Hijacking food systems: technofix takeover at the FSS - Communiqué #118 - ETC ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Hijacking food systems:
technofix takeover at the FSS
Communiqué #118
July 2021
The cards depicted on this page and on p19 are
from ETC Group’s new card game,
“Disruption!: a battle for the future of food”.
To find out more about the game please visit our
website: www.etcgroup.org
Acknowledgements
Illustrations
Front cover: Becky Green, @spacenomadsketches
p15: CharleyHallArt.com
This page and p19 (card art): @isabellemorgan_illustration & CharleyHallArt.com
We gratefully acknowledge the support of Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung-Manila. We also thank Bread
for the World and Misereor for their support for our work on corporate concentration in the food
systems.
French and Spanish translations of this report are
forthcoming and will be available on our website: www.etcgroup.org
23 July 2021
CONTENTS Summary 4 Introduction5 FSS food governance grab via “multi-stakeholderism” 8 FSS backs corporate control of food and will undermine the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) 10 A summit to destroy food sovereignty 14 FSS pitfalls: what to watch out for “inside” the summit 16 Digitalisation tsunami looms over food systems 20 FSS invitations to engage: a poisoned chalice? 21 A damaging “new normal”? Virtual decision-making 22 A wrap-around approach: other corporate tentacles 23 pushing and pulling in the same direction as the FSS The Summit we DO want 25 Box 1: At-a-glance summary 6 Box 2: What’s on the FSS Agenda? 7 Box 3: What is “multi-stakeholderism” and what’s wrong with it? 9 Box 4: Know some of the key actors behind the UN Food System Summit 12 Box 5: FSS ‘story’ led from London? 15 Box 6: Food Sovereignty, 2007 Nyéléni Forum Declaration 16 Box 7: FSS “Breakthrough solutions” blitz distracts from need for more transformative approaches 17 Box 8: How and why “NBS” infected intergovernmental fora 18 Box 9: A corporate dream combo: Digital Ag combined with offsetting 20 Box 10: The wrong summit: The summit we need v the summit planned 26
Hijacking food systems: technofix takeover at the FSS July 2021 www.etcgroup.org
Summary has caused multiple climate and ecological
crises. They obfuscate the impact that empire,
The Food Systems Summit (FSS) scheduled colonialism and racism, and more recently
to be held in New York City in the fall of neoliberal globalisation, have had and are still
2021 is the wrong kind of summit. It is not having on local and Indigenous food cultures
about changing food systems, but about around the world. The myths side-step the
spinning a story that props up and expands fact that it is peasant farmers and smallholders
the industrial food chain at the expense of that feed 70 percent of the world’s people.
other food systems. And they ignore the known impact that the
industrialised, homogenised food production
The FSS’s proponents argue that the “food system is having on people’s health. A de-
system” is broken, that population growth tailed analysis also shows that the FSS synthe-
and climate change mean that we will not sis papers are not as progressive as they claim
be able to feed everyone, and that only new to be.1
technological developments can save us. But
this is a story that has been carefully construct- The FSS’s backers have no intention to change
ed by those who stand to profit from it – it the economic system at the root of current cri-
ses. Their intention is to entrench and expand
is intended to enable the expansion of the
corporate-controlled industrial form of food it. The potential impacts of this trend could
production. be severe and irreversible. In particular the
digitalisation of agriculture across the world
The summit is designed to create a specific could rapidly erase traditional knowledge
political moment when that narrative can be about food production, thereby eliminating
significantly advanced – it is a stage on which food sovereignty, and the independence and
corporations and supporting philanthropists agency of farmers, smallholders, fisherfolk and
can present themselves as heroes who can Indigenous people. This in turn could drive
provide “game-changing” solutions that will a process of agricultural de-skilling and ag-
“end hunger and malnutrition.” Miraculous gravate rural-urban migration and associated
promises are being made about the benefits societal woes. The colonisation of the oceans
of advancing intentionally vague concepts like also spells trouble for the world’s marine eco-
“precision agriculture” and the “digital fron- systems, as well as its fisherfolk.
tier”, “nature-positive production”, “climate
Instead of this summit’s attempt to hijack
smart agriculture”, the “blue economy”, and
global food systems, we need an entirely
“de-risking” and “re-routing” farming and
different summit. A genuine summit would
rural livelihoods.
challenge the industrial food system’s impact
on food, health, climate and biodiversity and
The underlying purpose of this summit, which
have, at its very core and foundation, the
will not create policies or global agreements
interests and meaningful participation of the
directly, is to establish parameters, the path
peasants, smallholders, pastoralists, fishers,
that governments will choose to prioritise,
Indigenous peoples and urban gardeners
promote and finance in the future – and what
that feed the overwhelming majority of the
and who they will reject.
planet’s population. Its outcomes should be
integrated into and help shape the delibera-
Careful analysis shows that the myths that the
tions of the UN’s Committee on Food Security,
FSS architects have fabricated completely
which is already tasked with addressing the
ignore fundamental elements of the real world
concerns the FSS purports to resolve, and has
that we currently live in. They intentionally
well-established mechanisms concerning the
distract attention from the hard fact that it is
participation of rights-holders and their rights
this same mechanistic cultural approach that
to self-organise.
4
July 2021 www.etcgroup.org Hijacking food systems: technofix takeover at the FSS
Introduction simply broken – it is actively damaging. It uses
75 percent of the world’s agricultural land,
In 2020, we analysed2 three separate inter- consumes at least 80 percent of freshwater
governmental initiatives that we believe could and is responsible for at least 90 percent of
converge to radically change the multilater- greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.4
al agricultural system in favour of corporate
interests: Furthermore, despite what the food industry
would have us believe, this “food chain” is not
• the proposed Food Systems Summit (FSS) the entire food system. In fact, the FSS’s “bro-
• the then-impending consolidation of the ken food system” narrative obscures the real-
international agricultural research system into ity of food production for most of the world.
