Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

I appreciate this opportunity to participate in this conversation. Below please find my contribution:

The report should also address the following issues/questions:

1. The rights holders ( as far as food security and Nutrition) should be mapped including the challenges they are facing

2. The existing funding mechanisms  should be analysed , the gaps and the reasons for these gaps  at  local and  national. 

3. What needs to be done to improve MSPs at various levels.

4. What are interests of the various partners and how do these interests affect food security and nutrition?

5. The decisin making processes/platforms that affect food security and nutrition should be identified. What has been the status of the participation of the stakeholders in these processes?

Regarding innovative practices, in Uganda there is an  example of a partnership among organisations working on Trade/investment; land and food security ( www.fra.ug; www.landnet.ug; www.seatiniuganda.org

I thank you for this opportunity to take part in this eConsultation. First, I want to draw your attention to the recent EU financed study by FOODSECURE project on food and nutrition security (FNS) governance. Please follow this link for the study which, I think might provide important inputs for the design of the proposed study.   (http://www3.lei.wur.nl/FoodSecurePublications/WP34_GoverningFNS.pdf)

I believe the proposed draft scope of the HLPE report is good and address a wide range of issues relevant to MSPs, views and values existing stakeholders attached to the concept of MSPs - both from their theoretical perspectives and field experiences –, however, should get greater attention. Then, the study should expand its scope from ‘as much for what it prevents/facilitates MSPs to happen, weaken or sustain, as for what it actually does/doesn’t and under what conditions and forms. All these indicate that the methodology to collect information and insights should combine literature review and field interviews/case studies/ with various stakeholders intervening in the policy and implementation process (i.e. government officers, NGOs, donors, experts, civil society representatives, etc.). Any case study, however, should target cases (countries or institutions) that are carefully selected to address key research questions that could not be answered by other methods like review of literatures. It is also important to put adequate attention to have good samples in a sense that any interviews/case studies or literature review should include countries that found at different stages concerning MSPs, their food and nutrition security (FNS) status, and/or the approach they followed to tackle their FNS problem.

Under many circumstances, food and nutrition security are different both in their concept as well as implementation and financing them both by respective countries and donors. Any study on the challenge of multi- or intersectoral collaboration should, therefore, internalize such differences both at its initial/methodology and review/stages as well as actual conduct and recommendation stages of the proposed study.   

The study should also leverage economic, political and institutional arguments/controversies about MSPs in general and to get both assessed and voluntary/potential contributions up or opportunities for the implementation of the MSPs as indicated in the framework of the 2030 Agenda.

On Multistakeholder Partnerships to Improve Food Security and Nutrition

In my comments, I have given priority to what we intended to achieve, i.e., food security and nutrition, rather than to the particular objective of any one of the parties involved in the process. I maintain that this is crucial, for unless all those involved in a food system can agree on its overall objective, i.e., serving as a tool that enable all of us to adequately satisfy our nutritional needs,  no worthwhile progress can be made through the proposed partnership.

I will take up each question in the order they have been posed, and will confine myself to their relevance to achieving our objective.

Who are the stakeholders in food security and nutrition?

In the order of their importance:

1.  Relevant authorities, administrators and technical expertise.

2.  Actual producers and the end-users (consumers) of food.

3.  Operators of various sub-systems that separate the food producers (operating various yielder systems) and end-users; they may include the operators of independent or integrated transport, storage, preserving, and buying-selling systems. Often, yielder systems depend on some Ecoservices supplementary service for fertilisers, biocides, agro-technological aids like irrigation, etc.

4.  Industrialised preserving and variants of preparation systems that respectively produce for instance, dairy products, cleaned, pre-cut and packaged raw food, and industrial food.

5.  Catering system, a variant of buying and selling system that can play a very useful role here.

6.  Doubled buying-systems that represent speculation in available food and its futures.

What are the interests and motivations of each stakeholder?

1.  Those of group 1 need no further elaboration.

2.  Food producers have always sought a decent living while most end-users seem to have a nebulous notion of what they really expect from food, which in affluent countries often seem to vary with fashion, apart from its cost and/convenience in preparation. In affluent countries, certain emphasis is now given to balanced diets, but dietary enjoyment does not seem to be able to supplant convenience.

3.  It is difficult to envisage anything other than gain as the interest of those who operate the other sub-systems, and its increase is their principal motive. Increased use of advertising by the operators of buying and selling system provides indisputable evidence of this.

How to attract and retain partners?

I am not at all convinced whether the parties mentioned in 3 above will be willing to change their respective operations towards providing the people at an affordable price, a varied, wholesome and balanced diet in a sustainable way.

The present approach does not make clear whether it intends to accept gain as the principal motive of those parties, and if so, only the prospect of greater gain would attract and retain them. As their gain increases, methods to be used to cut production and sub-systems’ running costs will lead to increased energy use, environmental degradation, and mechanisation of food production that will have a catastrophic effect on developing countries with high unemployment and suffer from wide-spread hunger.

