The Committee on World Food Security Needs Philanthropic Support

In 2023, a coalition of 25 philanthropic foundations announced a landmark collaboration, calling for a tenfold increase in investments aimed at promoting agroecological and regenerative food systems. Meeting such an ambitious target requires intensive coordination – but it also raises critical questions. How exactly can philanthropies clearly define and agree upon what qualifies under this type of investment?

One practical and strategic solution could lie within the Committee on World Food Security (CFS). Operating under the United Nations, the CFS is a multilateral body that brings governments, civil society, the private sector, Indigenous Peoples, and other stakeholders together to develop voluntary guidelines, policy recommendations, and frameworks dedicated to creating equitable and sustainable global food systems. Recognized as one of the most inclusive international forums in global food policy, the CFS is unique due to its structured participation model. Unlike other platforms that often face ad-hoc or ambiguous representation, the CFS allows various actors – such as civil society organizations, Indigenous Peoples, and the private sector – to self-organize into distinct “mechanisms.” This structure promotes legitimacy, consistency, and transparency in global food policy dialogues.

When it comes specifically to agroecology, the CFS has already delivered significant contributions. Its High Level Panel of Experts produced a comprehensive framework outlining thirteen guiding principles of agroecology. These principles serve as a common reference point underpinning the multilateral Agroecology Coalition. For philanthropic foundations, this internationally endorsed framework provides valuable, clear guidance, helping align their investments with an extensive network of global public and private sector actors. This alignment can greatly accelerate the shift towards equitable and sustainable food systems.

But agroecology is just one aspect of the CFS’s extensive work. Over the years, the committee has produced influential policies on crucial issues like land tenure, nutrition, humanitarian responses, youth engagement, gender empowerment, smallholder farming, and market integration. For example, the CFS’s land tenure guidelines have significantly influenced national land reform programs, while its nutrition guidelines consolidated extensive global debates around sustainable and healthy dietary practices, directly linking nutrition and health. All of these policies uphold a consistent commitment towards realizing the fundamental right to adequate food for everyone.

Calls for stronger representation of smallholder farmers, Indigenous Peoples, fisherfolk, and traditional communities have become a constant theme in global governance discussions—particularly noticeable at major climate, biodiversity, and food summits. Yet ensuring legitimate representation is challenging. The CFS addresses this issue through the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples Mechanism (CSIPM), providing structured, recognized representation to historically marginalized groups. Philanthropic foundations committed to equity and inclusion can therefore find strategic value in supporting and engaging with the CFS, demonstrating tangible solidarity with frontline communities that bear the brunt of current crises and yet hold critical knowledge for sustainable solutions.

Recently, the CFS introduced the Philanthropic Foundations Mechanism (PFM), mirroring structures already established for civil society (CSIPM) and the private sector (PSM). This mechanism provides a dedicated coordination space for philanthropic foundations to collectively participate in ongoing policy dialogues. Through the PFM, foundations can directly influence key policy processes addressing major global challenges such as nutrition security, inequality, land rights, gender equity, urban food systems, and data transparency. Given the increased prominence of food systems at climate and biodiversity summits (COPs), the decisions taken within the CFS can substantially influence these interconnected agendas.

We remain distant from achieving our collective 2030 goals around food security, climate action, nutrition, and biodiversity. Current food systems continue to produce highly unequal outcomes, accompanied by heavy environmental and social costs. Moreover, global multilateral processes face increasing threats from nationalist and corporate influences, making collaborative platforms more critical than ever.