalcorporations have also become relevant players withstandard setting and normative standard power tosupport their corporate goals.61. The number and types of associations, networksand partnerships that address food and agriculturesystems are on the rise. This is linked to calls for globalgovernance mechanisms and platforms related to foodsecurity, agriculture, natural resource managementand biodiversity. 2019. Examples include the Codex Alimentarius and FAO Committee on Commodity Problems,International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, the RotterdamConvention and Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products. There are also other types ofexisting international commitments, such as the Voluntary Guidelines to support the ProgressiveRealization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security.20. Specific and recent examples include requests to create global governance structures thatrelate to FAO’s work such as: the request to the CFS to create an International Observatory onLand Tenure; the call by the G-20 to create a global agricultural marketing information system(AMIS); requests to focus on issues related to fisheries, aquaculture and oceans, through theGEF Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) project, or review the governance of UN Oceans;the agreement to establish an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity andEcosystem Services (IPBES); the creation of a UN system-wide accountability framework ongender to focus on progress on calls for gender equality; development of Voluntary Guidelineson Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and other Natural Resources; development of thePrinciples for Responsible Agricultural Investment; International Guidelines for the Governanceof Tenure in Land, Fisheries and Forestry and the Voluntary Guidelines for Small-Scale Fisheries.62. Considerable work is underway in the field of researchand knowledge generation relating to food systemsand climate change, through scientific, transparentand open processes designed to include differentstakeholders. 21 At the same time, the human rightsbased approach to the “Right-for-Food” changedthe focus and is putting the individual at the centerof all development policies. Through it the rights ofindividuals for food are not only respected, protectedand fulfilled 22 but it will also become a dynamic driverfor policy and governance related to food securityissues.63. The modalities of governance are gradually shiftingtowards increasingly participatory and decentralizedprocesses with heightened focus on national priorities.At the same time, the nature of current globalchallenges is cross-cutting, transcending nationaland regional boundaries and increasingly requiresincreased multi-stakeholder and intergovernmentalplatforms to achieve global consensus. Consequently,national and international non-governmentalorganizations dedicated to food and hunger issuesclaim a prominent place in the public debate of allaspects of food security, often pushing nationalgovernments and intergovernmental mechanisms toaction. 2364. This trend profoundly impacts on the Rome-basedUN food agencies, which had to adjust from beingthe central actors in food security governance tohaving to share this role with other players in a multistakeholdersystem and required them to questionhow their specific comparative strength as neutralintergovernmental fora could be used to maximum21. There has been a progressive development of science and policy interfaces at nationaland international levels, most notably on environmental issues such as climate change (IPCC),ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) and also in agriculture (IAASTD), and now infood security with the creation of the High Level Panel of Experts for food security and nutrition.A growing commitment to evidence based analysis to underpin decision-making processes isalso reflected in regional and national development initiatives, such as the ComprehensiveAfrica Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). Another example is the Commission onGenetic Resources for Food and Agriculture which serves as intergovernmental forum dealingwith biodiversity for food and agriculture through the lens of food and nutrition security. Its workresulted in several global instruments, e.g. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources forFood and Agricultural, harmonized with the Convention on Biological Diversity, and agreed onGlobal Plans of Actions on Genetic Resources.22. Translated into practical terms, this means safeguarding or improving vulnerable people’saccess to natural resources through fairer tenure systems, better knowledge and communication,and application of the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) in relation to resourcemanagement decisions.23. A good example is the current campaign by one international NGO against speculations infood commodity markets: www.oxfam.org/en/grow/pressroom/reactions/european-parliamentdraws-line-sand-financial-markets-must-not-play-foodNYUCICGlobal Governance and Food Security as Global Public Good


effect. This was the focus of the Independent ExternalEvaluation of FAO 24 , launched by its Members in 2008and which resulted in FAO’s fundamental restructuringand reorientation.65. The proliferation of stakeholders in food securityalso means that the FAO, IFAD and WFP (as the onlyintergovernmental bodies dedicated entirely to foodsecurity issues), may have to adapt and repositionthemselves to:• Increase collaboration and partnership with otherstakeholders (other UN agencies, civil society, privatesector, other DPs);• Support capacity development to increase countries’ability to lead, prepare, implement and evaluateeffective national policies, strategies and investmentplans and programs in relation to agriculture and foodsecurity at the outset;• Include key civil society stakeholders and producerorganizations to allow them to become effectivecollaborators in national strategy and program designand implementation;• Engage in the global processes and bring global insightsto bear on its country support and country work;• Support countries in establishing sound, inclusive andcoherent governance systems for agriculture and food/nutrition security from the local levels to the nationaland global levels;• Support national stakeholders in resource mobilizationefforts relating to agriculture and food/nutritionsecurity with development partners and from nationalbudgets;• Anticipate and accommodate calls for globalgovernance mechanisms involving a growing numberof stakeholders from a wider variety of sectors;• Support implementation and monitoring of globalgovernance mechanisms/guidelines, to prepare to scaleup capacity to understand its potential monitoring role.24. ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/012/k0827erev1.pdf.66. The new Strategic Framework of FAO 25 (2013) withits new focus on governance, creation of enablingenvironments and policy support in Membercountries is the direct outcome of this adaptation andrepositioning process.2. The UN within the context of changingdevelopment paradigms67. One of the central principles of sustainable developmentis national ownership of country strategies andprograms. A key achievement of the aid and developmenteffectiveness debate 26 has been their adoptionby development actors 27 as parameters for theirwork. Many development partners have decentralizeddecision-making processes and some budgetary authority,allowing their country offices much greaterautonomy in determining how to provide support andwith whom to engage.68. The UN system was designed as a collaborativeeffort by its Member States to deal with global andtransnational issues, and to facilitate and manageknowledge exchange. However, the world has changedfundamentally with the ongoing globalization processand the emergence of new powerful stakeholders.New implementation modalities and processes forfood security continue to emerge in this evolvingdevelopment context, characterized by (1) theincreasingly important role of UN Regional EconomicCommunities (RECs); (2) increasing need at nationallevel for institutional capacities in planning/policydesign and implementation; and (3) decentralizationby the development partners, including the UNdevelopment system agencies.25. www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/027/mg015e.pdf.26. Commitments in the HLFs have evolved from a focus on aid effectiveness to developmenteffectiveness which places responsibilities to a much greater extent at the country level. The2002 Rome Declaration focused on commitments by development partners to align to countryprograms. The Paris Declaration in 2005 broadened commitment to alignment and harmonizedsupport to country owned processes and put the emphasis on mutual accountability, betweencountries and development partners, thereby expanding responsibilities at the country level.The Accra Agenda for Action (AAA) in 2008 added the focus on partnerships at country level,including civil society, thereby broadening the national constituency that is explicitly consideredas stakeholders in the country-led agenda. Civil society was also represented at the Accra Forumfor the first time. The AAA further emphasized the need for capacity development to strengthencountries’ ability to manage their own future. The Busan Outcome Document (2011), advocates fora shift from aid to development effectiveness thereby further strengthening the role of nationalparties.27. Decisions of the four High Level Fora (HLF) on aid effectiveness in Rome (2002), Paris (2005),Accra (2008) and Busan (2011).Global Governance and Food Security as Global Public Good13NYUCIC


