Evaluating the Deliberative Capacity of Global Food Governance: the case of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS)

Current global governance of food systems has many pitfalls which inhibits transformation towards sustainability. Among other factors, decision-making is concentrated in the hands of few powerful actors, which tend to share a generally homogenous agro-industrial and globalized discourse on how food systems should be organized. Recent reforms in the global architecture of food governance have tried to address this issue. The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) reform opened up participation of non-state actors to a level not previously experienced in an UN body, an example of the emergence of “new modes of global governance” (Risse, 2004). While previous research have been investigating whether the CFS reform is fulfilling its promises of supporting greater inclusiveness, they tended to focus only if more radical actors have been able to shape the discussions within the Committee. This risks missing a more comprehensive understanding of how different food system discourses are articulated and which is the the real influence of CFS’s decisions vis-à-vis other political processes. We argue that Dryzek’s model of a deliberative system (2009) offers us assessment criteria with sound theoretical foundations to analyze how far is the CFS fulfilling its expectations and the normative goals behind its reform. We first apply the deliberative system framework to characterize actors and discourses at both the public and empowered spaces, and we cross analyze the transmission between those. Then, we proceed by assessing accountability and meta-deliberation of the Committee. Finally, decisiveness is examined by looking at CFS’ decision implementation at lower levels. This assessment reveals more precisely under which dimensions is the CFS progressing in increasing deliberation among actors (communicative action), instead of just organizing interest-based negotiations (strategic action). This goal is shared by many promoters of democratic global governance, and thus carries implications to wider political processes set to take place under the context of the Agenda 2030.