“One CGIAR” ETC Group estimates that only the equivalent
• the planned creation of an International Plat- of 30 percent of the global population is fed
form for Digital Food and Agriculture (original- primarily by the industrial food chain while the
ly proposed as an International Digital Council remaining 70 percent obtain their food pri-
for Food and Agriculture) marily from local smallholder food webs. The
FAO goes further and suggests that more than
We forecast that “the Summit provides the 80 percent of the world’s food is produced by
framework; CGIAR is the delivery system; and family farmers and their networks. The indus-
5
Big Data is the product.” In 2021, even after trial food chain is actively breaking this peas-
all the upheaval caused by the pandemic, ant food web. By talking of simply “fixing” the
these processes are underway, and we can al- food chain, the FSS threatens to undermine
ready see this prediction coming true. In fact, these more important functioning food sys-
we see these three processes marching rapidly tems, whilst propping up the real broken and
forwards, potentially hijacking global food sys- irresponsible industrial food system.
tems, even while the pandemic continues to
turn people’s lives upside-down. Collectively, The “food system” that most people involved
these processes are strengthening corporate in food and farming recognize and respect
interests and control over food and agricul- supports diverse approaches to producing,
ture, especially through new corporate-con- processing and distributing food, includ-
trolled digitally-based technologies that will ing traditional systems. However, the FSS
further marginalise peasants, smallholders, is clearly and very deliberately steering the
Indigenous peoples, artisanal fishers and local world away from this approach and towards
producers. a further intensification of the industrial food
chain. The architects of the FSS have exploit-
When the big bosses of food transnational ed their growing political and financial influ-
companies like Unilever3 talk about fixing the ence within the United Nations to undermine
“broken food system”, it raises questions multilateral decision-making and supplant it
about which food system they are actually with what they call “multi-stakeholder global
talking about and who benefits from repairing governance” – which is in fact a cover for the
it. The “broken food system” should refer spe- advancement of the interests of transnational
cifically to the industrial food chain, that part corporations.
of the global food system under the control
of corporate interests that depends heavily on
chemical and fossil fuel inputs, promotes crop
uniformity, and produces food mainly for the
commercial market in developed countries
and the upper and middle classes in develop-
ing countries. The industrial food chain is not
5
Hijacking food systems: technofix takeover at the FSS July 2021 www.etcgroup.org
Box 1: At-a-glance summary peoples through generations of sharing,
exchanges and utilisation. At this moment
Narratives and false solutions of deepening climate crisis and biodiversity
The global pandemic has provided a useful collapse, we cannot afford to be fooled into
cover for a planned “subtle hijack” of global allowing critically important systems that feed
food systems and related institutions. This is us to be wrongly characterised and captured
being led by transnational agribusiness cor- by corporations, merely to advance their
porations, who are increasingly linking up with self-interest.
Tech Titans. Corporate-orchestrated coalitions
are representing their interests and lobbying Actors
on their behalf at the forefront, inventing plau- Agribusiness, Big Data corporations, financial
sible narratives that imply – wrongly – that the speculators
route they propose is the only way forward. Farmers’ movements, civil society
UN bureaucracy, governments
Key to the narrative being pushed through Big donors that are pushing the industrial ag-
the FSS and related processes is the idea ricultural model
that the food system is completely “broken”
and needs to be fixed – with the aid of hero- Fora
ic corporate prescriptions and technologies. Food Systems Summit (FSS): preparatory sum-
There are indeed problems that need to be mit 26-28 July 2021 in Rome; and the actual
addressed, but this false narrative completely summit in New York (perhaps in September
ignores key questions about who is respon- around the 76th session of the UN General
sible for existing processes that damage the Assembly).
climate and environment, as well as human
rights and people’s wellbeing. The FSS narra- Actions
tive effectively turns a blind eye to the indus- Popular movements and civil society need to
trial food chain’s devastating impacts to date. understand the deep implications of the new
corporate biotech and digital (and bio-digital)
The focus needs to be squarely on the in- agenda in food and agriculture, and the fact
dustrial food chain as the villain, in need of that the FSS is planned as a means of estab-
critical examination – including in light of its lishing a framework to advance that agenda.
role in causing pandemics. But the funda- We also need to understand and deconstruct
mental transformation that is required cannot the false narratives that are being used to
be shaped by the hands of those responsible promote it. We reaffirm the key role of territo-
for this harm in the first place. Nor should we rial food systems built from the bottom up by
allow these culprits to increase their control the people who already feed the majority of
over food systems, using the same mindset as the global population. They are responsible
before to develop and deploy new technolog- for the agricultural biodiversity that provides
ical tools to extract more resources and reap the basis for the world’s food, maintaining the
ever more financial rewards for their share- health of people and the planet and prevent-
holders. ing further climate chaos. We need to reaf-
firm food sovereignty and diverse rural-urban
What’s at stake? peasant agroecological systems which collec-
Pursuing the corporate-sanctioned FSS agen- tively constitute the pathway towards attaining
da would result in further negative impacts on food sovereignty and people’s right to define
food sovereignty and agricultural biodiversity their own food systems. We reject the pro-
in farmers’ fields, and rapidly erode knowl- posed profit-driven, digitally-based corporate
edge systems that have been developed by takeover of global food systems.
peasants, local communities and Indigenous
6July 2021 www.etcgroup.org Hijacking food systems: technofix takeover at the FSS
As described in our last communiqué, the FSS for some time in the fall of 2021, with the
would originally have been the culmination UNFCCC COP-26 climate summit planned for
of several rounds of interlinked negotiations November 2021, and the CBD’s COP-15 likely
relating to events and summits that were also to be deferred until 2022.
originally scheduled for 2020. But as with the Taking all this together, it has become appar-
FSS, timetables have been scrambled, and ent that something highly significant is afoot
most of these processes have been extended in global food system governance, and this
to 2021 and on to 2022, due to the COVID-19 “something” very definitely favours the agen-
pandemic. da of big donors, Big Ag and Big Data giants
such as Amazon and Microsoft, who are mov-
They include COP-26 of the UN Framework ing aggressively into food, as well as other
Convention on Climate Change (CBD) which Davos Forum players.
will be held in Glasgow in the UK, and COP-
15 of the UN Convention on Biological Diver- Furthermore, it is probably not a coincidence
sity, to be held in Kunming in China, as well as that this emerging alignment of global play-
the soon-to-be-established International Plat- ers is stepping into climate and food systems
form for Digital Food and Agriculture (to be governance spaces at precisely the moment
hosted by FAO and originally proposed by the in time when the UN and related multilateral
German government), and the reform of the food and agriculture institutions are at their
global agricultural research system through weakest. This is the result of a convergence of
the consolidation of different parts of the resource limitations, assault from rising author-
Consultative Group of International Agricultur- itarian regimes, internal weaknesses within UN
al Research (CGIAR) under pressure from the institutions, and a continuing and marked dis-
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the orientation resulting from the unprecedented
Rockefeller Foundation. At the time of writing shift to virtual negotiating mode in multilateral
the Food Systems Summit is now scheduled processes.
