While the spaces of multilateral governance in the U.N. are under threat, a growing resistance to the regressive forces undermining internationalism and multilateral cooperation is growing. In this blog, Rachel Bezner Kerr offers reflections on her experience in this year’s World Food Forum and World Committee on Food Security meetings. Her insights crystalize the problematic threats to multilateralism, and provides insights into the hope and mobilization that is gaining momentum in the margins. This article is a part of our theme on Policy and Agroecology.
________________________________
In October 2026 I had the privilege to travel to Rome to take part in multiple U.N. processes. Over the course of a week, I presented at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Science and Innovation Forum (part of the World Food Forum), observed the U.N. Committee for World Food Security proceedings, and presented at a side event. In many ways these three activities seemed to be three distinct acts in a theatrical play, but with backroom passes that allowed passage between them. As I returned home and reflected on my experiences across these processes, I have been able to see more concretely the growing concern I had heard expressed that multilateralism is under threat, and the marginalization of agroecology, human rights, and related food sovereignty movements are being given. I also came away inspired and nourished by delicious food! Let me describe this three-act play.
Act One: Selling food or selling science?
The FAO Science and Innovation Forum was a one-day event held in the FAO headquarters. I had attended a 5-day workshop on climate change and food systems in June, between the FAO and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am a lead author on the upcoming IPCC report, and so arrived expecting a similar ambience with scientists discussing the growing evidence for severe climate impacts on food systems, and how to (urgently) reduce greenhouse gasses from agriculture and food systems. Instead, I walked into the main foyer to find a sort of trade show atmosphere, with many different tables and ‘Ted-talk’ like events off to the one side, cameras buzzing, people giving presentations to small groups with headphones on, while others milled about chatting, taking selfies and sampling food from around the world.
The carnival atmosphere was in stark contrast to the topic of climate change and food systems, instead seeming to celebrate food systems in a superficial, commercial-oriented way. As I went outside I found an alternative vision to tackling food systems issues, set up by the Global Hub on Indigenous Peoples Food and Knowledge Systems. They had erected two large tents and lit fires, around which where government representatives, civil society groups and Indigenous people sat discussing earnestly on multiple topics, including Indigenous People’s perspectives on biodiversity, climate change, ultra-processed foods and rights, and occasionally eating culturally significant foods prepared by Indigenous chefs from around the world.
I listened these discussions, gaining some insights before heading to my session, on tipping points, cascading risks and limits to adaptation. There I had been allotted 5 minutes – with prompts to talk about technology and innovation in adaptation. Given how narrow the scope of my assignment, and the apparent effort to box in the discussion towards technocratic solutions, I took things in a different direction. Instead, I focused on the increasing evidence of compound climate hazards (such as two hurricanes in a row, or a drought followed by floods), that is linked to rising rates of acute food insecurity. I emphasized how power imbalances and structural inequalities in the food system mean that not everyone suffers equally from these climate hazards – smallholder farmers, Indigenous communities and farmworkers are at greater risk. I noted that those least responsible for climate change, including Least Developed countries, Small Island Developing States and countries experiencing conflict, were experiencing some of the worst impacts. Other IPCC authors and scientists from different parts of the world also presented, sharing their knowledge and expertise about different dimensions of climate change impacts on food systems and the urgent need to take action. This session drew out the urgent realities of climate change on food systems, the desperate need to transform power relations in food systems, and a discussion on root causes. While somewhat sombre and serious atmosphere, these are the discussions we need to have today and unfortunately clashed both in substance and in style with the World Food Forum, which seemed to posit selling food products as the main solution at hand.
Meanwhile, at an IPCC meeting taking place thousands of miles away, governments failed to agree on a timeline and budget for our upcoming assessment report. As an IPCC author I am a volunteer, and I and my fellow scientists – over 600 of us from around the world – have devoted thousands of hours of our time to evaluating the latest scientific research on climate change, to put together this public report that is meant to provide relevant information and insights for policymakers – and civil society – for our shared future on this planet. I felt deeply disheartened to hear this news, putting our next author meeting on hold and leaving us in limbo.
The threat to multilateralism seemed very close at hand. Humanity faces an existential crisis with climate change, and the reality that governments could not even agree on a deadline for this report, or fund it, was dark news indeed for multilateral efforts to address this challenge together. I decided to go for a much-needed run in beautiful Rome, to regain some energy. Shaking off the disappointment from Act 1 of my trip, I dove back into the fray of the U.N. processes.
Act Two: Attacks on civil society and multilateralism
The CFS proceedings began the following week, held in a large spacious hall in the FAO, with government, private sector and civil society delegates seated in plush seats facing the CFS chair and other dignitaries sitting in the centre stage, while screens broadcasting the different speakers are at either end of the long room.