• The RECs play an increasing role in supportingcountries in their development efforts, particularly fortrans-boundary plant pest and diseases, phytosanitarymeasures, management of shared ecosystems ortransboundary waters or trade in food and agriculturalproducts (e.g. ECOWAS in West Africa, IGAD in theHorn of Africa, ECO in South Asia, and CARICOM in theCaribbean).• At country level, existing frameworks (e.g. povertyreduction strategies, as well as agriculture andfood security frameworks) need to be amendedand strengthened to support effective agriculturaldevelopment and progress in achieving food security;they may not adequately address multi-sectoralapproaches to food security and a common vision ofpriority investments.3. Global governance as key to resourcemanagement and issue resolution70. The cross-cutting nature of emerging national andregional priorities requires commensurate supportfrom the multilateral system - that transcendsnational and regional boundaries - and a responseto the increasing call for increased multi-stakeholderand intergovernmental platforms to achieve globalconsensus. The conflicting interests 29 between the fullrange of different stakeholders, from the local smallscaleproducer through to the national, regional andglobal levels need to be reconciled in order to dealeffectively with cross-cutting issues. At the same time,the modalities of governance are shifting increasinglytowards participatory and decentralized processesand heightened focus on national priorities. 3014• Regions and countries have put in place tools to enhancetheir country-owned, coordinated and inclusive actionsin support of agricultural development. Examples atthe program level include the Comprehensive AfricaAgriculture Development Program (CAADP) of theAfrican Union that was endorsed by African headsof state in 2003 as a common framework, tool andprocess for the restoration of African agriculture inpursuit of MDG 1 28 . There is increasing recognition ofthe importance of the participation of non-state-actorssuch as producer organizations and the wider privatesector, as well as civil society organizations in CAADPprocesses.69. The UN system has to reassess its assets and redefineits role — in light of the challenges of globalization,population growth and climate change – to go beyondthe traditional assistance and technical cooperationrole to one that identifies, defines and links knowledgeand expertise and that leverages its convening powerto incorporate the other stakeholders (private sectorincluding transnational corporations, NGOs and CSOs).28. Within the framework of the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD).71. Global governance and the delivery of global publicgoods (GPGs) are therefore essential underpinningsfor achieving commitments that were made insupport of country-led development processes.Global governance does not mean, however, centralplanning or management mechanisms or processes,but an agreement on key principles that should drivedecision making by independent and autonomousdecision makers, whether they are within nationalgovernments or international corporations.4. The Way Forward: recognition of the Need forEnhanced Global Governance for Food Security 3172. One of the consequences of the 2007/08 food pricecrisis was an implicit acknowledgement:• That the institutional framework established after WorldWar II and after the 1970s energy crisis was no longeradequate to deal with the dynamics of a changedeconomic and institutional environment, including thenew global scale of food production systems, and29. FAO, C2013/7: “Governance refers to formal and informal rules, organizations and processesthrough which public and private actors articulate their interests and implement decisions“. TheWorld Bank defines governance as: “the manner in which power is exercised in the managementof a country’s economic and social resources for development”. Alternate definitions seesgovernance as: “the use of institutions, structures of authority and even collaboration to allocateresources and coordinate or control activity in society or the economy”, or the “proper functioningof institutions and their acceptance by the public” (legitimacy). And it has been used to invoke theefficacy of government and the achievement of consensus by democratic means (participation).”30. See also: foodgovernance.com/global-governance/31. Source: www.fao.org/fsnforum/forum/discussions/global-governance: Global Governancefor Food Security: are the current arrangements fit for the job?NYUCICGlobal Governance and Food Security as Global Public Good