Box 2: What’s on the FSS agenda?... ... and what’s missing?
• Climate change as market opportunity • Food Sovereignty
• “Nature positive” solutions/production • Human rights
• Biotechnology • Indigenous sovereignty and rights
• Digitalisation of food and agriculture
• Land rights
• Synthetic protein/meat
• Racial justice
• Other “Fourth Industrial Revolution”
technologies, such as BECCS • Countering repression and displace
ment of peasants, Indigenous peoples
(bioenergy with carbon capture and
and marginalised communities
storage)
• Institutionalising corporate involvement • Impact of corporate concentration on
in and influence over policy making on food systems
food and agriculture
• “Building back better” in terms of neo
liberal economic recovery from the
COVID-19 pandemic
7Hijacking food systems: technofix takeover at the FSS July 2021 www.etcgroup.org
Whether these trends are a coordinated coup Unlike its predecessors, however, the proposal
directed at the climate, health, biodiversity to hold the FSS did not come from any UN
and food governance nexus or just a cor- member state – and where it did come from is
porate-friendly confluence of interests and the subject of some controversy. The “official”
opportunism, the outcome is the same: A backstory is that it was conceived by the UN
tremendous amount of money, political will Secretary-General António Guterres, in con-
and public relations energy is currently flowing versations with the leadership of the Rome-
into a set of linked governance initiatives that based food agencies7 during the session of
will facilitate corporate interests and control, the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable
as well as distracting from changes needed to Development (HLPF) in July 2019.8 It was
produce genuine improvements in food sys- officially announced by Guterres in his World
tems. Food Day address on 16 October 2019.9
Curiously, however, a full month before the
FSS food governance grab HLPF, on 12 June 2019, the UK’s David Na-
via “multi-stakeholderism” barro, a high-level UN bureaucrat (see Box
4 below), made an announcement at the
Much of the outcry by civil society groups annual EAT Conference in Stockholm that a
against the proposed summit has railed World Food Systems Summit would be held in
against something called “multi-stakeholder- 2021 – which he referred to as a “secret”.10 In
ism”6 – adopted by the FSS to replace “multi- addition to this, an anonymous concept paper
lateralism”. To those outside UN governance about the proposed Summit was then circulat-
processes these two similar-sounding words ed in some circles on 18 June 2019.
may sound arcane and opaque – yet they are
used to describe two very different philoso- If the official version is to be believed, regard-
phies concerning how to structure and imple- less of the illogical sequence of events, the
ment global governance processes and deter- summit is purely an initiative of UN bureau-
mine in whose interests they will function. crats – with no involvement from UN member
states. This means that it is not a product of
In United Nations parlance, a “summit” is a multilateralism. It contravenes a core princi-
gathering of heads of UN member states to ple of multilateralism within the UN, which is
deliberate and decide issues that have global based on the principle of “one country, one
importance, charting future steps and paths vote” and recognises that each member state,
that every country commits to contribute to. regardless of economic power, has the right
Conventionally, in the “multilateral” system to participate in all decisions and be treated
proposals to convene a UN summit originate equally.
from a member state, a group of member
states or a regional or political grouping, and Another anomaly in the official account is that
this has been the case with food summits over a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) es-
the past 25 years. The tasks of facilitating tablishing a Strategic Partnership Framework
deliberations among countries and enabling between the Office of the UN Secretary-Gen-
the agreed processes generally rests with UN eral and the World Economic Forum (WEF), a
agencies responsible for specific develop- global business organisation, was signed on
ment areas – so, for example, FAO would be 13 June 2019, also just ahead of the HLPF.11
responsible for organising a summit related While the MoU is not binding and did not
to food and agriculture. The food summits of specifically cover food systems or agricul-
1996, 2002 and 2009, although not free from ture, rumours persist that it was the WEF that
controversies and corporate influence, were pushed the idea of a WFSS to the UN Secre-
all proposed by member states and organised tary-General.12 The WEF is not a UN member
by FAO.
8July 2021 www.etcgroup.org Hijacking food systems: technofix takeover at the FSS
state. Yet there is no doubting the influence is underpinned by the fact that a year before
it has managed to build within the UN or the the announcement of the FSS, the WEF was
fact that many member states seem to con- among five collaborators behind the Food
sider it prestigious to be invited to the WEF’s Systems Dialogues13 process that held region-
annual winter carnival in Davos. al and international dialogues on food issues
amongst policy makers and stakeholders in
Despite being shameless about its own lead- the food systems. This dialogue process has
ership being made up of a small number of been used as a template for the design of the
mega-corporations, the WEF has consistently FSS process.
promoted the multi-stakeholder approach
to global governance as a valid alternative Guterres’s subsequent announcement, in
approach not just to advising governments, December 2019, that Agnes Kalibata would
but to international cooperation itself. This serve as the Special Envoy for the 2021 Food
Box 3: What is “multi-stakeholderism” and what’s wrong with it?