Delegates discussed different reports and topics related to food security and interventions from government ranged from gross to great. Some delegates – from Brazil, Ireland, Peru, Norway and CSIPM among others – gave a ringing endorsement of the work of the CFS, agroecology and the principles of human rights underpinning food systems. Yet, others were scathing in their derision of the CFS and reports produced by the High Level Panel of Experts within the CFS, rejecting agreed upon statements to progressive multilateral policy commitments.
The US delegate was the most blunt, suggesting that CFS was focused on ‘niche’ topics, and failed to advance practical ‘science-based market approaches’ and strategies that ‘we know help food security: trade, private sector leadership, agricultural productivity.’ Other delegates from wealthy countries or those aligned with the US provided softer critiques but supported many of these sentiments, explicitly undermining the legitimacy of the CFS, which is presumably viewed as threatening to the corporate, elite- and productivist food system agenda pursued by these powers.
It was clear that the multilateral, science-based dialogue approach that CFS and CSIPM have spearheaded were under threat during the proceedings. The ‘niche’ topics that were attacked by the US included a report on agroecology, and a recent HLPE report on resilience, which was not yet tabled as obstructionist governments delayed discussion of this report. Yet, given the now obvious lack of resilience in food systems – think of the fallout from Covid and Hormuz – what could be a more important topic for multilateral cooperation!
Having contributed as a lead author to the agroecology HLPE report, done participatory research for decades on agroecology in Africa and currently contributing to the IPCC assessment on climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation, I can attest that these are not ‘niche’ topics. Rather, they offer viable and promising strategies to shift the food system away from one that is both environmentally and socially damaging, to one that provides nourishing healthy foods while sustaining ecosystems and communities. The discussion in the CFS was disheartening, as multilateral efforts to foster dialogue and address these major issues seemed bogged down, eroded and undermined. Yet, on the margins, there was hope – and perhaps that’s where hope has the most space to grow. On to act three!
Act Three: Agroecology as both side event and path forward
I had heard for many years about the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples Mechanism (CSIPM), within the United Nations Committee for World Food Security (CFS). The CSIPM is a unique space where people most affected by food insecurity and malnutrition, and who play a key role in addressing food security, are able to engage directly participate in the global governance of food systems. Over the weekend I had a chance to sit in on their planning efforts, held at a nearby university, prior to the main CFS meetings where decisions on policy positions and recommendations are debated and agreed upon. I heard diverse voices express concern – everyone from a young Indigenous Canadian fisherwoman, to a Ugandan pastoralist and a European humanitarian worker – about people’s rights over the food system being eroded, in favour of corporations and billionaires. Wars and militarism were worsening people’s food insecurity and malnutrition and destabilizing food systems. CSIPM members challenged and encouraged one another to stand up in the face of these threats. I left the event feeling buoyed by their critical analysis, solidarity and staunch support of human rights and agroecological approaches to food systems.
During the CFS week, different organizations and governments could host ‘side events’ with approval from the CFS, and the FAO organized one such event on agroecology. Held in a large conference room in late afternoon, the event was full to bursting with an engaged audience and had a ‘buzz,’ with people remaining well into the evening to hear the presentations. I was asked to speak on ‘why measuring agroecology matters.’ I described evidence of positive impact that agroecology can have on food security, nutrition and climate resilient food systems, and how scientific evidence, together with social movements, can foster change. Others detailed monitoring results of agroecological efforts. The centerpiece was presentation of a global initiative, Tool for Agroecological Performance and Evaluation (TAPE) led by the FAO to assess the level of use and impact of agroecological practices. As a pilot study carried out in 21 countries and over 6700 farms, TAPE provides substantial evidence that farmers are using agroecological practices, some regions are transitioning at scale, and that the impact of these practices is extensive, with robust evidence of positive impacts on agrobiodiversity, soil health, food security and dietary diversity. Other presenters shared scientific studies showing growing policy support in some regions, and the potential of agroecological transitions, recognizing that processes take time to move away from input-intensive, fossil-fuel based approaches towards an approach that puts both nature and people at the centre. People were interested and after the event approached me with questions and enthusiasm. This ‘side-event’ showed how action on the margins can be inspirational and powerful!
Curtain call
I left Rome with mixed feelings. It is clear that multilateral dialogue to address key issues in food systems such as climate change and the right to food is under threat, and that agroecological approaches are often sidelined by powerful governments with private sector backing. At the same time, agroecology is gaining traction in these same spaces, with robust scientific evidence and pluralistic voices from social movements underpinning this support. These moments of hope need to sustain our efforts to move away from the fossil-fuel based, industrial, highly processed foods that are bad for people and the planet, towards food systems that are life-sustaining.