Antonio Onorati, president of the Italian NGO Crocevia, co-ordinated the efforts of the International NGO/CSO Planning Committee for the International Forum for Food Sovereignty held during the World Food Summit: five years later (WFS:fyl) of June 2002. He has explained the current state of relations between civil society, social movements and FAO to the Network. Onorati wishes to stress that some of the ideas reflected in this interview represent only his personal opinion, based on years of experience within the sector of international co-operation and international solidarity.

1 November 2002, the IPC met with the Director-General of FAO, Jacques Diouf, in an effort to define future relations between FAO and social movements. Explaining the outcomes of this encounter to the Network, Onorati spoke about the diversity which characterizes of civil society and about the relationships it has established with the different United Nations agencies. He expanded on the position of the IPC regarding the WFS:fyl and on the issue of food sovereignty. He also called for the Thematic Groups of the UN System Network to lend their structures as platforms for debate at the national level, where governments will recognize the autonomy of civil society, value its work in tackling food insecurity and commit to incorporating their views on this issue.

How would you define the vision that civil society has today of the United Nations System?

The political investment of governments in the United Nations is decreasing. Governments contributed to divesting UN agencies of their original function, which should constitute an international government that stands above partial interests. I believe that there are two problems. The first is a general trend, both in the north and south, of delegating less and less power to the UN: Now the non-aligned movements that were previously so important within the UN no longer exist. The G77 movement itself has today irreconcilable countries in its midst, whereas before it was an homogeneous group.

The second problem is the almost unlimited power granted to the Western model, imposed by Western governments within the UN. Furthermore, there is a hierarchy among agencies. There is a general tendency to place the entire system under the direction of Bretton Woods and the World Trade Organization and yet there is not written agreement that these institutions should play a dominant part throughout the entire system.

Do you think that the FAO has recognized the important role that civil society can play in facing the problem of food insecurity?

Yes, in this sense the FAO has taken a great step forward. Since our autonomy is indispensable,it has been a major step for us to have established an area of debate with FAO in which mutue respect is the rule. At this time, civil society has different strategies regarding the UN (and vice versa, the UN has different modes of considering civil society). The novelty on the part of the agencies working on hunger, agriculture, etc. is that they are aware of how social movements (fishermen, small farmers, indigeneus people, agroindustrial workers, etc.)-the true defenders of interests related to food security and the right to food- can be recognized as main actors, at the local as well as global level, of strategies for food security. Social movements must always remain autonomous or they will lose their very reason for existing.

I think that FAO has recognized certain elements with respect to us: First, the principle of self-organization. We only represent the members of the IPC and, above all, a method of work among different organizations; we have no desire to represent the whole of civil society (this would be impossible), and the FAO does not tell us who we have to include. FAO accepts our working methods, just we accept we won't be its only interlocutor. We are neither for nor against the FAO. We work on the same problems and we have things to say, which we expressed in the political papers prepared during the Forum of Rome (November 1996 and June 2002) during the World Food Summit.

Second, our method of work is based on the work we do at the local and regional level and we have asked the FAO to establish the mechanisms needed to hold dialogue with us at this level.

Third, the IPC and the process that is behind it are dynamic; we have no power structure nor will we set up a relations "committee of permanent liaison" with FAO. Each member of the CIP can establish its own direct relations with FAO. The difference is that, on concerted themes, we come to an agreement in order to speak with a single voice, with the weight that the deliberations of the Forum confers on us.

How do the NGOs and civil society face the problem of food insecurity?

We have an integrated approach: food insecurity is not a problem of lack of means of production but of lack of rights. The FAO Secretariat seems to have understood our approach and do appreciate the dynamics and innovative ideas of civil society. In addition, FAO Secretariat has understood the framework that we propose for working with the FAO on the problem of food security, that is, food sovereignty. This means, among others, access to resources (we reject the instruments that favour monopolies and privatization). Access to resources must be guaranteed in legal terms, and therefore our battle will be to make the code of conduct for the right to food obligatory and to ensure that institutional action can be taken against violations.

We do not want agriculture and agricultural commerce to have to abide by the rules of the World Trade Organization. We understand that the FAO can do little in this sense, but we ask that in its evaluations and studies regarding this matter FAO takes into account the voice of civil society and that it establishes work modalities jointly with social movements.

Can the Thematic Groups of the Network offer an opportunity in this sense?

Yes, but with great difficulty. It is true that at the central level we have no serious problems with the FAO in promoting these opportunities. The real problems arise as we forge ahead at the country level, because many national governments view the NGOs and the movements as being their enemies. It is clear that here the role of the FAO, and that of the Network, is very limited, particularly because the governments most intolerant of civil society are also the ones the least likely to take into account the work of the FAO. And this is where the FAO and civil society must interact with creativity and determination in order to take a step forward.

Do you have any strategy for this?

We are going to reinforce our work at the regional level. We will use institutionals occasions like FAO regional conferences. I imagine that we will develope over the coming period relations with the local structures of FAO. In some issues this will be more delicate. For example, in the theme of land reform. We always reject a "market-oriented model" of land reform, as promoted by the World Bank. FAO would reply that it is already difficult to speak with certain governments about land reform, and more so to shape the type of reform from the strictly technical position assigned to the agency. What we propose to FAO is the creation of a "common work space", which includes the FAO, NGOs and social movements and, which involves direct dialogue in such a way that the FAO, in its technical role, can also gain a view of civil society". Your Network can be very useful in this sense, providing the structures necessary for this when accepting the principles that we support.

What conclusions have been drawn from the meeting with the director-general of FAO 1 November?

We can say that it has been a very positive meeting, since it offers proof that FAO is open to direct debate with civil society concerning the basic principles on the four main issues expressed in our political paper, which came out of the NGO/CSO Forum of June 2002, here in Rome. FAO Secretariat has comitted that the constitutional changes affecting the FAO will be discussed not only with governments but also with civil society. We especially appreciate the presentation of a document analyzing the state of the activities carried out between FAO and the NGOs/CSOs, much more than a simple enumeration of the operative projects that the FAO is undertaking with the NGOs. For all the NGOs, from the largest to the smallest, these papers have made it clear what can be demanded of the FAO, and this is an example of political transparency.

How does the IPC plan to include the private sector in the partnerships for development?

We do not allow prenegotiated agreements with the private sector to be imposed upon us. We may decide to sit down to debate with them at times on certain themes but without necessarely arriving at a common position. We are representatives of different and often opposing interests. We reject the logic of Johannesburg. Without them, we held a forum during the summit and we organized a peaceful demonstration, for food sovreignety and against repression of social movements with 30,000 people. We have without breaking a single window, but without surrending our political position or our principles, either.

During the presentation of our political declaration agreed at the Forum 2002 to the heads of state we expressed our negative evaluation of the Summit 2002. We invite companies to organize themselves in the same fashion as us, to establish their own CIP and to be transparent by making their lobby papers available on a web page. Meanwhile, we will continue to organize ourselves in our own way, without being aligned but defending our right to make proposals that go īn a different direction", direction taht cab be difficult to be accepted by certain governments. We recognize the diversity of responsibilities between FAO/Secretariat and FAO/governmental bodies and the functioning of the FAO. FAO is representing an innovative mode of working with civil society within the United Nations, much more real than that of the other agencies that claim to be friends of civil society but acually repress them. While the United Nations claims to be open to the NGOs and CSOs, it often includes any organization under this cathegory and forces them to adopt a common voice. Openness to civil society organizations must be qualified and, just for giving an example, profit organizations can never be aligned under the same label as non-profit organizations. The same way, the NGOs cannot considerated always the same thing as social movements.