Around 40 years ago, when I was young, we did not speak of volatility. I still remember how our government gave our parents ploughs, plough oxen, and fertilizer on credit. At the time, there was a public service, the OPAM, that bought food products from farming families at prices that were known beforehand.

Around 30 years ago, I was in secondary school and we were told that it was better to produce for external markets. We began hearing the phrase “deterioration of the terms of exchange” in the discourse of our male politicians. This was a true lament at the time, but it found no echo anywhere. What did it refer to? The prices of export agricultural products were collapsing on the international market. The governments of the time had made the fatal error of encouraging family farmers to produce more export products. When things went wrong, these farmers alone paid the heavy price.

The collapse of our economies and the growth of the public debt in the 1980’s led the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to subject our countries to structural adjustment.

We were told that the state was inefficient and that we needed to make more room for the private sector. At the same time, our states were forced to go even deeper into debt to restore macro-economic balances. We were told to cut all support to sustainable family farming, which was termed unsuccessful. Then the World Bank and its allies launched a true demolition campaign against this type of agriculture.

We were told to produce even more cash crops for export, such as cotton, coffee and peanuts, at very low prices that were set abroad. With these slogans we were told to buy rice from Asia, or flour and dried milk from Europe, all of which are now so volatile. The descent into hell had begun for farming families and for our over-indebted states that were incapable of paying.

Then we were told to become competitive according to the criteria of international financial institutions, and also that our states were no longer authorized to protect us. Our customs tariffs were dismantled and our markets, liberalized. Food products from elsewhere were unloaded onto our markets, making us even more vulnerable to price volatility. Eating habits changed in our cities; the food produced by farming families no longer sold. In West Africa this phenomenon was aggravated by the advent of the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) and its Common External Tariff, known as the lowest customs tariff in the world.

And yet none of these “solutions” imposed on us pulled us out of poverty. On the contrary, we became even more vulnerable. This is the context in which family farming is asked to be successful.

Today, we are subjected to new challenges that are falling from the skies. Climate change, financial speculation, unpredictable international markets, new policies by developed countries that grab our land to produce fuels. We no longer hear anything about all of these issues, even though they lie at the heart of the volatility that is currently being discussed.

Instead of addressing the causes of our poverty and of the volatility, we have seen complete catalogues of projects and programmes financed in the name of the rural sector. Billions of dollars are mobilized every year but the reality is that more than half of the farming families in most of our countries cannot find 1,000 dollars to pay for a plough, a couple of oxen, a cart or a donkey (see the study by the FAO on agricultural mechanization in Mali).

The high panel of experts should be commissioned to study the efficiency of what is mobilized in the name of the poor. When several hundreds of millions of dollars are mobilized, how much makes it to the fields of the poor and of the women, who are so often mentioned? You would be surprised by the results of such a study. Or maybe not. Considering how long they have been mobilizing all these millions in our name, we clearly should have all been rich by now.

In spite of all of this, and without any aid, any protection whatsoever, and with all the powerful of the world against it, sustainable family farming has not disappeared.

Unfortunately we had to suffer the current crisis for our governments to become once again aware of the necessity for food security based on food production at the national level. However, sustainable solutions are not yet in sight.

To solve the problem of price volatility, we the sustainable family farmers, with the support of other actors in civil society, believe that it is necessary:

← To give priority to our local markets and regional integration, rather than let our prices be dictated by remote and unpredictable international markets. This is the only solution that will enable us, family farmers, to feed ourselves, our communities and our cities.

← To halt all forms of competition between farmers and production modes with a very large disparity in productivity (the hoe against the tractor plus the subsidy is a tall order). One does not have the right to tell us that we will eat when we have become competitive.

← To stop the policies which are destabilizing our systems of sustainable family farming. In times of overproduction we suffer from dumping, in times of shortage we suffer from restrictions on the export of food we have been told to no longer produce.

← Our governments must aspire to policies that will pull us out of poverty and destitution, protect our systems of sustainable family farming from volatile markets, and support us so that we can invest to feed our populations.

← We know what needs doing. Instruments exist to stabilize prices: appropriate customs tariffs, strategic stocks at different levels, the management of offer and demand, and regulations against speculators. In the name of whom is the World Trade Organization forbidding us from doing this?

← Sustainable family farmers, women and vulnerable groups in rural areas must be granted real access to the funds mobilized in their name so they can buy agricultural equipment, fertilizers and seeds, and create value with their products so they can finally begin to live with dignity from their work.

To finish, I want to encourage each of you when we sit in front our plates of food this lunchtime, to meditate and recall that human beings are dying of hunger and malnutrition at this very moment because costly meetings are organized around their fate but without the actions that could save them being carried out. We can no longer wait.