• That in the 21st century food market and productionfailures in the food and agriculture sector can threatenthe global economy as well as destabilize entirenations. 3273. The response by world governments – largely ad-hoc- was characterized by the establishment of a varietyof global institutional mechanisms and processes, anda new model for dealing with food insecurity issues isemerging.74. In April 2008 the UN Chief Executives Board establisheda High-Level Task Force (HLTF) on the Global FoodSecurity Crisis 33 , which brought together, under theleadership of the UN Secretary-General, the heads ofthe UN specialized agencies, funds and programmes,as well as relevant parts of the UN Secretariat, theWorld Bank, the International Monetary Fund,the Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, and the World Trade Organization.75. The primary aim of the HLTF was to promote acomprehensive and unified response to achievingglobal food security, by facilitating the creationof a prioritized plan of action and coordinating itsimplementation. The result was the ComprehensiveFramework for Action (CFA) agreed to in 2008, thatwas designed to encourage concerted responses tothe food price crisis by meeting the immediate needsof vulnerable populations and by building at the sametime longer-term resilience (the twin track approach).This CFA provided governments, international andregional organizations, and civil society groups witha menu of policies and actions from which to drawappropriate responses, with focus on improvingthe productive capacity of smallholder farmers 34 ,especially women. Against the backdrop of theeconomic crisis, this concept was expanded to includenutritional security of vulnerable groups. 3576. Since the creation of the HLTF and release of the CFA,there has been a massive effort from the internationalcommunity to encourage greater investment in foodand nutrition security, through national budgets andexternal support from donors and development banks.Governments have not only increased the share ofnational budgets devoted to related issues, but havealso recognized the need to address food securityissues multilaterally through several initiatives:• Leaders at the 2008 G8 meeting (Tokyako Statementon Global Food Security) stated their commitmentto pursue all possible measures to ensure global foodsecurity, and recognized the coordinating role ofthe UN through their support for the HLTF. They alsoencouraged countries with surplus to release foodstocks and called for the removal of export restrictions(G8 2008).• At the G8 L’Aquila Summit (2009), heads of state oftwenty-six nations and representatives of fourteeninternational and regional organizations declared theneed to increase agricultural production, announcingthe “L’Aquila” Food Security Initiative 36 (AFSI).This AFSI was reinforced through the “L’Aquila” JointStatement on Global Food Security, through which$22 billion were raised over a three-year period foragricultural investment. 37 The approach centered onfive principles: investment in country-led plans andprocesses; comprehensive policies that include supportfor humanitarian assistance, sustainable agriculturedevelopment and nutrition; strategic coordination ofassistance; a strong role for multilateral institutions; andsustained commitment of financial resources.36. Twenty-six nations and fourteen international organizations37. www.feedthefuture.gov/resource/laquila-food-security-initiative-final-report-2012.1532. See also, “The Food Crises and Political Instability in North Africa and the Middle East, MarcoLagi, Karla Z. Bertrand and Yaneer Bar-Yam, New England Complex Systems Institute, 2011.33. www.un.org/en/issues/food/taskforce/index.shtml34. Small-holder farmers - defined as those marginal and sub-marginal farm households thatown or/and cultivate less than 2.0 hectare of land. Sources: wiego.org/informal-economy/occupational-groups/smallholder-farmers and www.fao.org/docrep/005/ac484e/ac484e04.htm.35. It was found that the prevalence of under-nourished children remained high even wherecommunities experienced increases in overall food production.Global Governance and Food Security as Global Public GoodNYUCIC


16• The World Summit on Food Security (Rome 2009)built on the AFSI approach with its “Five Rome Principlesfor Sustainable Global Food Security”. 38 Particularemphasis was given to investment in country-ownedplans.• The pledges made through the L’Aquila Food SecurityInitiative led to the establishment of the GlobalAgriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) 39Trust Fund, a multilateral financing mechanism runthrough the World Bank focused on the achievement ofMDG1. Its objective was to address the underfundingof country and regional agriculture and food securitystrategic investment plans already under development.Launched by the UN Secretary-General (Madrid 2009),its mandate was on building on existing structures andsupporting the implementation of the CFA, throughwork at global and national levels. It consists of apublic and private sector window and reports to havereceived commitments of USD1 billion (March 2013)from eight donors including the Gates foundation. TheGAFSP works with existing processes and institutionsand is coordinated by a secretariat, housed at theInternational Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)in Rome and formed by the HLTF.• The Framework for Scaling-Up Nutrition (SUN) 40is a multi-stakeholder movement (Washington April2010) focusing on nutrition-specific interventions andactions during the first 1000 days of individual growth.It advocates incorporating specific pro-nutritionactions into other sectors and development areas suchas health, food security and agriculture, gender, socialprotection, education, and water and sanitation, andincludes marginalized populations, especially women.38. “In November 2009, the World Summit on Food Security in Rome adopted the “Five RomePrinciples for Sustainable Global Food Security” based on the “L’Aquila Joint Statement onGlobal Food Security” issued at the G8+ Summit 2009: Principle 1: Invest in country-owned plans,aimed at channeling resources to well-designed and results based programmes and partnerships.Principle 2: Foster strategic coordination at national, regional and global level to improvegovernance, promote better allocation of resources, avoid duplication of efforts and identifyresponse gaps. Principle 3: Strive for a comprehensive twin-track approach to food securitythat consists of: 1) direct action to immediately tackle hunger for the most vulnerable and 2)medium- and long-term sustainable agricultural, food security, nutrition and rural developmentprogrammes to eliminate the root causes of hunger and poverty, including the progressiverealization of the right to adequate food. Principle 4: Ensure a strong role for the multilateralsystem by sustained improvements in efficiency, responsiveness, coordination and effectivenessof multilateral institutions. Principle 5: Ensure sustained and substantial commitment by allpartners to investment in agriculture and food and nutrition security, with the provision ofnecessary resources in a timely and reliable fashion, aimed at multi-year plans and programmes.These serve as a basis for turning political commitments into action and outcomes at communitylevel.” Source: Updated Comprehensive Framework for Action, HLTF, 200939. www.gafspfund.org/gafsp/content/global-agriculture-and-food-security-program40. scalingupnutrition.org/Its aim is to support SUN countries in realizing nationalnutrition goals and targets, including the MDG-1 target.Many countries have also developed specific nutritiontargets for the years beyond 2015. SUN is led by ahigh-level, multi-stakeholder Lead Group appointedby the UN Secretary-General. The SUN movement hasdeveloped considerable momentum: starting initiallywith three countries in mid-2012, by early 2013, 34countries have signed up and over 100 organizationsand entities have signaled their support.• One of the most important actions by the internationalcommunity has been the reform and transformation ofthe Committee on World Food Security (CFS). 41 TheCFS was set up in 1974 as an intergovernmental bodyfor review and follow-up on food security policies. In2009 it was reformed to become the most inclusiveinternational and intergovernmental platform for allstakeholders of food and nutrition security to worktogether in a coordinated way. Even though the reformwas triggered by the 2008 food crisis, it enabled theCFA to also deal with long term structural issues. TheCFS reports annually to Economic and Social Councilof the United Nations (ECOSOC) and the expectationis that Member States participate in CFS sessions atthe highest level possible. In practice, participation isvery wide-ranging with participants from UN agenciesand bodies, civil society and non-governmentalorganizations and their networks, internationalagricultural research systems, international andregional financial institutions and representatives ofprivate sector associations and private philanthropicfoundations. It is supported by an independent HighLevel Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition(HLPE) (established 2009), which was introduced as anessential part of the CFS reform. The CFS, along with theHLPE, has also been described as a “central componentof the evolving GAFSP” providing the political andscientific arms of the partnership, while the GAFSPprovides its financial arm. The reformed CFS has begunwork on several important topics including food pricevolatility and voluntary guidelines on land tenure.41. www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-home/en/NYUCICGlobal Governance and Food Security as Global Public Good