Multistakeholderism is a relatively new process Now, the FSS seems intent on taking mul-
that has appeared in policy-making processes ti-stakeholderism to a new and even more
in the last 30 years. It started to take hold at disturbing level, using it as a route to enable
the UN in the aftermath of the 1992 UN Con- increased corporate involvement in govern-
ference on Environment and Development ance processes. The previous approaches
(also known as the Earth Summit) in Rio de – focused on multi-stakeholder representa-
Janeiro, with the recognition of nine “ma- tion and participation, are vastly different to
jor groups”.69 However, these nine divisions the governance system represented by mul-
shifted the focus away from and blurred the ti-stakeholderism that aims to govern global
relative status of key rights holder groups that problems in lieu of democratic decision-mak-
defend rights and public commons – such as ing by governments within UN processes.70
women, peasants, workers and youth. These
groups are now lumped together with many The multi-stakeholderism approach that is
other groups, including those stakeholders underpinning the FSS and related processes,
that focus on for-profit interests, such as busi- cannot and should not supplant or displace
ness. multilateralism in global policy making.
Furthermore, even though this approach sup- Flawed as many of them are, most govern-
posedly gathers all those involved in an issue ments still have the duty of acting in people’s
at the same table, it actually favours the more best interests and can ultimately be held
powerful actors and groups, since it complete- accountable to the people. Corporations and
ly fails to recognise power imbalances, une- their powerful forums are entirely different:
qual playing fields and conflicts of interests. they are only accountable to their sharehold-
ers and are generally obliged to act to protect
Nevertheless, over the past 25 years “mul- their shareholders’ interests. With so much
ti-stakeholder” participation has become a at stake, civil society and social movements,
mainstay in UN processes, with the Major including representatives of food producers
Groups advocating for positions, lobbying and consumers, need to act urgently to pre-
intergovernmental bodies and governments vent governments allowing a UN-sanctioned
to adopt these positions, and providing their corporate takeover of the global governance
expertise in intergovernmental processes and of food systems.
deliberations that contribute to decision-mak-
ing by governments.
9Hijacking food systems: technofix takeover at the FSS July 2021 www.etcgroup.org
Systems Summit14 confirmed widespread There is already clear evidence that this is
doubts about the provenance of the sum- happening. The FSS, for example, has es-
mit. Dr. Kalibata has been the President of tablished a Scientific Group whose mandate
the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa very much overlaps with the role of the CFS
(AGRA) since 2014, and AGRA was created High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE). Howev-
and has been mainly funded by the Bill and er, these two groupings are very different in
Melinda Gates Foundation, which has played nature. Whilst their mandates might overlap,
an active role in trying to industrialise the food their characteristics and membership are
and agriculture landscape of Africa. Sources quite different. For example, the HLPE does
say that Dr. Kalibata was suggested to the UN not restrict its own definition of its role as a
Secretary-General by the Gates and Rockefel- “scientific” body – it recognises the different
ler foundations in an effort to shape the FSS kinds of knowledge needed for governing
process and outcomes. food systems.
Whether the FSS is a unilateral brainchild of But the FSS Scientific Group has a deliberately
UN bureaucrats or has been imposed at the narrow focus, prioritising technocratic exper-
behest of the World Economic Forum, it de- tise. Considered as key to the structure of the
parts sharply from the tradition set by previous FSS, the Scientific Group is composed of em-
world food summits, that developed genu- inent academics and thinkers from both the
inely intergovernmental decisions influenced North and the South tasked to ensure that the
by grassroots organisations and civil society science that underpins the summit is “robust,
through inclusive and participatory processes broad and independent” to inform the rec-
that agreed to promote the realisation of the ommendations and “clarify the level of ambi-
right to adequate food for all. tion and commitments that emerge from the
summit process.” The skewed composition of
FSS backs corporate control
the FSS Scientific Group, only two or three of
whom have a background in social sciences
of food and will undermine (with not a single one from the humanities), is
the Committee on World
a good predictor of the nature of advice the
group will dispense.16
Food Security (CFS)
This attempt to shove aside the CFS’s exist-
In the aftermath of the global food crisis in ing expertise structures could have lasting
October 2009, UN member states unanimous- impacts, beyond the lifetime of the summit
ly agreed to reform the Committee on World itself. The architects of the FSS seem to be
Food Security (CFS), originally established in dreaming of a type of streamlined technocrat-
1974, to ensure that it is the “foremost in- ic governance of food systems in which Big
clusive international and intergovernmental Data and scientific expertise provide techno-
platform for all stakeholders to work together cratic prescriptions for the global food system,
to ensure food security and nutrition for all.”15 which can be swiftly implemented without
having to take account of messy political, cul-
But the CFS’s mandate to address the chal- tural, human rights or socio-economic factors.
lenges and potential threats to global food
security is now being undermined by the FSS. In a recent briefing note the International Pan-
Instead of building on the decade of legiti- el of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IP-
macy that the CFS has won amongst diverse ES-Food) similarly warned that a small group
constituents and stakeholders, including gov- of proponents are attempting to use the FSS
ernments, the FSS is attempting to establish as a launch pad for a new global expert panel
its own alternative replacement structure. on food described as an “IPCC for Food” that
10July 2021 www.etcgroup.org Hijacking food systems: technofix takeover at the FSS
could fully dislodge the HLPE and knowledge of a new science-policy interface for food
structures of the CFS. Their briefing describes systems.18 In an open letter, they explicitly
the FSS Scientific Group as an “early exper- observed that the proposition will reinvent the
iment” for a proposed new science-policy wheel and could result in the duplication and
interface. It observes that this gives consid- further fragmentation of global food policy
erable cause for concern as it “falls short in governance.
several respects: it is non-transparent; is im-
balanced in its composition and biased in its They might have gone on to mention that the
perspectives and sources of knowledge; is FSS is not just reinventing the wheel, but the
un-reflexive about the relationships between entire cart, in terms of controlling the overar-
food systems and society; and is pursuing a ching narrative, agenda and levers of power
business-oriented ‘technology and innovation’ relating to food and agriculture.