What other interests in FSN could one justifiably ascribe to those parties?

What are their various levels of responsibility?

As a general rule, those involved in all groups are responsible for making their respective contribution towards achieving the overall objective of a food system. While those in group 1 are directly responsible to the public for this, others are responsible for their own food directly or indirectly. In addition, those in groups 3 and onwards usually have other responsibilities specific to the sub-system they operate.

Going back to the groups 1-6 above, I should like to emphasise that those of group 1 can be spread out at three levels; national, regional or at the community level. However, as one goes down in this hierarchy, the extent of the overview one needs to make sound decisions gets narrower while need for specific knowledge increases.

In group 2, agricultural competence of the food producers would have to be local in order to be relevant, and the same applies to the end-users subject to the proviso that items of food from other areas are not available.

Those who are involved in ecoservice supplementing system ought to be extremely cautious in their recommendations so that we need not fear environmental catastrophes like that of Aral Sea, pollinator deaths in the US due to the toxicity of genetically modified Maize pollen (observed in 1990ties), etc.

As for the rest, once again, we run into the question of their motivation. A cynic might say they are responsible to the shareholders of the concerns that operate those systems. And if ‘enlightened self-interest’ is proposed as the basis of their overall responsibility, then we need to know to what extent could they reconcile that interest with the pressing need for food and environmental sustainability. It is difficult to see how this may be done.

How to define “multistakeholder partnership” for food security and nutrition?

An epistemologically sound definition would have to be based on a purpose a food system may justifiably serve. It is difficult to conceive of such a purpose as anything other than enabling the people to procure varied and wholesome food required to prepare a balanced diet at an affordable cost in a sustainable way.

If one agrees on this as the sole justifiable purpose of a food system, then one may define such a partnership thus:

A multistakeholder partnership for food security and nutrition may be defined as a set of groups, where each group is concerned with a sub-system of a food system, and each and every group is willing and able to operate its own sub-system with sufficient skill in a coordinated fashion towards achieving the overall objective of the food system they constitute.

What are the existing types of partnerships for financing and improving food security and nutrition?

Here, I must plead the superficiality of my knowledge. But, as far as I know, they are based on financial gain that is hardly fair to the food producer or to the end-user.

What are the tensions between the nature of these stakeholders and the

Functions of the partnerships?

As they are hardly in agreement on the justifiable purpose of a food system, the ad hoc nature of what each hopes to achieve would lack a common direction, hence a variety of openings for dispute.

Obviously, well-being of the environment,  preference for the capital-intensive in preference to labour-intensive that would most benefit many developing nations,  disregard for local food culture and imposition of high-yield foreign cultivars, etc., are among the most important bones of contention. But, all these stem from the above lack of agreement, and of course, desire for greater profit whether justified or not.

I shall skip the next set of questions as the argument so far has already dealt with them, at least in principle. The only valid indicator I can envisage is the state of nutrition of the people affected by such an MSPS. I emphasise changes in their income does not necessarily entail their improved nutrition; hence, it is insignificant as an indicator with reference to our purpose.

What are the potential controversies related to MSPs?

Lack of agreement on a common goal will result in a conflicts outlined above.

What are/should be the respective roles and responsibilities of public and private stakeholders and civil society in such partnerships?

Please see the division of people surrounding a food system above. It offers a simple scheme of assigning roles to each of the above groups as appropriate. However, it is vital to remember that we all are end-users of food whatever we do.

What should be the respective contributions of each in the financing and improvement of FSN?

This is not as straightforward as it may seem. In most countries, some of the sub-systems in a food system are publicly run, which has to be taken into account. Food producers in developing nations are often in great need of both know-how and financial help.

As a general rule, answer to the question is case specific, but bearing in mind the overall purpose of a food system, whoever makes the contribution, will not demand an unfair return. To be specific, no contribution should be accompanied by a demand for a return that would

-    How to ensure to all stakeholders a “fair” representation in adversely affect the affordability, variety and wholesomeness of the food the system neither produces, nor yet compel any sub-system operator to an unfair exchange of his output or services.

Do these questions correctly reflect the main issues to be covered?

My answer would be a qualified yes, and I’d like to make a few observations. The order in which questions are put would have been much improved if we used the purpose of a food system as our point of departure. This is not a mere academic nicety; after all, such partnerships are intended to enhance global food security and nutrition.

Food security is intimately linked with the sustainability of the food systems in general, and in particular, their capacity to provide a surplus at intervals, especially in areas prone to natural disasters or extreme climatic fluctuations, not to mention man-made misery.

Food system is the tool we use to satisfy our dietary needs. So, it is fair to say that making our food systems sustainable, flexible and robust and enabling people to put them into best use ought to be the goal of MSPs.

Now, a food system is made up of several sub-systems. So, the relevant partners have to come from or represent those. Each partner may have to be associated with others in order to do his job well, but such associates have only a peripheral connection with a food system. For instance,

Every modern food system requires a transport system. Those who operate may need to modernise it, and so, they might negotiate a loan with their banker. Surely this does not entitle that banker to claim to have a stake in a food system. If this is allowed, why not call in the local teachers because they will be teaching the future operators of every sub-system in a food system, and this staking could go on ad absurdum.

Once we have set forth the sub-systems and their operators in their right sequence ending in a population of end-users, it is simple to see the responsibilities of each group with reference to its own function, transport for instance, and to the overall purpose the food system is designed to serve. I hope these remarks may be of some use in spite of being noted down in a hurry.

Cheers!

Lal Manavado.

Hereby I send attached the commentaries of the Ministry of Health of Brazil on the Multistakeholder Partnerships to Finance and Improve Food Security and Nutrition in the Framework of the 2030 Agenda Report’s scope.

Best regards,

Rafaela Batista

Assessoria de Assuntos Internacionais de Saúde – AISA

Gabinete do Ministro | Ministério da Saúde

When I first saw the title of the consultation I thought the focus was on FINANCING the improvements in FNS. Then reading the questions it looks like the emphasis is on MPS.

My sense is that MPS came at the end of a sequence in which the study should a) identify what does it mean "improving" FNS; b) what are the actions needed and how much would it cost to achieve that "improving" by 2030; c) what would be potential ways and sources of financing (and b) and c) would indicate the main potential stakeholders); and then d) ask about how those stakeholders can be articulated in fair and efficient coalitions.

I fear that discussing MPS in the abstract (i.e. without identifying first objectives, activities, costs, and financing) may not be very fruitful.

For partnerships sincere leadership is compulsory to get the required results. Merit should be kept while selecting representatives to keep fairness and to ensure the true representation of the actual problems faced.

La falta de oportunidades de la poblacion rural e indigena de Guatemala a tener acceso a micro creditos con tasas a su nivel con capacitacion y asesoria incide significativamente a una Inseguridad alimentaria y por ende a una mala nutricion.

El sistema de concejos de Desarrollo es una alternativa que aun no se le ha dado el valor agregado, debe fortalecerse por medio de las comisiones de SAN, con enfasis en la organizacion comunitaria, ya que solo con la participacion de ellos se lograran mejores resultados para el año 2030. es indispensable que los recursos lleguen en mayores cantidades a la poblacion y no en lo administrativo.

El empoderamiento de la mujer es una obligacion que debe fortalecerse como eje principal de la seguridad  alimentaria.

La experiencia y conocimientos de muchos especialistas en seguridad alimentaria y nutrición contribuirá a la implementación de la Agenda 2030, a través de acciones y estrategias conjuntas para el logro de los objetivos del desarrollo sostenible a nivel local y regional, nacional e internacional, con la participación también de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil y autoridades en todos los ámbitos de decisión a nivel mundial. En este sentido, propongo que se organicen eventos nacionales e internacionales a nivel de las comunidades locales de Venezuela y América Latina, y  desarrollar proyectos en rubros agrícolas  de alto impacto en la seguridad alimentaria y nutrición en toda la cadena de valor, y elevar su producción, aunado con la administración y gestión agrícola. Al mismo tiempo brindar educación y capacitación a nivel de agricultores y técnicos de campo proporcionando  herramientas de administración, registros, y gestión de negocios agropecuarios, y con ello garantizar la seguridad alimentaria al menos hasta el 2030.

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this eConsultation. The proposed scope for this forthcoming HLPE report indeed covers a range of important questions. It may, however, be strengthened by clearly positioning multi-stakeholder partnerships, defined in a clear and rigorous manner, in the broader context of the necessary alignment of efforts by different actors (including duty bearers, right holders, and other "stakeholders") towards the realization of the 2030 Agenda and of sustainable development more broadly.

Concretely, one suggestion would involve:

1. Clearly articulating early on in the text the need to better ALIGN the efforts of different groups of actors to realize the 2030 Agenda and the AAAA, with particular focus on the two, distinct though inter-related challenges of a) boosting supply of and inclusive access to finance for agriculture and the agri-food sector and b) ending hunger and malnutrition.

2. Presenting various models of PARTNERSHIP proper – including those that bring together different groups of "stakeholders" – as specific types of instruments to achieve the needed alignment, though by no means the only ones nor the ones most appropriate in all contexts or for all specific aspects of the two challenges listed at point 1.

3. Structuring the report to make room both for the broader question of alignment and for the narrower question of "partnerships".

Please note that this input is provided on a personal capacity and not as an institutional contribution.

With best regards,

Bettina Prato