77. At the end of 2009 the HLTF, recognizing theproliferation of bodies working on issues related tofood and nutrition security, requested an update ofthe CFA to better reflect ways in which UN Systembodies advise and interact with national authoritiesand numerous other stakeholders. This Updated CFA(UCFA) continues to follow the twin-track approach,but covers in more detail all aspects of food andnutrition security and prioritizes environmentalsustainability, gender equity, the prerequisites forimproved nutrition and the needs of those least ableto enjoy their right to food. It also acknowledges thatprivate sector, CSOs and NGOs have a critical role forensuring food and nutrition security.5. Embedding food and nutrition security into theglobal agenda78. Food and nutrition security were part of the globalagenda since the establishment of the UN system, butuntil the agreement on the MDGs it was relegated tothe mandates of dedicated and specialized agencies(FAO, IFAD, WFP). While local and regional food crisesin Africa since the mid-seventies proved that foodsecurity had broader humanitarian, security anddevelopment implications, wealthier countries viewedit as an issue requiring compassion, but not one thatimpacted on their national policies or security. Povertyissues were handled through national welfare andsafety nets, and agricultural policies were designedto generate massive surpluses that were thentransferred to needy developing countries, often evendestabilizing local production systems.79. The UN organizations and mechanisms developed inresponse to the mid-seventies’ crisis were ultimatelyneutralized, partially because of related economicinterests and because the east-west conflictovershadowed every scope for global action. With thecollapse of the Soviet Union and the opening up ofChina, and the emergence of Brazil, China and Indiaas dynamic economic powers, the global contextchanged completely, culminating in the expansionof the originally G7 to G8 and then to the G20 thatincludes several of the emerging large economies.80. With poverty and hunger eradication ranking first inthe MDG agenda, these issues moved out of the nicheof dedicated agencies and became a responsibility ofthe broader UN family but remained still an issue ofcompassion rather than of global strategic importance.81. The 2008 food price hikes forced recognition of foodsecurity’s broader implications. In combination withincreased understanding of the potential threats ofclimate change to production systems and patterns,the topic of food and nutrition security as one thatimpacts global and national security has moved to thecenter of global attention and management, in a widerange of fora.82. All major inter-governmental consultative processesand mechanisms now have food and nutrition securityas a standing item on their agenda, whether it is theOECD, the World Economic Forum, the EuropeanUnion, the G8/G20 or the UN.• Since the food price crisis in 2008, the issue of foodsecurity has become a standing item of the consultationsof the G8/G20, resulting in position papers and policycommitments, as well as in the engineering of anupdated governance system of food security involvingthe UN system agencies. The G20’s “Action Plan onFood Price Volatility and Agriculture” (2011) seeksmore efficient global and national agricultural policies,increased international coordination, and specificmeasures to promote food security and sustainableagricultural production. Increasing food production isseen as a solution to reducing price volatility (throughan increase in productivity, better market informationsystems, greater trade openness and more sustainableagricultural, rural development and investmentpolicies). It is significant that for its implementation theG20 relies on national as well as various internationalinstitutions, including the CGIAR, the World Bank, FAO,WFP, the United Nations, WTO as well as the OECD.• In order to get price volatility for food commodities undercontrol, the G8/G20 tasked several intergovernmentalorganizations (World Bank, FAO and OECD) to launchan Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS),17Global Governance and Food Security as Global Public GoodNYUCIC


18which is now coordinated by FAO and the InternationalGrain Council 42 (IGC). The action plan specificallyrecognizes the role of the UN, and in particular of FAO,in the global food security governance architecture. Theplan also identifies biofuels as a potential issue requiringfurther analysis, and promotes the establishmentof national “safety networks” to mitigate the effectsof price volatility on private households, taskingWFP to conduct a feasibility study for establishing ahumanitarian emergency reserves system.• The World Bank 43 has responded to the food crisis incoordination with development partners, including bycontributing to several agricultural and food securityworking groups and drafting recommendations for theG20. The Bank is also actively engaged with the HLTF.The World Bank, through the GFRP Secretariat, activelyparticipated in the updating of the UN’s CFA. It alsoregularly participates in the Multilateral DevelopmentBanks’ (MDB) Working Group on Food and WaterSecurity.• The OECD has a specific focus on agriculture and foodsecurity. It supported the respective presidencies of theG8/G20/AFSI sessions on issues related to food security,food price volatility and agricultural productivity. Itis also involved in the UN HLTF on food security, andparticipates in the Global Donor Platform on RuralDevelopment. The recent annual meetings of its GlobalForum on Agriculture 44 in 2011 and 2012 had as focuspoverty reduction and policy coherence for foodsecurity in developing countries.• Food security is a priority area for the EuropeanUnion. Its focus is on three dimensions: availability offood at regional and national levels, access to food byhouseholds and food use and nutritional adequacyat the individual level. In its policy on food security(2010) the EU laid out a comprehensive framework to42. www.igc.int/en/aboutus/default.aspx: The International Grains Council (IGC) is aninternational organization established on March 23, 1949 as the International Wheat Council(IWC) for the purpose of egalitarian distribution of wheat to countries in a state of emergency.In 1995 it was renamed International Grains Council. The IGC consists of all parties to the GrainsTrade Convention and it functions are to oversee the implementation of the GTC; to discusscurrent and prospective world grain market developments; and to monitor changes in nationalgrain policies and their market implications. The GTC applies to trade in wheat, coarse grains,(maize (corn), barley, sorghum and other grains) and rice.43. www.worldbank.org/foodcrisis/bankinitiatives.htm44.www.oecd.org/agriculture/agriculturalpoliciesandsupport/monitoringfarmsupportandevaluatingpolicy/oecdglobalforumonagriculture2011.htmstep up investment in sustainable agriculture and toimprove access to adequate and nutritious food. This isin parallel to humanitarian food assistance that allowsfor a menu of context-driven tools (e.g. food aid, cashand vouchers etc.). Moreover, agriculture and foodsecurity were identified as key areas for promotinginclusive and green growth in partner countries. The EUprogramme cooperates with three UN agencies (FAO,WFP, IFAD), depending on their role and mandate, andalso supports all other multilateral mechanisms of theUN system that deal with food security related issues. 45• The initiatives by the G8/G20 are matched by theagreement of the BRIC countries 46 , representing 43%of world population and 18 percent of global trade andcommanding significant global influence. In their firstmeeting (Moscow 2010) the Ministers of Agricultureand Agrarian Development of the BRIC countrieslaid the groundwork for an action plan (2012-2016)relating to agricultural cooperation with focus on thecreation of an agricultural information base system;the development of a general strategy for ensuringaccess to food for the most vulnerable population; thereduction of the negative impact of climate change onfood security and adaptation of agriculture to climatechange; and enhancing agricultural technologycooperation and innovation. Subsequently (Chendu,China, 2011) the action plan was approved and theBRICS countries adopted “Making Joint Efforts for WorldFood Securityas a central theme and committedto enhance coordination and communication withinternational and regional organizations, includingG20, FAO, WFP, OIE, CGIAR, etc. The BRIC countriesconsider agriculture as a strategic sector with a closebearing on social stability, and draw specific attentionto the food security situation in Africa. They specificallydeclared their support to the coordinating role of theUN in preventing further deterioration of the crisis,especially through the FAO’s Committee on World FoodSecurity (CFS).45. ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/food-security/index_en.htm46. The BRIC [Brazil, Russia, India and China] idea was first conceived in 2001 by Goldman Sachsas part of an economic modeling exercise to forecast global economic trends over the next halfcentury; the acronym BRIC was first used in 2001 by Goldman Sachs in their Global EconomicsPaper No. 66, “The World Needs Better Economic BRICs”. In 2010, with inclusion of South Africa theBRIC were expanded into BRICS. Four BRIC(S) Summits have been held so far; Russia (2009); Brazil(2010), China (2011) and India (2012).NYUCICGlobal Governance and Food Security as Global Public Good


