Skip to main content

Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)


HLPE consultation on the V0 draft of the Report: Multi-stakeholder Partnerships (MSPs) to Finance and Improve Food Security and Nutrition in the Framework of the 2030 Agenda

During its 43rd Plenary Session (17-21 October 2016), the CFS requested the HLPE to produce a report on “Multistakeholder Partnerships to Finance and Improve Food Security and Nutrition in the Framework of the 2030 Agenda” to be presented at CFS45 Plenary session in October 2018.

As part of the process of elaboration of its reports, the HLPE is organizing a consultation to seek inputs, suggestions, and comments on the present V0 draft. This open e-consultation will be used by the HLPE to further elaborate the report, which will then be submitted to external expert peer-reviewers, before finalization and approval by the HLPE Steering Committee.

HLPE V0 drafts are deliberately presented early enough in the process – as a work-in-progress, with their range of imperfections – to allow sufficient time to give proper consideration to the feedback received so that it can play a really useful role in the elaboration of the report. It is a key part of the scientific dialogue between the HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee, and the rest of the knowledge community.

In order to enrich and illustrate the report with a variety of examples, participants are invited to submit concrete, practical, well-documented and significant case-studies of existing MSPs, as defined in the V0 Draft, through the use of the dedicated Questionnaire provided both as an annex to the V0 Draft, and as a separate editable word file.

The HLPE also encourages the submission of further material, references and evidence on the performance and impact of existing MSPs in the field of FSN.

In order to strengthen the report, the HLPE welcomes all the suggestions, including contributions regarding the following questions:

  1. The purpose of the report is to analyze the role of MSPs in improving and financing FSN. Do you think that this draft is striking the right balance and give enough space to finance related issues? What are the constraints to raising funds for FSN?
  2. Is the structure of the report comprehensive enough, and adequately articulated? Are the concepts clearly defined and used consistently throughout the report? Are there important aspects that are missing? Are there any major omissions or gaps in the report? Are there topics under-or over-represented in relation to their importance? Are any facts or conclusions erroneous or questionable? If any of these are an issue, please send supporting evidence. 
  3. The report suggests a classification of existing MSPs in broad clusters, in order to better identify specific challenges and concrete recommendations for each category. Do you find this approach useful for identifying specific policy responses and actions?
  4. The report suggests a methodology, and key criteria, to describe and assess existing MSPs. Are there other assessment tools and methodologies that should be referenced in the report?
  5. The report has identified some of the main potential and limitations of MSPs, with regard to other non-multistakeholder processes. Do you think that there are other key challenges/opportunities that need to be covered in the report?
  6. The last Chapter analyzes the internal factors and enabling environment that could contribute to enhance the performance of MSPs in improving and financing FSN. Could you provide specific examples of successful or unsuccessful policies and programmes designed to shape such enabling environment that could contribute to illustrate and strengthen the Chapter?

We thank in advance all the contributors and we look forward to a rich and fruitful consultation on this early draft of the report.

The HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee.

This activity is now closed. Please contact [email protected] for any further information.

* Click on the name to read all comments posted by the member and contact him/her directly
  • Read 55 contributions
  • Expand all

Marzella Wüstefeld

World Health Organization / Nutrition for Health and Development

Thanks to the HLPE secretariat for the opportunity to provide inputs into this V0 draft version of the report. WHO/NHD would like to underline the relevance and importance of the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition as important milestone that sets the context along with the 2030 Agenda  to combat hunger and malnutrition in all its forms.

Therefore, the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition as important building block should be integrated in this report on improving food security and nutrition also within the framework of the 2030 agenda.

Proclaimed by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly (through Resolution 70/259), the United Nations Decade of Action on Nutrition (2016–2025), under the normative framework of the Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, marks a new ambition and direction in global food security and nutrition action. The Nutrition Decade is highly relevant to the theme of this new HLPE report as the Decade provides an inclusive umbrella for all relevant stakeholders to consolidate, align and reinforce nutrition actions across different sectors and stakeholders. The UNGA resolution lists a variety of stakeholders, namely governments, civil society, the private sector, academia and international and regional organizations to actively support the implementation of the Nutrition Decade. Moreover, the work programme lists this variety of stakeholders and refers to MSP in several ways and to the importance of partnerships for joint actions to achieve the global nutrition targets and nutrition related targets of the SDGs.  (Ref.: )


Furthermore, referring to ‘health’ as thematic domain of action (page 20, thematic domain of action, line 17), we would like to suggest to further expand in the report itself on MSP examples in the health sector, as important learning opportunities. With this regard we would like to suggest to look at the

Every Women Every Child multistakeholder movement; and the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn & Child Health:

Every Women Every Child multistakeholder movement: - Launched by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon during the United Nations Millennium Development Goals Summit in September 2010, Every Woman Every Child is an unprecedented global movement that mobilizes and intensifies international and national action by governments, multilaterals, the private sector and civil society to address the major health challenges facing women, children and adolescents around the world including nutrition. The movement puts into action the Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health, which presents a roadmap to ending all preventable deaths of women, children and adolescents within a generation and ensuring their well-being.

Accountability has been a cornerstone of the Every Woman Every Child movement since its launch in 2010. The sense of community and partnership, and that of common goals and challenges in the area of reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health gave the EWEC movement its strength. This has also helped shape its accountability model, which includes mandatory reporting from commitment makers.

The Partnership for Maternal, Newborn & Child Health (PMNCH) The Partnership has a vital mandate to engage, align and hold accountable multi-stakeholder action to improve the health and well-being of women, newborns, children and adolescents, everywhere. Using new evidence and building on experiences and lessons learned, the Partnership concentrates on its core strengths – alignment, analysis, advocacy and accountability –to contribute to the Every Woman Every Child Movement and provide support to all partners to work together to achieve the full range of targets for the Global Strategy by 2030. (Ref:

Md Ruhul Amin Talukder

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Overall, it is a well articulated document. Nutrition is the outcome of food security and one of the objectives of the document is to consider the role of MSPs in improving and financing FSN. However, Nutrition issues/examples are not adequately mentioned (except SUN) throughout the document.

Other comments:

  • Page-9, Paragraph-1, Line-2 (INTRODUCTION)
  • Introduction may start with positive information, instead ofthe negative information/findings and then problem statement can be presented.

Page-12, Line-16 to 19

  • Definition of “private sector” should be broad.
  • ..”entrepreneurs, land owners, farmers”…. …..”including production, storage and distribution, processing and packaging, retail and markets”… can be mentioned as example.
  • Page-13, Line-10 (1.1.3 “Partnerships” or “platforms”?)
  • “Platform” is not well discussed here a more detailed discussion will help reader to conceptualize partnership and platform.

Page-16, Line-2 to 3

  • “…those acting on consumer behaviour to improve food utilization and nutrition through, for instance, nutrition education, information and knowledge sharing.”
  • Page-19, Line-31
  •  “……..fundamental human rights such as the right to adequate food and nutrition or and the right to water, and sanitation, and health,…..”

Page-20, Line-12

  • In the context of the sentence, “FSN” could be elaborated i.e. “Food security and Nutrition”.

Page-24, Line-3

  • “learning-oriented MSPs” is missing in figure 2 though it has been mentioned that “Chapter 1 concluded by presenting the different functions of MSPs (Figure 2), namely policy-oriented, 2 action-oriented, and learning-oriented MSPs“. So, “learning-oriented MSPs” needs to be included in figure 2 and also be elaborated in chapter 1.

Page-24, Line-23

  • It has been mentioned that, ‘For this report, in addition to public, private and CSO, two other stakeholders are distinguished in Chapter 1, namely the knowledge sector and the banking sector. But ‘banking sector’ issue is not discussed in chapter 1, so it needs to be discussed.’

Page-27, Line-11 to 17

  • Action oriented and resource mobilization both cluster need to include “Nutrition”.

Page-47, Line- 33 to 42 (What are the risks associated with the growing influence of private funds in public governance?)

  • Form our experience, one bullet could be added as: ‘growing conflict of interest in provisioning/delivery of nutrition services may arise with the growing influence of private funds in public governance.

Page-52, Line- 22

  • Add, “………… and fulfil the right to adequate food and nutrition.”
  • Page-54, Line- 2
  • Add this question “Is there any mechanism to incorporate/address wider public opinion about MSP’s decisions and actions and exercise their opinion?”

Nutrition governance, under the leadership of Bangladesh National Nutrition Council (BNNC), (as outlined in Second National Plan of Actionnnn for Nutrition, 2016-2025), could be put as an example of Multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) to Finance and Improve Food Security and Nutrition.

Bangladesh National Nutrition Council (BNNC), the apex body and the core of the nutrition governance system in Bangladesh was formed in 1975 as per the order of the President of Bangladesh. In 2017, the Government reformed BNNC to establish a multisectoral, multilevel (national & sub-national), multi-stakeholder (following 3M approach) coordination platform for nutrition. This council is headed by Honorable Prime Minister and under the Council there is Executive Committee (EC) led by the Honorable Minister of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW), which has top level representations from various government ministries and agencies. The Standing Technical Committee (STC) headed by the Joint Secretary of MOHFW with expert members from various government agencies, academia and civil society. While BNNC is responsible for overall policy guidance, the Executive Committee is responsible for the overall coordination throughout implementation of the policies, program management cycle and act as executive oversight. The STC is responsible for technical oversight of the policies and programs related to nutrition. The Council with Hon’ble Prime Minister as its Chair meets twice a year and its Executive Committee meets quarterly.

To effectively scale up nutrition with a 3M approach, the BNNC has a number of coordination platforms with participation from partners including Development Partners. These are: 1. Nutrition Specific  2. Nutrition Sensitive 3. M & E and Research 4. Training & Capacity Building, and 5. Advocacy & Communication. The relevant ministries, agencies, development partners, civil society etc. are linked to both apex committees of BNNC and also in these working level platforms through mid-level representations. Moreover, district and sub-district level coordination mechanisms are also underway as envisaged in the Plan.

Maria Camila Sierra Restrepo

  • La definición que adopta el documento para los MSP es la siguiente: “En este informe, las asociaciones de múltiples partes interesadas (MSP) se definen como cualquier "acuerdo de colaboración entre partes interesadas de dos o más esferas diferentes de la sociedad (sector público, sector privado y / o sociedad civil) para agrupar recursos, resolver un problema común , elabore una visión compartida, logre un objetivo común o garantice la protección, producción o entrega de un resultado de interés colectivo y / o público ".
    En este sentido, consideramos que la característica de múltiple se da cuando hay más de dos actores o partes interesadas (pública, privada, sociedad civil), en cuyo caso, un acuerdo del sector público – privado, por ejemplo, no constituiría un MSP. Al respecto sugerimos que se debe realizar mayor claridad en el documento al respecto.
  • Adicionalmente, los MSP deberían constituir una herramienta para la construcción e implementación de políticas públicas de manera participativa, más allá de los procesos de financiación que se deriven de las mismas. En este sentido, entenderíamos que el valor agregado debe ser mucho más amplio, al de aunar esfuerzos financieros para el cumplimiento de objetivos, o la incidencia en la toma de decisiones por parte del sector privado.
  • Por otra parte, no se hace evidente en las categorías estipuladas en el documento, donde estaría ubicada la academia. Sin embargo en los ejemplos se muestra como un actor, pero no hace parte de las categorías iniciales.
  • En cuanto a la pregunta que realizan sobre los desafíos claves, consideramos que el más relevante, y más aún en el caso colombiano, es lograr que los MSP involucren ampliamente a la sociedad civil, organizada y de base, como actor relevante para el desarrollo de acciones en pro de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional.

Petronella Chaminuka

Agricultural Research Council (ARC)
South Africa

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find, on behalf of the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) South Africa, the attached case studies on MSPs for FSN.

We have also gone through the draft VO and find it to be quite comprehensive in its coverage of the MSPs and the rationale for their establishment and the challenges that they face. The four clusters suggested also cover all types of MSPs. The ARC case studies will likely fall under the Knowledge generation and sharing cluster.

Although there is coverage of financing of MSPs in the document, in the current draft there is no synthesis of the pros and cons of the different financing models for MSPs and also teasing out the best practices in financing MSPs for FSN. In terms of structure of the report, the HLPE could consider having financing issues as a stand-alone chapter. This would improve the balance between the emphasis on other MSP related issues and the financing aspects of MSPs.

An issue that is not properly emphasized in the report is the impact that donor funded projects have in terms of determining the type of MSPs that are formulated, the actors (some from the donor countries) and the agenda, particularly for research.

We hope that you find the inputs valuable, we are open to further engagement.

Kind regards,

Case studies:

Orange Fleshed Sweet Potato Project

Weather and Climate Data

Grahame Dixie

Grow Asia

Grow Asia is a multi-stakeholder partnership, covering five countries; Indonesia (PISAGRO), Vietnam (PSAV), Philippines (PPSA), Myanmar (MAN) and Cambodia (CPSA), plus a centralised Secretariat which operates out of Singapore.  

Grow Asia was spun out of a meeting at the World Economic Forum's Davos event in 2009 between a group of Ministers of Agriculture plus 17 CEOs of major food and agriculture companies.   The central idea being that in the light of the then World Food crisis a New Vision of Agriculture was needed.  

The approach in Asia has been to form multi-stakeholder country partnerships (MSP) with the basic principles being: locally led, market driven, developing inclusive business models, and always with the small holder farmer as central to the operation.  The first two were formed in Indonesia (Partnership for Indonesia Sustainable Agriculture – PISAGRO) and Vietnam (Partnership for Sustainable Agriculture for Vietnams).  In mid-2015 the Grow Asia Secretariat, housed in Singapore and funded by Canada and Australia, was formed.  In the last 2 ½ years this has formed country MSPs’ i.e. Myanmar Agricultural network (MAN), the Philippines Patenrship for Sustainable Agriculture (PPSA) and the Cambodia Partnership for Sustainable Agriculture. (CPSA).  The stretch target is to reach 10 million small holder farmers, and to raise their profitability and profitability by 20%, and/or to reduce their environmental foot-print by 20%.

In total the Grow Asia network has over 300 partners, divided between local and international agribusinesses (50%), 30% are NGOs and farmer organisations, and 20% representatives from Government.   The Governance at a Regional level comes from a Civil Society Council, and Business Council plus a Steering Committee which includes representatives from the two councils, a farmer representative, an official from the ASEAN secretariat, as well as the two major donors. The Governance arrangements at the individual country MSPs differ, but in the main have two co-chairs, most typically from the Government and Private sector, plus a core committee of stakeholders.

The stakeholder/partners typical join individual working groups.   Currently there are some 46, who in the main take a value chain approach.  They collectively identify the choke points in the value cahins, agree and design an intervention and with their own resources implement their project.  Currently there are some 46 value chains projects, about 40% are under design, another 40% are being piloted and about 20% are being implanted at scale.  Of which about half have independently recorded results.  In aggregate these have resulted in some 100,000 farmers adopting improved practices and becoming embedded into modern supply chains.   The aggregate incremental increase in farmers’ income is estimated at $ 42 million per year.  Two projects have succeeded in lowering the greenhouse gas emissions per unit of production by between a half and one thirds.  Emerging from this project are solid, experience-based lesson or what is working.

The country MSPs are also finding a role as an important interlocutor with their national Governments on agricultural policy development.  Initially this focused on Governments requesting the networks MSPs’ to help improve the implementation of their policies, but as trust and creditable is being built up, they are increasingly being asked to contribute to the dialogue on policy development.  Excellent examples have bene observed in Vietnam – i.e. uptake of the Good Agricultural practices in coffee develop by a PSAV coffee project being disseminated by Government extension officer, Indonesia – PISAgro was asked to help refine the design of the Government’s microcredit scheme to better suit the cash flow characteristics of different agricultural enterprises.  This is leading to a PPP whereby funds from the Government plus a Regional Development Bank are being used to create a significant replant bond to enable small scale independent oil palm growers to replant, lifting yield from about 2 ½ to 3 MT/ha to 5 to 6 MT/ha. In Philippines PPSA/Grow Asia have helped convene a group of Financial Insustions to facilitate better use of the mandated 25% of loaning that needs to go to the agricultural sector.

The focus is now on achieving scale.  In recognition that the direct impact of individual value chain projects will not in themselves reach 10 million farmers, the Grow Asia secretariat has agreed a program with its Governance councils to reach greater scale.   This is built on four pillars.  Digital technologies, as offering the prospects of positively transforming the relationship between agribusiness and smaller holder producers.  Agricultural Finanace, an enduring constraint to building scale into individual value chain, Policy level, both at the national and regional level - where Grow Asia is working with the ASEAN Secretariat to create a public consultation to create ASEAN guidelines for Responsible Agricultural investments (NB is being based on CFS PRAI), and on the amplifying and accelerating the uptake of the important learning being generated by the Grow Asia network.

A new twin track strategy has been developed and unanimously approved by the three Governance councils to help our network evolve for the future, as the Grow Asia program goes beyond the launch phase and all five country Secretariats move into the functional phase of their development. Both tracks build on the unique added value that the regional Secretariat can bring.

TRACK ONE:   Creating resilient and sustainable multi-stakeholder partnerships to deliver economic and environmental benefits to smallholder farmers. We will guide the country Secretariats to become more professional and self-financing, able to engage their governments, deliver effective working groups and manage communications and their own results reporting.

TRACK TWO:   Enable the Grow Asia network to deliver results at significantly greater scale. This will focus on innovative approaches and cross regional learnings. Included in this agenda is our digital program, new approaches to agricultural finance and insurance, closer policy dialogue and government engagement, improved cross-regional knowledge exchange and promoting a stronger role for women in agriculture.

Grahame Dixie, Executive Director

Grow Asia

Singapore February 2018


Lufingo Witson Mwamakamba

South Africa

We have combed through the document and would like to make the following edits.

*Comment 1*

*Kindly see input below on the section about FANRPAN on page 28. *

The Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Analysis Network (FANRPAN), is an MSP that was borne out of the need for independent comprehensive policies and strategies required to resuscitate agriculture. FANRPAN, currently operating in 17 countries of sub-Saharan Africa, was initiated in
1994 by the governments (Ministries of Agriculture) of eight countries in Southern and Eastern Africa, and then formally established in 1997. FANRPAN is a network of governments, research universities and National Agricultural Research System (NARS), as well as civil society organisations (and a few private sector ones). Donor organisations and private foundations are also part of the network. FANRPAN is both a knowledge partnership and an advocacy partnership, with the secretariat based in South Africa since 2005.

While the main partners are the governments and policy research institutions, the board of governors also has representatives of farmer organizations, the private sector, regional donors, etc. Interestingly, most projects are supported by donor governments (IDRC or USAID) and private funds including the Gates Foundation, Master Card Foundation, etc.

The main success of FANRPAN is its convening power, that is, able to bring non-state actors to the same table as governments to discuss policy issues, see Box 3.

*Comment 2: see correction in bold font below*

*Box 3: The Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Analysis Network

FANRPAN is an autonomous, non-profit, Pan-African policy research and advocacy organization with a mandate to coordinate policy research and policy dialogue and recommend strategies for promoting food and nutrition security.

The FANRPAN constitution was finalized in 2001, and the regional network was formally registered in 2003 as a non-profit making Private Voluntary Organisation in Zimbabwe. The operation of the network is being led by the FANRPAN secretariat which based in South Africa since 2005.

FANRPAN is regulated by its Constitution. Members of the Network (Country Nodes), in an Annual General Meeting (AGM), are the supreme decision-making body of the Network. Each Country Node, as a member of the Network, is represented at each the annual general meeting by one person, with voting rights. Each Country Node carries one vote. The Country Nodes elect the Board Members. The Board of Governors is the highest governing body of FANRPAN and is responsible for providing strategic direction, fiduciary and policy oversight for the organization.

The Board of Governors consists of two Regional Economic Communities seats (COMESA and SADC); two Government Ministries responsible for Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources (FANR) seats (Member State hosting the Network and Member State in which FANRPAN is registered); Farmer Organization; Policy Research Institution; Private Sector; Youth; Women and regional Donor.

FANRPAN presents a platform for the articulation of stakeholder priorities and negotiation of disparate positions in a non-formal, non-threatening environment. Emerging positions are informed by research and a shared understanding among stakeholders, form the basis for policy advocacy at national and regional levels.

The FANRPAN Annual High Level Regional Food and Nutrition Security Policy Dialogues are hosted on a rotational basis amongst the FANRPAN member countries. The policy dialogues, with an estimated attendance of over 200 participants in recent years, provide an opportunity for all stakeholders, including governments, policy research institutions, universities, farmer organizations, private sector, media and civil society to share best practices, lessons and experiences on a particular theme and come up with tangible resolutions. The policy dialogues also showcase best practices from Africa and beyond, in line with FANRPAN’s two thematic thrusts  of (1) Climate Smart Agriculture and (2) Nutrition Sensitive Agriculture.

Strategically, FANRPAN builds capacity of: (i) policy makers on appraising research evidence for decision making and action plans; (ii) researchers on better ways to communicate science and engagement of communities to set research agenda; (iii) media on writing compelling stories relating to FANR; (iv) young researchers in trying to build a pipeline of new cadre or generation of researchers; and (v) women on using Theatre for Policy Advocacy (TPA) as a safe communicating tool.

FANRPAN’s work is mostly supported by bilateral and multi-lateral public as well as private funding agencies. The bulk of the funding tends to be project-based, with limited core funding.

*Comment 3: see correction in bold font below*

*Box 4:* should read The Southern Africa Food Lab (SAFL) and not The Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Analysis Network (FANRPAN)

Once again, thank you for this opportunity and please do not hesitate to contact us for further details. I also attached for your information a brief document about FANRPAN.

Best regards, Lufingo

Lufingo Witson Mwamakamba

Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN)

Jacopo Valentini

World Food Programme

Dear HLPE Colleagues,

Kindly find attached the World Food Programme’s contribution to the Draft V0 of the HLPE report on MSPs for FSN, and specifically:

Please do not hesitate to contact us in case you have any questions or need clarification.

Many thanks and best regards,

Jacopo Valentini