The Committee on World Food Security ten years after reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reform of the UN’s Committee on World Food Security (CFS) in 2009 was widely regarded as a key moment in the re-organization of global food security governance processes. This was due to the implementation of a novel approach to participation of “stakeholders”, and an explicit commitment to advancing human rights and prioritizing the voices of those most affected by hunger and food insecurity. The reformed CFS is part of a broader architecture of global food security governance that is increasingly anti-political: that is, it is increasingly organized in ways that minimise, avoid, or conceal the relations of power and conflictual dimensions inherent to complex and normative policy processes and reflective of the antagonisms inherent in human society. Through the reform process, we argue that the CFS has emerged as a forum where politics can, and do, play out. To arrive at this conclusion, in this chapter we introduce a critical political analytic framework before introducing the reform of the CFS. We review the CFS’s six reform roles and introduce the CFS negotiation process as an example of political practice. We then examine three challenges that threaten to depoliticise the CFS. These include: (1) changes in qualifications for participants that have resulted in a rebalancing of participation between the private sector and civil society; (2) a shift away from plenary negotiations to intersessional negotiations; and, (3) changes in the role of human rights at the CFS. The chapter concludes by making a case for supporting the CFS as a political committee.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".