• The Private Sector is involved in food securitygovernance and dialogue with multilateralorganizations through a variety of mechanisms. Theprivate sector grouping that seems closest to the UNsystem is the UN Global Compact. This is a strategicpolicy initiative to provide a forum for businessesthat are committed to aligning their operations andstrategies with ten universally accepted principlesin the areas of human rights, labour, environmentand anti-corruption. However, while environmentalsustainability is part of their explicit agenda, includingthrough involvement with the Rio +20 conference,they have not been explicitly active in the field of foodsecurity. Another mechanism that is close to the foodand agriculture sector is the International Agri-FoodNetwork (IAFN) (created 1996), an informal coalitionof international trade associations involved in theagri-food sector at the global level. It represents theagri-food business group in a number of internationalsettings, such as the CFS, and its members includeinternational companies and national associationsrepresenting small and medium enterprises, cooperativesand farmers from 135 countries.• The reputed World Economic Forum (WEF) 47 also listsagriculture and food security as one of its lead topics.Through its “New Vision for Agriculture initiative” itworks on developing a “shared agenda for action” andfostering “multi-stakeholder” collaboration to achievesustainable agricultural growth through market-basedsolutions.” This highlights agriculture as pivotal tosustainable development, economic development,and food security, as it raises productivity, incomes andemployment. It argues that there is a need for shiftingfrom a philanthropic approach to treating agriculturaldevelopment as a market investment, creating a systemwhere stakeholders have “the incentive to innovate,resilience to endure risk and capital to invest in growth”.The initiative works at the global level with the G8 and47. Source: www.weforum.org/reports/putting-new-vision-agriculture-action-transformationhappening.The WEF is an independent international organization committed to improving thestate of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shapeglobal, regional and industry agendas. The initiative is led by 28 global partner companies of theWorld Economic Forum which provide strategic leadership and championship of the initiative,and includes: Agco Corporation, Archer Daniels Midland, BASF, Bayer AG, Bunge Limited, Cargill,The Coca-Cola Company, Diageo, DuPont, General Mills, Heineken NV, Kraft Foods, Louis DreyfusCommodities, Maersk, Metro AG, Monsanto Company, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Rabobank, Royal DSM,SABMiller, Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd., Syngenta, The Mosaic Company, Teck ResourcesLimited, Unilever, Vodafone Group, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and Yara International.G20, and facilitates national-level partnerships in thefield of agriculture in 11 countries in Africa, Asia and LatinAmerica. This includes seven African countries engagedin the Grow Africa partnership, jointly convened by theAfrican Union, NEPAD and the World Economic Forum. 48• Civil Society Organizations (CSO) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have becomekey players in the emerging global governancesystem of food security, involved in a number ofintergovernmental consultations, such as in all WorldFood Summits and in the Committee for Food Security(CFS), where they are formal members through severalumbrella organizations.83. Despite the attention given to the issue, some see theglobal food governance system as dysfunctional. Anarticle by the Böll Foundation in Germany 49 concludesthat the 2008 food price crisis revealed a “governancevacuum.” Structural adjustment policies, particularly ofthe Bretton Wood institutions, are seen as having failedto ensure food and nutrition security for vulnerablepopulations, as they weakened agricultural institutionsin developing countries and diverted investmentfunding away from agriculture. Overall, governmentsin developing countries are not seen as having thecapacity or will to impose accountable nationalgovernance, thus leaving a regulatory vacuum. This isseen as allowing large food production corporationsto regulate their business without governmentaloversight, resulting in differences in interests betweensmall food producers 50 and the global agro-industrialfood corporations systems. Three trends are seenas driving this situation: the shift and devolutionof normative control from national governmentsto private corporations, the growing power oftransnational food-related corporations in standardsetting, and the emergence of new food movementspresenting alternative visions of the food system. Alsothe international institutions are seen as fragmented.While the Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO48. www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_CO_NVA_Overview.pdf49. Nora McKeon: Global Governance for World Food Security: A Scorecard Four Years After theEruption of the “Food Crisis”, Berlin, 2011, www.boell.de/intlpolitics/development/developmentpolicy-10655.html50. See McKeon and www.agassessment.org.19Global Governance and Food Security as Global Public GoodNYUCIC