agenda.”17
Furthermore, in May 2021 members of the
HLPE themselves challenged the FSS’s antici-
pated recommendation for the establishment
The FSS “clique”: interlocking interests
11Hijacking food systems: technofix takeover at the FSS July 2021 www.etcgroup.org
elitist leadership, increasing the influence
Box 4: Know some of the key actors of the private sector on policy making, and
behind the UN Food Systems Summit proposing technological solutions instead of
focusing on structural causes of malnutrition.26
Agnes Kalibata has been appointed as the
UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy to the UN Secretary General António Guterres,
2021 Food Systems Summit to “lead” and a former prime minister of Portugal, became
“guide” the FSS process in cooperation with the ninth Secretary-General (UNSG) of the UN
Rome-based agencies. However, Dr. Kalibata in 2017. In his first year as UNSG, Guterres
has a clear conflict of interest.19 Since 2014, developed his policy agenda on frontier tech-
Dr. Kalibata has been serving as the President nologies and convened a high-level panel on
of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa digital cooperation co-chaired by Alibaba’s
(AGRA), an organisation that represents and Jack Ma and Microsoft’s Melinda Gates, which
promotes agribusiness interests in the African came out with recommendations that advance
continent,20 which was founded and so-far pri- multi-stakeholder governance in the digital
marily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates sphere. Guterres also presided over the UN-
Foundation. However, a researcher following WEF27 partnership which contributed to the
AGRA closely has observed that it needs to growing corporate takeover of the UN.
replenish its financing and will be using the
summit as an opportunity to fundraise. This Joachim Von Braun, the Chair of the Food
has been widely challenged by civil society or- System Summit’s Scientific Group, is the Direc-
ganisations.21 Dr. Kalibata also sits on various tor of the Center for Development Research
company-linked boards, councils and commis- (ZEF), Bonn University. From 2002-2009, he
sions including the Global Agenda Council of held the position of the Director-General of
the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Food the International Food Policy Research Insti-
and Land Use (FOLU) Coalition, the Architec- tute (IFPRI), a CGIAR research centre.28 One
ture for REDD + Transactions (ART), and the of the largest funders of CGIAR is the Bill and
International Fertilizer Development Corpora- Melinda Gates Foundation and one of the
tion (IFDC).22 latest developments in CGIAR’s structure has
been the centralisation of its different centres
David Nabarro is a key architect of the FSS. into one entity, a move pushed by the Bill
He is an international development specialist and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World
who has held various positions at the World Bank, and the US and UK governments.29 Dr.
Health Organization and at the UN headquar- von Braun is a member of the Board of the
ters. He is very close to business and industry, Alliance for the Green Revolution in Africa
and advises the World Business Council for (AGRA).
Sustainable Development (WBCSD) on food
systems issues.23 He also plays key roles in a Even though the World Economic Forum
number of other corporate coalitions and en- (WEF) proclaims itself to be a multi-stake-
tities actively involved in the FSS, namely 4SD holder platform “committed to improving the
(Skills, Systems and Synergies for Sustainable state of the world,” 30 its membership and
Development),24 FOLU (Food and Land Use board31 are overwhelmingly representative of
Coalition) and SYSTEMIQ (a small but influen- and promote corporate interests: It is made
tial London-based business consultancy that up of the largest 1,000 global corporations
formed and hosts FOLU).25 Based at Imperial plus other partners.32 For example, board
College London, he was designated by the members include Mukesh Ambani, Chair-
UN Secretary-General to lead the Scaling Up man of Reliance and the richest man in India;
Nutrition (SUN) Movement, which, much like Laurence D Fink, CEO of Blackrock; and Mark
the UNFSS, was criticised for its top-down, Schneider, CEO of Nestlé.33 The above-named
12July 2021 www.etcgroup.org Hijacking food systems: technofix takeover at the FSS
corporations are notorious for their record in The Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU)
human rights,34 tax evasion,35 and ecological was established in 2017 by the fertiliser com-
damage.36 In its last annual meeting, which pany Yara and the multinational Unilever, two
took place in 2020, the WEF had 3,000 partic- of the worst polluters within the food and
ipants from all over the world, including pow- agriculture sector. It was later handed over
erful political leaders like Donald Trump, Han to SYSTEMIQ to manage.44 The core part-
Zheng, Angela Merkel, and representatives ners of FOLU are AGRA, EAT, Global Alliance
from international organisations including An- for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), International
tonio Guterres, Kristalina Georgieva, Christine Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA),
Lagarde37 and many others. They gathered to Sustainable Development Solutions Network
discuss “stakeholder capitalism” as present- (SDSN), SYSTEMIQ, the World Business Coun-
ed in the “Davos Manifesto”.38 The influence cil for Sustainable Development (WBCSD),
of WEF is evident in the WEF-UN strategic the World Farmers’ Organisation (WFO)
partnership agreement which has been crit- and World Resources Institute (WRI). Their
icised by many civil society organisations on funders currently include the Gordon and
the grounds that it would provide convenient Betty Moore Foundation, the MAVA Foun-
access for corporate interests within the UN, dation, Norway’s International Climate and
and because it reduces the transparency and Forest Initiative (NICFI) and the UK Depart-
impartial nature of the UN.39 Sean de Cleene, ment for International Development (DFID).
a member of the WEF’s Executive Committee FOLU advocates for precision farming, gene
and head of WEF’s Future of Food, is a former editing, Nature-based Solutions45 and other
Vice-President of AGRA and former Vice-Pres- market-based technofixes to complex histor-
ident for Global Initiatives, Strategy and Busi- ical and political problems, which are backed
ness Development of fertiliser giant Yara. by big corporate interests and reinforce the
unequal relationships embedded in our food
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa systems.