Ya están en marcha los preparativos para la 36^ª sesión del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial (CSA), que se celebrará del 11 al 16 de octubre de 2010. En el primer CSA global y participativo de la historia, la participación de la sociedad civil se ha materializado mediante su participación en los 3 Grupos de Trabajo (Lecciones aprendidas de países y regiones; Coordinación global y convergencia política; e Implementación de la reforma del CSA) y en las actividades del Grupo Asesor, incluyendo las reuniones conjuntas Mesa/Grupo Asesor. A continuación se exponen brevemente algunas de las actividades y los resultados hasta la fecha:

1. Elaboración del borrador del orden del día comentado y el horario – Viernes 28 de mayo

El viernes 28 de mayo se reunió un Grupo de Trabajo designado para dar seguimiento al orden del día y las modalidades del CSA. Este grupo presentó un orden del día comentado y un horario revisados para su aprobación durante la próxima reunión de la Mesa, programada para el viernes 4 de junio. Durante la reunión se hicieron ajustes y propuestas en relación con el orden del día, las iniciativas regionales, las sesiones de grupo, los estudios de caso y las mesas redondas sobre políticas. En resumen:

• La sesión matinal de la 36^ª Sesión celebrada el lunes incluyó presentaciones de David Nabarro sobre la reforma del CSA y su relación con el trabajo de la ONU, junto con presentaciones acerca de iniciativas y avances pertinentes como: la Cumbre de los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio, el Programa Global para la Agricultura y la Seguridad Alimentaria, puesta al día sobre el CSA, seguimiento de la Iniciativa de L’Aquila para la Seguridad Alimentaria, avances en nutrición, la reforma del Grupo Consultivo para la Investigación Agrícola Internacional, y la Alianza Internacional contra el Hambre;
• Se clarificaron los roles y las responsabilidades de la Secretaría en relación con la organización de las sesiones de grupo y las mesas redondas sobre políticas, incluyendo la preparación de documentos de antecedentes y directrices para las presentaciones de los países;
• La FAO dirigirá las mesas redondas sobre tierra e inversión y la crisis prolongada. Aunque está pendiente de confirmación, se ha decidido que el PMA dirigirá la gestión del riesgo y la vulnerabilidad;
• Se prevé que Bangladesh, Haití y Ruanda presenten estudios de caso nacionales, con la ayuda organizativa de la Secretaría.  Aunque se promueve la participación de la sociedad civil durante las presentaciones de los estudios de caso, en última instancia ésta depende del propio país que ofrece la presentación;
• Las iniciativas regionales se presentarán en la sesión matinal del martes, cuyos contenidos serán decididos por los grupos regionales de la FAO. 

*Véanse el orden del día comentado y el horario para más información.

2. Cartografía de las acciones de seguridad alimentaria a nivel nacional – Viernes 21 de mayo

Tras la reunión de la Mesa del CSA que tuvo lugar el 7 de mayo, se celebró una sesión de lluvia de ideas con el equipo de tareas original, para debatir la dirección futura y preparar una propuesta revisada para esta iniciativa. En resumen, existe desde hace muchos años la necesidad de una herramienta para cartografiar las acciones de seguridad alimentaria a nivel nacional. Resulta evidente la ausencia de un inventario sistemático con información actualizada sobre las acciones relacionadas con la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición, lo cual dificulta que los países emprendan estrategias e iniciativas nacionales. Dado el tiempo limitado del que se dispone antes de la 36^ª sesión, se ha desarrollado un enfoque por pasos para garantizar que el proceso incluya:

I. Aprendizaje a partir del estudio de herramientas/métodos existentes que puedan contribuir al diseño y desarrollo de una herramienta de cartografía;

II. Aprendizaje a partir de las acciones de aquellos países que ya participan en la cartografía de las acciones de seguridad alimentaria; y

III. Integración de ambos en una propuesta para la consideración del CSA.

Durante la 36^ª Sesión se debatirá la herramienta de cartografía y se examinarán los resultados de su uso en un reducido número de países durante los próximos meses.

*La propuesta y visión general completas sólo están disponibles en inglés. Visite cso4cfs.org para más información

3. Breves puestas al día de la reunión de la Mesa del CSA celebrada el 4 de junio

• Se aprobó el Comité Directivo del Grupo de Alto Nivel de Expertos. Los nombres se anunciarán próximamente.
• No se fijará un límite máximo para el número de participantes a los que se permitirá asistir a la 36ª Sesión del CSA. Sin embargo, el número estará limitado por el espacio físico. Se solicitará al Grupo Asesor que establezca el porcentaje de asientos asignados a las diferentes categorías de participantes.
• Todavía no se ha tomado ninguna decisión sobre la participación de observadores sin voz en la Mesa, ya que algunos miembros de la Mesa sostienen que ejercería una influencia a favor de las ONGIs del norte, especialmente las ubicadas en Italia.
• La Secretaría está desarrollando notas de antecedentes sobre cuestiones de convergencia política. Las 3 cuestiones políticas generales son (1) crisis prolongadas; (2) tenencia de la tierra e inversión internacional en agricultura; (3) gestión del riesgo y la vulnerabilidad.
• La Secretaría espera llegar a los miembros del Grupo Asesor y demás participantes del CSA para solicitar apoyos en la planificación de las diversas sesiones de la reunión de octubre.
• La próxima reunión de la Mesa y el Grupo Asesor del CSA se celebrará el 24 de junio