20with their strong market-oriented approach are seendominated by the “rich countries” , the UN systemagencies 51 are perceived as weak even though moreinclusive and balanced with focus on food security,rural poverty and rights-based approach. They seealso an increase of international institutions 52 with arole or mandate relating to food security but not yetsufficiently integrated into food security discussion,which overall are seen as fragmented, a phenomenonthat started in the 1970s.C. Global Governance of food security:Issues and Challenges1. Challenges and threats84. Climate change is taking place in a world of highlyintegrated financial and economic markets, financialcrisis and market inefficiencies, and globally operatingagro-industrial corporations in the agricultural inputas well as food marketing sectors. Even though thevertical and horizontal integration of food chainsand the globalization of the food commodity marketenables season-independent food supply in allurban areas, this interconnectivity also means thatproduction shortfalls or price fluctuations in one majorproducing area or one major agricultural commoditycan impact on other producers or consumers, in totallydifferent regions.85. This has major consequences for the food securityof entire populations or nations, in particular for theurban poor in all developing countries. The impactof such fluctuations can be amplified significantly(as in 2008) by uncoordinated national policies andresults in crisis situations particularly for those urbanhouseholds in developing countries, for which foodstill absorbs a major share of daily income. The riskof political unrest triggered by high food prices andpoverty in highly populated areas in developingcountries is therefore increasing.51. e.g. FAO IFAD and UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.52. E.g. WHO, UNICEF, ILO.2. Cooperation and collective responsemechanisms86. Since 2008, price volatility has brought to theforeground the fragility of the global food system, anda better awareness and understanding of the politicalrisks associated with not preventing major price and/or production shocks. Food price increases threatenthe livelihood of poor populations, particularly in theurban areas, where food expenditures absorb a majorshare of daily income. The 2008 food riots in severaldeveloping countries, due to rising food prices,not only created local unrest, but also created theawareness among global political leaders that foodinsecurity could become a threat to political securityin terms of destabilizing established political systems.87. The series of global meetings and discussions,involving the leaders of the G8 and G20, the UNSecretary-General and all UN system agencies thatfollowed and dealt with food security are evidenceof the strategic importance now assigned to stablefood markets and prices, and food and nutritionsecurity. The response included the bundling of thecapacities of several UN system agencies in coherentaction programmes under the leadership of the UNSecretary-General. This directed substantial resourcesfrom several global funding sources (e.g. WorldBank, European Union) to the issue of food andnutrition security and by engaging powerful nongovernmentalactors (private sector, NGOs and CSOs)in a collaborative effort by enabling them to cooperatein the restructured and revitalized Committee of FoodSecurity (CFS). In particular the issue of individualnutrition security (right for food) therefore becamemore prominent on the global agenda and is nowincluded in the resourced programmes of action.88. The 2008 food crisis increased attention to the needfor global governance of food security, but at thisstage still without clearly identified leadership,even though a specific role for the UN Secretary-General and the UN system is acknowledged. In thismodel the UN system has been assigned two keyNYUCICGlobal Governance and Food Security as Global Public Good


oles. Through the UN Secretary-General, it acts as aneutral and impartial convener for the entire multistakeholdersystem to deal with overarching politicaland interdisciplinary issues related to food security.Through the UN specialized agencies, it plays the roleof convener and neutral information mobilizer andrepository to deal with specific sectoral issues relatedto food and nutrition security: this includes• The monitoring function (for early detection of extremesupply and demand variations, of food productionrelevant inputs -including energy and feed- as well asof food products that impact on food prices along thefood chain and of the nutritional status of vulnerablegroups in developing countries);• The development function (creating of enablingconditions for more effective markets and productionconditions); and• A social protection function (e.g. through supportingvulnerable groups through emergency programmes).89. The de facto leadership for this global governancemechanism is, however, located at the level of theG20 that have the resources to respond and that havethe capacity to adapt to the parameters of the globalmarket system, but not with the more representativeUnited Nations organizations. The enhancedCommittee for Food Security (CFS) will have a criticalrole to play as a forum for provoking and channelingdebate, and thus influencing the UN system, but isunlikely to have a decision-making role or resourcesto back up its conclusions.3. Governance and Food Security as Global PublicGood and Food Insecurity as Global Public Bad90. Most of the concepts relating to GPGs were developedin the early 2000s at the time of an intense debate onglobalization. 53 These discussions were significantfor both what was and what was not included ormentioned. 54 This may be due to the fact that “many53. Inge Kaul, Global Public Goods, UNDP, 2003 and Report of the International Task Force onGlobal Public Goods: Meeting Global Challenges: International Cooperation in the NationalInterest, 2006.54. Stiglitz identifies: health, financial security and market efficiency, environment, humanGPGs are more recognizable in their opposite form, thatof Global Public ‘Bads’ (GPBs)”. 55 GPBs share the samecharacteristics as GPGs as being non-excludable andnon-rival, and the goal is to reduce or remove them(e.g. spread of communicable diseases, transnationaldrug smuggling, international warfare and humanrights abuses).91. None of the major discussions prior to 2008 refer tofood security as a GPG or food insecurity and hungeras a GPB. It was only in 2012, that a French NGOargued that “the concept of global public goods could beapplied to the agricultural sector … in terms of marketregulation and international cooperation”. 56 It arguedthat the “economic” definitions of GPGs are too narrowand that there is a need for a “strategic/institutionaldefinition”, that aims for a “form of global governancethat is not impeded by the compartmentalizationand multiplication of the institutions born out of theend of World War II”. The suggestion was to use thesubsidiarity principle and to cover under “global publicgood” those goods that can be better managed byglobal or international governance than by national orsub-regional governance. It was within the context ofthe continuation of food price volatility in 2011/2012that FAO started using the term “Global Public Goods”in its discussions that culminated in a new corporatestrategic framework (2013).92. While food and nutrition security specifically is notincluded, at this stage, in the general understandingof what constitutes a GPG, elements that result inimproved food and nutrition security are:• Nutrition education, nutritionally adequate agriculturalproduction systems, application of productiontechniques that minimize the use of toxic chemicalsand that protect the environment, prevention of crossboundarydiseases and pests that result in improvedsecurity and peace and information and knowledge; the “International Task Force on GPGs”identifies six GPGs as critical: Preventing the emergence and spread of infectious disease; tacklingclimate change; enhancing international financial stability; strengthening the internationaltrading system; achieving peace and security, which underlies and is essential to all the others;and the cross-cutting issue of knowledge.” Kaul specifically reviews equity and justice, marketefficiency, environment and cultural heritage, health, knowledge and information, peace andsecurity”55. Source: Joseph Stiglitz, Sustaining Our Public Goods, Economic Briefing No. 3, Towards EarthSummit, 2002, www.earthsummit2002.org/es/issues/GPG/gpg.rtf56. www.momagri.org/UK/editorials/-Managing-Agriculture-as-a-Global-Public-Good-_208.html21Global Governance and Food Security as Global Public GoodNYUCIC