(AGRA) was established in 2006 with funding
from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Farming First, which describes itself as a
and the Rockefeller Foundation.40 Since then, global coalition for sustainable agricultural de-
it has also received funds from the US, the velopment, includes supporters from industry
UK and other countries including Germany. associations Croplife, the International Fer-
AGRA’s plan was to introduce a Green Revolu- tilizer Association (IFA) and the International
tion in Africa by using high-yield commercial Seed Federation (ISF), and coalitions like the
seeds, synthetic fertilisers and pesticides to Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN)
address food security and nutrition in poor and the World Farmers’ Organization (WFO).46
small-farming households. There is ample ev- It is housed by Marchmont Communications,
idence that AGRA has failed to reach a large a boutique PR Firm based in London who also
number of smallholder farmers, and in fact handle official communications for the UNFSS
the AGRA period has witnessed an increase secretariat.
in the number of undernourished people in
the focus countries.41 As well as Dr. Kalibata’s 4SD is a Geneva-based social enterprise to
role as President of AGRA (see above), the provide tools to policy makers to achieve the
Chief of Staff of Dr. Kalibata as Special Envoy, 2030 sustainable development goals. It was
Adam Gerstenmier also serves as the Chief for established by David Nabarro who serves as
International Relations and Strategy for AGRA. its Strategic Director.47 4SD developed and
Gerstenmier was a former Managing Director provides support to the three-tiered dialogue
of the African Green Revolution Forum42 and approach of the FSS, comprised of Global
former Chief of Staff of the Bill and Melinda Summit Dialogues, Member State Dialogues
Gates Foundation.43 and Independent Dialogues. The FSS admits
13Hijacking food systems: technofix takeover at the FSS July 2021 www.etcgroup.org
that the design for the Food Systems Sum- ‘Vertumnus’, on the left, was painted by Guiseppe Arcimboldo in
1591, and is a portrait of Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II.
mit Dialogues was explicitly inspired by the It was used as the cover of the first print edition of the
Food Systems Dialogue spearheaded by WEF, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Ag-
FOLU, WBCSD, EAT and GAIN in 2018.48 riculture, adopted in 2001. Twenty years later, the UK, led by Boris
Johnson, is helping to spin a story that props up and expands the
industrial food chain at the expense of other food systems.
The Rockefeller Foundation was established Illustration Charley Hall, based on an idea from ETC Group
in 1913 to use John D Rockefeller’s oil profits
to gain a stronghold in international health,
medicine, education, social sciences, agricul-
ture and natural sciences.49 The Green Revo-
lution has historical links with the Rockefeller A summit to
destroy food sovereignty
Foundation which contributed funding for it
in Mexico and India. In 2006, the Foundation
published “Africa’s Turn: A New Green Revo-
lution for the 21st Century” which highlighted What is a global food summit for? The first
the “inefficiency” of African farms, and pro- food summit in 1996 was driven by public
posed, as it has always done, high-yielding pressure to address the gross moral profan-
varieties of seeds and improved fertilisers.50 ity that is hunger and to enshrine the right
The Rockefeller Foundation has always been to food as demanded by civil society. The
behind efforts to introduce Green Revolution 2008 Food Summit was convened to deal
technologies to address hunger, irrespective with the food price crisis and spiraling hunger
of the well-known failure of this approach caused by using grain production for indus-
including its adverse ecological and social trial agrofuels instead of food. But the FSS
impacts. has broadened and shifted the focus, locat-
ing it within the 17 Sustainable Development
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Goals (SDGs). While the second SDG does
(BMGF) is a philanthrocapitalist51 foundation call for zero hunger and sustainable food
established in 2000, which is well known for systems, this wider “smorgasbord” approach
its attempts to gain influence over health and ranging across the SDGs opens a door for
agriculture sectors,52 among others, by pro- decision-makers to lose the previous food
viding financial support for them. It has been summits’ concentrated focus by creating a
pointed out that the Foundation does not range of de-politicised technocratic options
address the unequal power structures that and easy-to-manipulate indicators supposedly
have led to widespread poverty and inequality addressing diverse global problems.
but reinforces the economic and technological
dependence of developing countries on the The use of the term “food systems” also
United States and Europe.53 marks an important shift away from previ-
ous food summits and one that civil society
Bill Gates is also known for striving to ensure needs to be careful of. While progressive food
continued corporate profit-making through movements have long advocated for a “food
the use of international patents, and refusing systems” approach to addressing the inter-
to support alternative public health policies – related problems of health, hunger, rights,
thus he opposed the lifting of COVID-19 vac- ecology, economy, inequity and more, it is
cine patents to facilitate global vaccination.54 troubling that the application of a technocrat-
Also known as the largest private farmland ically-oriented “food systems” lens in the FSS
owner in the US,55 Bill Gates has been behind has displaced food security and hunger as the
efforts to centralise the CGIAR and gain con- defining moral focus of debates and deci-
trol over seed supply. sion-making about food systems.56
14July 2021 www.etcgroup.org Hijacking food systems: technofix takeover at the FSS
Box 5: FSS ‘story’ led from London? multi-stakeholder partnerships.73 SYSTEMIQ
spearheaded the creation of the Food and
There is another key player behind the FSS Land Use Coalition (FOLU),74 and runs FOLU’s
scenes: London. Certainly, the key architect of website, hosting its office.75
the FSS, David Nabarro, counts London as
his political base. He works with Imperial Col- London-based private PR firm Marchmont
lege and as Senior Advisor with the high-pow- Communications is charged with packaging
ered London-based “think tank” SYSTEMIQ, the FSS image and narrative. Marchmont
which is in turn led by two giants of the UK hosts the secretariat of Farming First76 and
establishment, Lord Turner (who headed the its clients have included CGIAR centres, the
UK Confederation of British Industry) and Sir World Bank Group, and Croplife,77 the lobby
David King (former UK government Chief Sci- group of the crop biotechnology and agro-
entific Adviser). chemical industry. Marchmont’s owner, former
CEO and current Director, Michael Hoevel is
SYSTEMIQ was established by two former identified as Coordinator of Farming First.78
executives of McKinsey management in 2016
and was certified as a B Corporation in 2018.71 London is also relevant more broadly: it sup-
It is dedicated to accelerating delivery of the ports the narrative tying together the climate,
Paris Agreement and UN Sustainable De- biodiversity and food summits around the
velopment Goals by “transforming markets, idea of ‘Nature-based Solutions’ or ‘Natural
business models, and asset classes in land Climate Solutions’.79 Boris Johnson’s govern-
use, clean energy and materials.”72 Like all the ment seems set on re-establishing London as
other actors leading the Summit, the models a global hub for speculation on carbon, biodi-
it proposes to address the climate crisis rely versity and food assets and reviving the for-
heavily on corporate-backed market-based tunes of its post-Brexit financial sector around
solutions and an unquestioning approach to profitable green technology and finance.80
15Hijacking food systems: technofix takeover at the FSS July 2021 www.etcgroup.org
Corporations intent on furthering their busi- Box 6: Food Sovereignty:
ness interests are also piggy-backing on 2007 Nyéléni Forum Declaration81
current crises. For example, the FSS website
and “about” pages spotlight climate change Food sovereignty is the right of peoples
and pandemics as key drivers underpinning to healthy and culturally appropriate food
the need for their “breakthrough solutions”. In produced through ecologically sound and
this way, the underlying narrative projected is sustainable methods, and their right to de-
that current food system problems are rooted fine their own food and agriculture systems.
