شارك هذا العضو في المناقشات التالية
From a background of public administration, I could comment from a generalist points of view based on my experience working in humanitarian, development (nexus) and academic fields.
For PPP to function, it needs to be based on a common ground. It means, with common understanding across sector -- the public sector, agriculture sector, and the private sector -- on the basic, also on the outcome to be achieved through PPP.
It may sound easy, but very often a diversity of understanding exist and it could hinder the result of partnership and reduce the its impact.
For instance, strengthening the 'resilience' and being 'accountable towards populations' are an increasingly shared agenda. Yet, these terms hide a variety of definitions, understanding, use, and interpretations. As a case in point, no less than 63 different definitions of 'resilience' have been identified across the humanitarian sector according to a research conducted by the Geneva Centre for Education and Research in Humanitarian Action. At the operational level, this can create confusion and miscommunication. From a policy-making and implementation perspectives, using the same word to refer to different concepts and realities, practitioners send blurred messages to decision makers.
I would think that communities need to provide opportunities -- such as platforms/foras -- that allow women to exchange their experiences and knowledge for them to help each other, grow, and thrive together.
Allow me to use the Mothers’ Club set up by the Togolese Red Cross as an example, with an analysis that I did in 2015.
According to the Human Development Report 2014 (UNDP, 2014), Togo’s Human Development Index value for 2013 is 0.473— which is in the low human development category—positioning the country at 166 out of 187 countries and territories. To improve local living conditions, the Togolese Red Cross (TRC) since 2000 has set up the Mothers’ Clubs in different regions of the country to engage mothers in activities aiming to improve their well-beings.
The two goals of this set-up serve not only as incentive but also as the expected outcome of public values shared by the TRC and mothers (and their family): one is for improved community health, and the other for better socio-economic development for women.
As Togo has a Gender Inequality Index value of 0.579, ranking it 127 out of 149 countries in the 2013 index. (UNDP, 2014). It is not enough for mothers only to share the value with the TRC: before joining the Club, many of them have to get the consent from their husbands. Only when their husbands recognise the potential benefits of the shared value, women are able to join and become an active members to receive training. Thus the authorising environment is composed of, in a general term, women and men in the communities.
The TRC’s volunteers living in local communities. Through their own community’s Mothers’ Club, they provide training to its members. The volunteers in this case represent the 1st level operational capacity as they provide awareness-raising on community health (including mother and infant health, prenatal and postnatal health care, family planning, HIV & AIDS prevention, malaria control and diarrhoeal illness control), and sanitation and hygiene education (i.e. waste management, well-mock etc.), as well as micro credit management. Mothers when trained then become the 2nd level operational capacity as they are then capable to share their knowledge with their family and others in the same community who are not member of the Mothers’ Club.
Mothers then become a contributor to local development with the knowledge they shared and effort they invest in the community. When the communities experience the benefits, men are more likely to give approval to their wives to join the Club and as a result enlarge the authorising environment. As a consequence, with more women joining the Club, the operational capacity can increase for better public value outcomes.
I hope this is clear. With best regards,
I would suggest that more women are recruited as AEAS representatives. Their visibility when visiting farmers and discussion for solutions can change local perception on women and their capacity and bring a change to reduce gender inequality.
Furthermore, with ICT, AEAS can put together their observations at the community level, not only on agriculture, but also other related social determinants, such as poverty, nutrition, vulnerability of local population to climate change, etc. and share the data with local public authorities for analysis. The AEAS's presence can be an asset for bottom-up knowledge sharing to facilitate policy implementation fit into local context.
For "strategies and policies to enhance the demand for nutritious food" (CFS/2016/43/inf.21, p.3), I think that awareness-raising starting at very young age could be useful. Children when understanding what nutritious food means for him/herself can share the knowledge home with other family members. Knowledge sharing with a bottom-up approach can influence the behaviour of people and can complement public authorities' top-down approach to reduce malnutrition.
It requires cross-disciplinary joint programming to support communities and enable them to confront large-scale shocks and stressors. The conclusion with a few recommendations in an article written in 2014 'Adapting to climate change and addressing drought -- learning from the Red Cross Red Crescent experiences in the Horn of Africa' could be a useful reference.