22agricultural production and thus directly contribute togeneral “health” of the population;• Transparency of food commodity markets at global,regional, national and local level to prevent marketfailures, and thus contribute to “market efficiency” and“international trading systems”;• Investment in agricultural research and educationresults in ecologically correct agriculture, as well asin adaptation of production systems to new climaticconditions, and thus contributes to tackling thechallenges of “climate change”;• Provision of adequately priced food products tourban consumers, and support to small holders inmaintaining their livelihood, diminish food insecurity,and the political unrest or instability caused by erraticprice movements or undersupply. This contributes to“peace and security”;93. It is evident that issues related to global and individualfood security can no longer be resolved throughaction limited to the national or local level, but thatthere is need for cooperation and coordinated multistakeholderaction at the global level and with aglobal perspective. The interdependency of nationalfood-related production systems and markets, dueto their vertical and horizontal integration, and theirdependence on the global financial and energymarkets, means that national policies alone cannotfully buffer against risks like inefficiencies and volatility.94. Yet most food production systems and markets aredominated by private actors who in many casesoperate through global corporations that functionaccording to the principles of private business.Implicitly less profitable research areas may beneglected; research is therefore biased against smallholders and biodiversity, and not necessarily gearedtowards the needs of the vulnerable populationgroups or markets with reduced purchasing power.There are examples where environmental concernsbecame part of corporate business strategies dueto increasing importance of responsible corporateentrepreneurship in the public debate and betterunderstanding of long-term sustainable profits.Barring this, investments in support of environmentalgoals depend on the public sector.95. The effects of climate change require adaptation offood production systems, but many governments inthe developing world may not have the resourcesrequired to support research and implementationof mitigation systems. Similarly challenging will beidentifying mitigating actions that are affordablefor smallholders. Responses at the national level willnot be sufficient to buffer against country-level foodinsecurity and failure to address these global trendswill have transnational repercussions and inaction willresult in Global Public Bads.96. Mitigating against food insecurity requiresacknowledgment that private corporations are keyplayers in the global food security system, and thatthey have the capacity to resist or avoid nationallegislations, particularly in developing countries. Giventhat it is unlikely that the current approach to privatemanagement of food supply chains and markets willchange, the only solution is to involve these privateand non-state actors in the global governance of foodsecurity in the broad sense. This emerging role hasbeen acknowledged by the inclusion of the privatesector in the CFS and FAO’s efforts of defining a“Strategy for Partnerships with the Private Sector ” 57going in this direction.97. The fact that the “right to food” is an accepted humanright will continue to create political pressure indeveloped countries to provide protective support tothe vulnerable populations concerned.57. CL 146/LIM/4: FAO Strategy for Partnerships with the Private Sector, March 2013, and CL146/8: FAO Strategy for Partnerships with Civil Society Organizations, April 2013.NYUCICGlobal Governance and Food Security as Global Public Good


24NYUCICprogramme was launched in 2012. 62 The ILO’s “decentwork” agenda also aims at creating public awarenessabout the link between working conditions and thefinal consumer product. At this stage, no equivalentapproach to food security exists.104. Given the dependency of food security on theapproaches and behaviors of the corporate foodindustries, there is a need for achieving similar publicawareness of their role and responsibility in ensuringfood security for all and in all places, while remainingconsistent with corporate business priorities. In themarket economy system this can be achieved throughthe normative standards setting role of governmentsand by the markets if they can be guided towardsrewarding value-based “ethical corporate behavior”.A concept for “food security” that is equivalent tothe “carbon foot print approach” and “decent workagenda” needs to be developed through which thepublic would be able to monitor actions of food-chainand other corporations in relation to food security.105. At this stage, public awareness focuses exclusively onthe impacts of extreme situations of food insecurity,when due to disasters or calamities populations arenegatively affected, but awareness about the impactof policies and corporate behaviors, as well as ofclimate change on overall food supplies and foodsecurity is still at a very nascent stage even thougharticles and documentaries dealing with these aspectsare on the rise. 63 It can be expected that the relatedpublic debate will increase in intensity, as the impactof climate change and population growth on foodsecurity will become more evident.106. Introducing the concepts of food security into whatis perceived as “socially responsible entrepreneurship”would be a first step and the UN system, as anintergovernmental governance system, can lead insetting the public opinion agenda and developinga normative framework for “socially responsibleentrepreneurship” that includes food security, ecology62. www.epa.gov/ghgreporting.63. www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/apr/13/climate-change-millions-starvationscientistsand www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/welternaehrung-klimawandel-bedroht-dieglobale-nahrungsproduktion-a-894254.htmlGlobal Governance and Food Security as Global Public Goodand sustainability as “performance indicators“ forcorporations in support of the “return-on-investment”criteria. The expectation is that in a “food securityaware” population, transparency on the performanceof the food-chain corporations in these fields would,combined with increased interest of the populationsin most countries, impact on the market behavior ofthese corporations, and culminate in “food securitycompatible” actions that would be consistent withthe concept of share-holder value as key driver forcorporate actions.107. There is a need for developing criteria thatallow tracking the impact of foodchain and othercorporations on food security, similar to what hasbeen developed for the carbon footprint. Thesecould be linked partly to the ecological criteria thatare increasingly being developed, but new indicatorswould be needed particularly where their activities (ornon-activities) impact on the livelihoods of vulnerableor marginal groups in developing countries, be it ashuman resource providers, producers or consumers.This could concern their contribution to climatechange mitigation measures through research anddevelopment, their focus on sustainable and healthyfood production, the carbon footprint of their productsetc.. Environment and food-security aware consumersare expected to favor, as can already be observedincreasingly, products from those companies thatoperate in consistency with globally agreed ethicalvalues (e.g. non acceptance of child labor etc.).108. In industrialized countries the population is increasinglysensitized to the risks and issues of complex foodchains and the emerging public debate about the ethicsof speculating in food commodities is an indicatorfor the increasing awareness of the role of food chaincorporations in ensuring food security. 64 This overallawareness needs to be further expanded to alsoinclude food security risks related to climate changeand population growth. With the increase of a “valueoriented”consumer awareness, it is expected thatcorporations see it in their interest to be perceived asmaintaining and protecting human heritage and capi-64. www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/ilse-aigner-ruegt-deutsche-bank-wegen-spekulationmit-nahrungsmitteln-a-879087.html