in newer external shocks, which enables the It puts the aspirations and needs of those
deeper structural problems of neocolonialism, who produce, distribute and consume food
power relations between North and South, at the heart of food systems and policies
an unequal global trading regime, corporate rather than the demands of markets and
concentration and structural inequality to be corporations. It defends the interests and
ignored. inclusion of the next generation. It offers a
strategy to resist and dismantle the current
In addition, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the corporate trade and food regime, and direc-
FSS fails to draw attention to the fact that tions for food, farming, pastoral and fisher-
the industrial food system is the single larg- ies systems determined by local producers
est factor driving both climate change and and users. Food sovereignty prioritises local
pandemics. Instead, a glossy focus on imple- and national economies and markets and
menting technical fixes and meeting indicator empowers peasant and family farmer-driven
targets linked to technical goals is promoted agriculture, artisanal-fishing, pastoralist-led
as a way to “nudge” our food systems back to grazing, and food production, distribution
a supposedly “perfect” scorecard – something and consumption based on environmental,
that big business and governments alike can social and economic sustainability. Food
collaborate on without facing uncomfortable sovereignty promotes transparent trade that
questions. This is the antithesis of food sover- guarantees just incomes to all peoples as
eignty. well as the rights of consumers to control
their food and nutrition. It ensures that the
rights to use and manage lands, territories,
FSS pitfalls: what to watch waters, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are
out for “inside” the summit
in the hands of those of us who produce
food. Food sovereignty implies new social
relations free of oppression and inequality
While many progressive food movements and between men and women, peoples, racial
civil society have turned their back on the cha- groups, social and economic classes and
rade that is the FSS, some groups have cho- generations.
sen to “go inside” the process in the hope of
securing greater international policy support
for more transformative, sustainable and eq-
uitable policy visions relating to food. Those joining of “broken systems”, “disruption” and
who have done so have to face two unusual “breakthrough” solutions is a picture-perfect
challenges arising out of the WEF-inspired example of FSS adherence to the corporate
framing of the FSS. logic, values and language of the neoliberal
crowd clustered around the World Economic
Policy-making-as-business pitches: The archi- Forum.
tects of the FSS complete their “broken food
system as victim” narrative with a pitch for The FSS’s five different “Action Tracks” – en-
heroic “game-changing solutions”. This con- suring access to safe and nutritious food for
16July 2021 www.etcgroup.org Hijacking food systems: technofix takeover at the FSS
all; shifting to sustainable consumption pat-
terns; boosting nature-positive production; “Nature-based Solutions” (or NBS) is a term
advancing equitable livelihoods; and building taken straight from climate change and bio-
resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress- diversity discourse to describe technical and
es – may all sound like desirable outcomes, market-based interventions in “natural infra-
but they are not likely to lead to the chang- structure” that supposedly helps to mitigate
es they describe since the FSS is making no environmental damage. Classic examples of
attempt to explore the underlying systemic “Nature-based Solutions” include financialis-
challenges or identify truly transformative sys- ing forest carbon to subsidise forest protec-
temic alternatives. tion (so called REDD – Reducing Emissions
from Degradation and Deforestation). In early
Instead, they have opened the floor to brain- 2019 and 2020, big conservation organisa-
storming numerous glitzy “breakthrough tions and corporate lobby groups such as
solutions” that might gain better traction with FOLU accelerated such talk, with a view to
investors (and governments seeking to replace linking the NBS concept to agriculture and
public expenditure with private investment). food, and tying climate, biodiversity and food
The underlying assumption of this approach governance and market mechanisms together,
is that the “fix” needed for our broken system for offsetting purposes (see Box 8 below).
can be provided with a hail of technological
silver bullets that will somehow get us through Since a key architect of the FSS, David Na-
pandemics and the climate change crisis. The barro, also led the NBS track in the UN Sec-
FSS is not looking for a fundamental rebal- retary-General’s 2019 Climate Summit, it
ancing of power, governance, economics or is perhaps unsurprising that the framing of
worldview. “Nature-based Solutions” for food and agri-
culture began to emerge throughout 2020, as
New-but-still-neoliberal lingo: Food move- negotiations on climate, biodiversity and food
ments have also had to navigate terminology summits were targeted simultaneously.
that is new to food policy discussions – includ- However, it is important to flag up the fact
ing terms such as “Nature-based Solutions” that “Nature-based Solutions” has no de-
and “nature positive production”.
