Over two days (5-6th May) of online consultation, civil society actors and Indigenous People from networks across Europe and Central Asia came together to do something increasingly difficult in today’s context: collectively, critically, and constructively discuss about the current status of food systems in the region and to jointly develop proposals to the upcoming FAO REU biannual strategy 2026-2028. The outcomes of the consultation will build the collective interventions for the three delegates due to attend FAO ERC 35 next week in Dushanbe (Tajikistan).
The consultation brought together small-scale food producers - farmers, pastoralists, fishers,, Indigenous Peoples, agricultural workers and consumers as well as NGOs to align positions and define priorities that will be carried forward by their designated delegates. The process took place entirely online this year, shaped in a tight time frame and resource constraints, an adjustment that participants acknowledged as limiting, but necessary.
From the outset, the tone was clear. “Our democratic space is shrinking. In many countries, civil society organizations are under pressure, and people are increasingly afraid to speak openly.” The consultations are not only preparatory; they also provide a rare and important space for open exchange across a vast region covering Western and Eastern Europe and Central Asia that is marked by political, economic, and social fragmentation.
During the first day’s sessions, participants engaged with FAO representatives, examining background documents and policy background papers while also questioning their depth and coherence. A recurring concern emerged around the gap between diagnosis and response. “If the analysis is structural, then the solutions cannot remain technical.” The implication was clear: addressing today’s food system challenges requires more than incremental or technical adjustments and solutions.
This concern was recurrent throughout the consultations. Participants repeatedly pointed to the dominance of industrial agricultural models, the growing concentration of power in corporate hands, and the marginalization of small-scale producers. Governments are often oriented towards quick results through industrialization, yet this approach risks excluding the majority of small-scale food producerss. Agroecology and local seed systems were consistently framed not as alternatives, but as necessary pathways forward. The issue of affordability of fuel for producers and of healthy food for consumers was also a recurrent theme, as was that of agency in determining policy at all levels..
Questions of land, farmer’s rights to their traditional seeds and participatory breeding of both plants and livestock, and human rights ran through many of the discussions. The need to advance the implementation of international frameworks such as UNDROP and UNDRIP was raised alongside concerns about land concentration, access to land for young farmers, women’s rights to land ownership, and the erosion of community-based systems. The generational dimension of the crisis was particularly visible, with limited access to land making it increasingly difficult for young people to enter agriculture. Without structural change, rural depopulation is likely to intensify. This structural change also needs to embrace new approaches to international trade and to economics in general, and take the UNGA resolutions on social and solidarity economy into account. There was agreement that we, as civil society are the rightsholders, and that States and other elected bodies are the duty bearers, and must therefore ensure that our human rights, especially here the right to food and water must be fully ensured.
Participants raised concerns about the emerging dynamics in digitalization and finance. Questions about who owns and controls agricultural data, and how digital tools may reinforce existing inequalities, were brought into focus. “Whoever controls data ultimately shapes the system itself.” The issue extends beyond technology, touching on governance, sovereignty, and long-term control over food systems.
The consultations were also shaped by the broader geopolitical context. The war in Ukraine, as well as on-going and new conflicts in the Middle East and in the Gulf region, were discussed not only in terms of disrupted supply chains, but also through its human and social consequences. Genocide, and increasing repression of civil society actors, including arrests and intimidation, was raised as a serious concern, with implications for governance and accountability across the region. articipants reflected on how war reshapes food systems more broadly. Unexploded ordinance on agricultural land, rising energy costs, disruptions in fertilizer supply, and the vulnerability of globalized production models were all highlighted as reasons to accelerate a transition toward more localized and resilient systems. At the same time, it was highlighted that wars have repeatedly showed us that relying on global markets is not a path to genuine resilience. Agroecological food systems instead are the long-term solution for overcoming risks and achieving equality in food systems. Finally, delegates stressed that “food must never be used as a weapon of war.” Constraints related to funding and institutional reforms were acknowledged, alongside continued commitments to the right to food and nutrition, intersectional solutions and social inclusion, and support for rural populations. Allparticipants emphasized that meaningful participation must go beyond consultation itself. Civil society actors and Indigenous Peoples are not just actors, they are active agents in shaping food systems.
What emerged over the two days was not a single narrative, but a convergence around key priorities. These include a transition toward agroecological approaches, stronger protection of human rights, more democratic governance processes within FAO, and policies that prioritize people, animals and environment over profit. Addressing the region’s challenges, participants stressed, requires confronting the underlying structures that shape power, access, and inequality.
As the consultations concluded, the sense was not of closure, but of transition. The real test will be whether these collective positions can influence decision-making spaces, including the ERC35, where civil society voices have been historically present, but their inputs not always reflected in outcom