tal rather than undermining or destroying it. In thiscontext, it can be assumed that many will value cooperationwith the UN system – as the driver in value-setting- as advantageous for their corporate goals; theUN system has started setting criteria for such publicprivatesector partnerships. 65109. The concept of “socially responsible entrepreneurship”,linked to sustainable development and foodproduction, should be part of a broader debate onbusiness ethics in a globalized world, with growingand mobile populations and limited resources to feedthem, and the role of private business in the generationof GPGs and GPBs. Non-action will result in a declineof the GPGs and increase of GPBs, including foodand nutrition insecurity, and with it political instabilityand maybe even conflict over access to resources.110. The UN system agencies will also need to supportnational governments in developing countries withpolicy analysis and advice to empower them to defineand implement frameworks consistent with globalgoals on food security and sustainable development.These should condition the activities of globallyoperating multinational corporations, regardless ofwhether they operate directly or through nationalsubsidiaries.5. Possible course of action111. The emerging focus on governance, policysupport as well as providing enabling environmentsand partnership in the UN system is evidence forthe recognition of the comparative advantage ofthe UN system in this particular dimension. Foodsecurity will enter increasingly into the focus ofthe global governance debate, largely due to theinterdependency of economies and the agrifoodchains that require cooperation in order to deal withthe challenges of the 21st century.65. www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/028/mg311e.pdf and www.fao.org/partnerships/faopartnerships/private-sector/en/.112. Given the complexity of the multi-stakeholderfood security system, only the authority andconvening power of the UN Secretary-General andUN system organizations can provide that leadershipthat is required for defining the goals, roles andresponsibilities of all stakeholders in the food supplysystem to ensure food security.113. Today’s university education generates themanagers and leaders of 2020 onwards. They willhave to deal with the consequences of the ongoingclimate change and population growth. Just as the1980s saw the mainstreaming of a self-centeredand egoistic “shareholder” mentality, encouragingde-regulation and creating the conditions wherefinancial speculation can destabilize entire countries,it must be possible to make these future managersand leaders aware of their responsibilities throughappropriate ethics programmes. This will not be easy,but without “new business ethics” the idea of “sociallyresponsible entrepreneurship” – that operate withinthe paradigm of ensuring that investment is profitableto the shareholder while at the same time upholdingvalues that are agreed to by society – will not gatherthe required momentum. And without such “sociallyresponsible entrepreneurship” it will not be possible todeal with the challenges of 2050, given the dominantrole of the corporate sector in food production.The initiatives of the European Union to provide anormative framework for such “socially responsibleentrepreneurs” are moves in the right direction. 66114. These suggestions are not entirely new and arealready occurring to a certain extent, but the focushas been on climate change, with food security on themargins. Links between the developed world and theglobal hungry have not always been made clear, evenas individuals in industrialized countries are becomingmore vulnerable to hunger themselves. The challengefor political and opinion leaders across the globe willbe to resist the temptation to feed inward looking(nationalistic) policies and to direct national debatestowards understanding that the collective well-being2566. ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/index_en.htm.Global Governance and Food Security as Global Public GoodNYUCIC


equires a prominent place in the “value” menu ofindividuals, organizations and societies.115. The UN Secretary-General, with the support of theintergovernmental mechanism of the UN system, isprobably the only individual in the world that has theauthority and capacity, given to him/her by the world’sgovernments, to launch and sustain such a “businessethics debate” that filters down to the media anduniversity and schools across the world. Obviously,such a debate has to involve the political, moral andethical leaders in the world, including the leadersof the biggest business corporations, through thevarious mechanisms and fora that already exist (e.g.World Economic Forum and others). Doing otherwisewould perpetuate a zero-sum game in which the mostneedy are the least likely to reap the rewards of greaterinvestment in food and agriculture.26NYUCICGlobal Governance and Food Security as Global Public Good


27Global Governance and Food Security as Global Public GoodNYUCIC


Global Governance and Food Security as Global Public Good


Annual Review of Global Peace Operations 2012Review of Political Missions 2012Related Publications from theCenter on International CooperationShaky Foundations | An Assessment of the UN’s Rule of Law Support AgendaCamino Kavanagh and Bruce JonesState Capture and Organized Crime or Capture of Organized Crime by the StateCamino KavanaghEngagement on Development and Security: New Actors, New DebatesEdited by Jake Sherman, Megan M. Gleason, W.P.S. Sidhu, and Bruce JonesBuilding on Brahimi: Peacekeeping in an Era of Strategic UncertaintyStrategic Trends, Dilemmas, and Developments in Global Peace OperationsAndrew SinclairRobust Peacekeeping: The Politics of Force29Implications of Peacebuilding and Statebuilding in United Nations MandatesJake Sherman and Benjamin TortalaniMandates and ModalitiesJake Sherman and Benjamin TortalaniU.N. Peace Operations and State-building: A Case Study of HaitiDr. Charles T. Call with Gigja SorensenMore information about these and other recent publications can be found at cic.nyu.edu.Global Governance and Food Security as Global Public GoodNYUCIC


CENTER ONINTERNATIONALCOOPERATIONNew York University726 Broadway, Suite 543New York, NY 10003(212) 998-3680cic.info@nyu.educic.nyu.edu

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines