Open letter to all those friends and colleagues with whom we have been working together these years

A home made (and updated) English version of my recent post published two days ago

Dear all,

My role as "godfather" of the territorial approach based on dialogue, negotiation and concerted actions, since the Higuerote workshop in 2001, obliges me, in a certain way, to continue stimulating the reflection, yours and mine, to think together which world we want help building, with the limited forces we have at our disposal.

My fight, which I have proposed to all of you, has always been based on provoking changes in the philosophical and operational orientation of the organization for which many of us have worked or still work. This needed a vision, as well as alliances.

Over the years I have seen growing distrust in political parties intended as organizers of citizens instances. I saw them turn into instruments of power, regardless of their political color, forgetting all their founding principles them as soon as they came into power.

I also observed the very low propensity of our organization to be interested in fundamental issues that, indeed, were banned from the institutional lexicon. I’m referring of course of the question of “power”, its asymmetries and dynamics. The idea that we could reduce poverty and food insecurity by avoiding touching the nerve centers of power seems to me a total contradiction, I would almost say an oxymoron. The FAO, for reasons imposed (by member countries, in particular - but not only - of the North) and for autonomously privileged reasons by internal administrators and managers, has chosen to remain, for many decades, in the field of techniques and technology, cultivating the dream that an increased agricultural production alone would solve the problems of humanity.

In recent decades there have been signs of awakening, showing a growing interest in the issue of rights. In this vein are included interesting initiatives, such as the Treaty for plant genetic resources, the Right to Food and, closer to us, the Voluntary Guidelines for good governance (VGGT). Intense efforts, years of work, which are resolved with final products acclaimed by the member countries but (particularly for the last one) with a practical translation in everyday life very limited.

At the same time we have seen a growing number of conflicts related to the many natural resources (land, water, air, sand, genetic resources, minerals, oil - https://landportal.org/voc/themes/land-conflicts). Looking closely we realized that the old North-South or Public-Private paradigms or Capitalism-Communism were not sufficient to explain what was (and is) happening and above all did not provide indications on how to come out of it.

Environmental sensitivity has also grown, but even there it is not possible to understand what our organization has to offer, beyond rhetoric, to the Have-Nots, the Dropouts, in short, the excluded ones. The lights have been focused on the theme of agro-ecology and smart agriculture, but once again we are playing within the courtyard of techniques, and never politics and power.

We have also seen how the peasant movements have lost that mystical aura they enjoyed 10-20 years ago, noting more their absences on the ground when we were looking for them offering concrete alliances.

The answer we started to elaborate back in 2001, was a vision of development less centered on the techniques and skills of external super experts, and more attentive to social, interactive and sometimes conflicting dynamics among a series of actors and stakeholders with divergent interests.

In fact, we have elaborated and proposed a more complex view of the surrounding reality, and this has meant a slow but constant work to make our colleagues understanding why it was necessary to broaden the horizon of observation. However, many of FAO colleagues (as well as of any other development agency) are not really interested in these delicate issues, simply because they consider their work to be just like any other, to be done correctly, within the limits of their knowledge, and then hoping that something good would happen. 

Indeed, this does not happen in the real world. In the real world there are forces (stakeholders) that actively continue to concentrate wealth (of having, knowing and power) in ever less hands. Spaces of democracy are diminished, the environment is destroyed and the ones below are exploited.

Putting human beings at the center of the attention, means accepting the human ambivalence of being, at the same time, bearers of individual interests and actors of community development. We are made like this, this is our nature and we had to accept this ambivalence and work within these limits. To this we should add the obvious difference that we carry all of us behind. We want different things at different times because we are different from birth.

These differences are at work in what we do in our spaces of action, local, regional or national: we try to achieve results in line with our expectations and for this we are willing to give in on some things. However, everyone will have a different idea and, taken individually, everyone will consider that their expectations are good both individually and collectively.

Based on these preambles we generated a work-in-progress reflection marked, over the years, by the publications that you all know: the PNTD in 2005 (http://www.fao.org/land-water/land/land-governance/land-resources-planning-toolbox/category/details/en/c/1043145/) the IGETI in 2012 http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/me282e/me282e.pdf) the GreeNTD in 2016 (http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6603e.pdf). These key documents have served to summarize the state of our thinking, and certainly should not be considered as final points.

From the PNTD to the GreeNTD the big difference is that we have finally been able to emphasize more strongly the central question of power. This is what we consider a success: start talking about Power in an organization that does not want to hear it and where Chiefs and Directors have never supported these reflections.

We have also begun a reflection, clearly unfinished, on the central question of gender dynamics (a revised version of IGETI will be published soon). We cannot put human beings at the center of our reflections and not delve into what gender discriminations mean today.

In short, there are some issues to be pursued, but also to be examined with greater attention among us.

A few years ago, Chris and Marianna published a very evocative document: When the law is not enough (http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3694e.pdf).  It referred to the work we have carried out in Mozambique to strengthen the role of Paralegals as development agents as well as facilitators of dialogue and knowledge of land law.

I therefore propose you to continue our reflection exactly from this question: when the law is no longer sufficient, what to do?

The typical projects that FAO carries out (not necessarily ours) are based on the idea of ​​providing governments with technical assistance, successful comparative experiences and then letting them decide what is best in their specific country. The official rhetoric is that by doing so we promote a collaboration respectful of history, culture and local traditions, without wishing to impose external views. However, the other side of the coin is that it avoids entering into the issue of power.

The question that has never been answered by my bosses and directors in these almost thirty years FAO has always been the same, repeated more vehemently since the VGGT were approved: for what reason a powerful actor (a HAVE in the language of Alinsky), able to control relevant parts of social, economic, cultural and other power, should spontaneously agree to share this power with the HAVE-NOT? I can understand that those who have religious beliefs may think that miracles happens, like Paul on the road to Damascus, but nowadays on the road to Damascus one risks only to take bombs in the head from one side or the other.

The dilemma that the VGGTs have brought along is just that: the essence of the VGGT has been copied slavishly by the type of work we did on the ground, Mozambique, Angola, but removing the part that disturbed the strong powers of the FAO and of member countries. Our work has always been based, even without knowing it, on the principles of the community organizing similar to S. Alinsky, trying to find something at a local level that would allow us to start the dialogue, and then negotiate a (socio-ecological) territorial agreement. But we went further, and on this we feel we are ahead of Alinsky. This work with communities in fact serves to create social capital, credibility, which is then to be spent on more controversial issues, so as to raise the bar.

The trust that we have built up at the local level has served to open a dialogue at government level, to make sure that they change policies and laws. We argued with ministers, but we also took them to confront their populations and, as a result, steps forward were made. If we were limited to working with the communities, nothing lasting would have been planted. By using this (newly created) social capital of trust we have done exactly what is expected, in my opinion, from a United Nations agency. New policies and laws have been written locally and not by our experts, but more importantly, behind these documents has been strengthened a civil society that now defends itself - good or bad - alone.

When the law is no longer enough, it tells us this: we must think beyond the law (or the political document). We must ensure that the asymmetries of power begin to shrink, this is why we have put such an emphasis on the figure of Paralegals, Facilitators of dialogue that do not just remember the articles of law, but that can help to start a development scenario where the weakest actors are not only recognized, but accepted at the negotiating table as carriers of important visions and interests.

I left FAO, and now it's up to you to continue the fight. I must honestly say that I find you a little bit slow. I have not seen any document on your thinking being circulated and I have not heard about any meeting to discuss these issues in a open and frank way. Maybe my fears are exaggerated, but maybe not. We can not hide behind the amount of work we have, because we know very well, when we look at ourselves in the mirror, that this is not the reason. We all have a responsibility towards all the HAVE NOT, we are a United Nations and we have the possibility (and the task) to think and propose something for the future.

Alinsky (https://archive.org/stream/RulesForRadicals/RulesForRadicals_djvu.txt) has been a good inspiration for many decades, with him we share many points but, I guess, we have also gone beyond. I believe that, starting from what we have done in recent years, and from a critical reading of what Alinsky wrote, it is possible to carry on our reflection, towards a "governance" of natural resources that, finally, begins to touch the interests at stake.