Box 7: FSS “breakthrough solutions” blitz distracts from need for more
transformative approaches
By mid-July 2021, the FSS website was claim- Self-serving propositions from industry
ing that they had received over 2,000 ideas lobby groups and corporations that have
for “game-changing solutions” that had been already helped to wreck the planet are de-
synthesised into more than 50 “solutions clus- scribed as “nature positive” and tagged as
ters”.82 The lists of submissions received were “game-changing solutions” in Action Track
mostly from governments and research institu- documents. For example, the US Soybean
tions in the North, industry lobby groups and Export Council, which supports genetically
a wide array of corporations from across the modified soy production,83 proposes “Boost-
industrial food chain under the umbrellas of ing nature positive production in US soy
lobby groups such as CropLife, Farming First, industries.”84 Other proposals from corporate
the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU) and giants include “Sustainable Beef Initiatives”
the World Business Council for Sustainable from Tyson Foods, “Deforestation-free supply
Development (WBCSD). chains” from Nestlé and “Creation of land use
footprint for specific produce” from Bayer.85
17Hijacking food systems: technofix takeover at the FSS July 2021 www.etcgroup.org
Box 8: How and why “NBS” infected intergovernmental fora
The term “Nature-based Solutions” (or NBS) for Ecosystem Services” (PES). These are ripe
was first hatched in the early 2000s in World for fraud86 and have so many loopholes that
Bank reports on “natural infrastructure”. It national and corporate actors can even claim
was then incubated in European Union en- credits by leaving just 10 percent of a forest
vironmental policy circles, before emerging uncut or by replanting with monoculture plan-
fully-fledged into climate and biodiversity tations that generate additional business.87
governance discussions in recent years. The
promotion of “Nature-based Solutions” has The CBD’s COP-15 summit, now likely to be
also been prominent in the International held in Kunming in China in 2022, is intended
Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), to establish a Post2020 Global Biodiversity
which has been developing a standard for Framework. Big conservation NGOs and most
verification of what constitutes an NBS. industrial countries have used their muscle to
migrate the concept of NBS from the climate
For climate policymakers, NBS has come to discussions, aiming to insert it as a key part of
signify technical and market-based initiatives the post2020 biodiversity agreement – again
that focus on “enhancing” nature to increase with an eye to aligning carbon markets with
its capacity to act as a carbon sink or as a potential new markets in payments for biodi-
means of mitigating climate change. For versity conservation. So far this has been met
example, this could include paying for plan- with much resistance from Southern dele-
tations or wetland conservation or replanting gates, Indigenous peoples and civil society,
mangroves, and potentially displacing tra- but the term has nevertheless found its way
ditional communities in the process – rather into the text of the draft decisions.
than trying to transform energy, transport or
built infrastructure to be more energy effi- The third of the three major summits is of
cient. NBS is thus generally used to reference course the FSS (even though it may now
superficial nature-based technofixes to the actually happen before the others). Following
climate crisis. The UNFCCC’s COP-26 climate negotiations in all three summits shows that
summit, to be held in Glasgow, UK, in Novem- the parallel emergence of “NBS language”
ber, has the establishment of rules to govern in negotiations about food and agriculture
a new generation of global carbon markets governance (also now referred to as “nature
(under the negotiation around Article 6 of positive production” as described above) has
the Paris Agreement) high on its agenda. Big been enthusiastically promoted by big con-
Northern conservation organisations see a servation NGOs but resisted by longstanding
huge potential financial windfall for their own food justice and food sovereignty movements.
conservation projects if those projects can be
included as “Nature-based Solutions” whose The latter movements observe that NBS pro-
carbon-sequestration could supposedly be posals in food and agriculture are particularly
verified (e.g. through IUCN-agreed standards) linked to attempts to turn agricultural soils
and then traded on global carbon markets. and production systems into new sources of
potentially tradeable, and therefore profitable,
The NBS approach then spread to biodiversity carbon credits, at the expense of peasants
conservation policy discussions and negoti- and smallholders who will be further margin-
ations. The poster child for “Nature-based alised. Combined with “precision agriculture”
Solutions” was the World Bank’s controversial (the digitalisation of food and agriculture),
REDD/REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from De- the potential for new and profitable markets,
forestation and Degradation) set of programs, which increase commercial power and influ-
which financialise conservation activities by ence while promoting yet more land-grabbing
offering carbon credits or other “Payments is immense.
18July 2021 www.etcgroup.org Hijacking food systems: technofix takeover at the FSS
fined meaning in a food systems context. But – and it’s a big but – agroecology is men-
This means it can be – and is being – used tioned on a “scale-neutral” basis, which effec-
to reference absolutely any generally posi- tively means that giant agribusiness farms can
tive sounding idea. This makes it perfect for adopt “agroecology”. In addition, peasant
greenwashing corporate projects. The FSS has and Indigenous agriculture is listed as a sep-
compounded this conveniently hazy language arate category that can be “protected” like
by coining another so far undefined term “na- exhibits in a museum, but it is not considered
ture positive production” – an umbrella-type as the path that will lead the world away from
term incorporating all types of agriculture hunger and other food- and agriculture-relat-
and food production that make green or na- ed crises.
ture-based claims – however unsubstantiated.
Other “positive production” terms – agroe- It is also important to note the elevation of
cological, organic, regenerative, sustainable – similar-sounding language about “regener-
are all being squeezed in wherever possible to ative agriculture”, both in the FSS and more
make the FSS outcomes seem more palatable. generally by corporate lobby groups. This
This does not mean they will be part of a truly concept arose largely out of the Global North,
transformative process, rather that they are and it has a narrow focus on soil health, which
part of the window-dressing. many large food corporations – such as Gen-
eral Mills, Pepsico and Nestlé – feel comforta-
Other linguistic tricks being used to fend ble adopting and making commitments to, as
off challenges to the corporate agenda: The it will not entail major changes to their damag-
question of what broader vision the FSS of- ing industries. In fact, the term “regenerative
fers food and agriculture has – eventually and agriculture” is now used so indiscriminately by
unsurprisingly – become a contested battle- some corporations that sometimes it even re-
ground, internally as well as externally. fers to agriculture based on the continued use
of agrochemicals and GMOs in monoculture
Significantly, the current leading vision from cropping combined with livestock production.
food movements, which is gaining support at
FAO – the agroecology/ecological agriculture
pathway – was not even mentioned in the
original agenda of the FSS. Similarly, there
was no reference to it when the summit was
announced by the UN Secretary-General in
October 2019. Rather, the original concept
paper for the summit tagged “precision ag-
riculture” and genetic engineering as impor-
tant tools for addressing future food security,
whilst making a hazy reference to “traditional”
systems.
After unrelenting critique from peasants’
movement and civil society, and diligent
lobbying from those who chose to go “in-
side”, agroecology is now mentioned in FSS
processes. For example, the term “agroeco-
logy” now features prominently in Track 3 as
an action area that took up 34 pages out of its
Synthesis Wave’s 144 pages with 12 proposed
actions.57
19You can also read
