Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment Adopted

The 41^st session of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) finally adopted the Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems (RAI Principles) in October 2014 and endorsed the advancement of human rights in the CFS. That achievement is the outcome of a more than two-year global consultative process among governments, the private sector, civil society organizations, UN agencies, development banks, foundations, research institutions and academia. The ten Principles represent the first time that such diverse stakeholders have agreed on what constitutes responsible investment in agriculture and food systems that contribute to food security and nutrition

The RAI Principles address all types of investment in agriculture and food systems—public, private, large, small—and in the production and processing spheres. They provide a framework that all stakeholders can use when developing national policies, programs, regulatory frameworks, corporate social responsibility programs, individual agreements and contracts. They are voluntary and nonbinding in nature, but embody principles and norms enshrined in international law and other major national and regional law systems para. 20). The RAI Principles’ overarching objective is to “promote responsible investments in agriculture and food systems that contribute to food security and nutrition, thus supporting the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security.”

The Principles also are on corresponding values, including human dignity, nondiscrimination, equity and justice, gender equality, holistic and sustainable approach, consultation and participation, the rule of law, transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement.

The difficult negotiations reflected the highly contested nature of investment in agriculture, especially across borders, and the economic and political interests at play in such transactions. The issue is especially significant to the world’s small-scale food producers and workers, who are responsible for the bulk of investment in agriculture and are pivotal to realizing global food security. Their ability to do so is based on the distinctiveness of peasant family farming production, characterized by its diversified practices over time, developed through a keen local knowledge and skill-intensive processes best suited specific agro-ecological contexts. Investments by and with small-scale food producers also serve to sustain land-based cultures, identities, and livelihoods.

Anchoring the RAI Principles in a human rights-based framework was an important red line for the civil society organizations participating in the negotiations. At first sight, the RAI Principles seem to live up to this. The human right to food appears in the overall objective (paragraph 10) and in the headline paragraph of Principle 1. The core human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Labor Organization Declaration on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, are listed as part of the foundational documents underpinning the RAI Principles in the conceptual framework.

However, the human rights foundations of the RAI Principles are undermined by repeated references to trade agreements and rules. Of particular concern is the listing of “relevant multilateral WTO agreements” in the conceptual framework. For example, paragraph 33 provides that states should ensure that responsible investments in agriculture and food systems are consistent with international agreements related to trade and investment. Paragraph 34 advises that “States should not apply the Principles in a manner that may create or disguise barriers to trade, or promote protectionist interests, or in a way which imposes their own policies on other nations.”

The right of indigenous peoples to exercise free, prior and informed consent regarding developments that take place within their territory (FPIC) proved particularly controversial. Canada, in particular, consistently refused to endorse this point, forcing the text to be bracketed at the conclusion of the final round of negotiations last August. That delegation affectively held the negotiations hostage until the Committee on Food Security Plenary of last October. At that time, the CFS approved the text, with Canada registering its objection in written comments.

Principles 9 and 10 of the RAI deal with governance structures and processes, including participation, consultation, information disclosure, grievance mechanisms, accountability, remedies and related issues. Civil society asserted their principled stance in this section, resulting in:

• Principe 9 (ii), stating that the sharing of information relevant to the investment should take place in an inclusive, equitable, accessible and transparent manner at all stages of the investment cycle; and

• Principle 10 (iii), which defines responsible investment in agriculture and food systems as including mechanisms to assess and address economic, social, environmental, and cultural impacts by “identifying measures to prevent and address potential negative impacts, including the option of not proceeding with the investment.”

Consistent with human rights norms, the RAI Principles’ section on roles and responsibilities of stakeholders advises that “States should take measures to address all agriculture and food system workers’ labor rights, in line with applicable international labor standards and in social dialogue with their respective organizations and employers, when formulating and applying labor laws” (para. 37).

Paragraph 39.i recognizes that “States have a key role in enabling, supporting and complementing investments by smallholders…” through, inter alia, “Addressing the needs and constraints of smallholders, both women and men, in a gender sensitive manner in policies, laws and regulations, and strategies to address capacity development through improved access to inputs, advisory and financial services including insurance, education, extension, training, and infrastructure.”

The Principles also assert that states have a key role in “supporting the development of markets for rural economies” (para. 39.v)  and “fostering public-private partnerships” (para. 40.iii). However, the Principles do not recognize the “missing P” for “popular” partnership in agricultural investments and the other aspects of food system development.

Following their adoption by governments, it still remains to be seen how the diverse stakeholders will apply the RAI Principles in their local contexts. The remaining ambiguities will call for civil society partners to develop specific methods for training, monitoring, advocacy and problem solving to ensure that the Principles apply toward more democratic and just food systems.

For more information see:

Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems 

CFS, Background to the RAI Process

Transnational Institute, Political brief on the Principles on Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Foodsystems.