Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

Thank you for the opportunity to review this document.  I have to admit that I initially skimmed it, and have not carefully reviewed each section.  However in looking over the document, given the title, I expected the focus of the document to be on financing.  Rather, it seemed much much more comprehensive on the critical role of partnerships to advocate, support, finance, implement and evaluate actions for food security and nutrition.  This is certainly comprehensive and interesting.  However, it was not until section 3 on a paragraph on mobilizing funds, and then in section 4.3 that the issue of financing emerges.  I would suggest changing the title to more aptly reflect the content of this document.

With respect to efforts to mobilize finances for food security and nutrition, for the latter, there has been fairly recent activities supported by SUN (not mentioned in Box 5) and the World Bank.  These are important efforts to either develop methods or to actually estimate cross sectoral expenditure on nutrition specific and nutrition sensitive actions that should be recognized in this report.  I beleive FAO has also been working in this domain, and would try to find out what they have been doing in terms of supporting MSPs in this area. 

In Section 3, there are text boxes on defining evaluation methods.  However, in section 4, there is no background information or text box on methods and tools for helping to catalyze or mobilize resources for food security and nutrition.  Often efforts to mobilize resources in other areas (immunization, HIV, RMNCH, etc), begin with a series of analyses that may include demonstrating value for money, cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness.  Additionally, developing global price tags, identifying financing gaps and developing investment cases have been essential advocacy tools for defining the funding envelope needed.   There are fairly well established steps and actions for generating evidence for decision makers (whether bilateral or multilateral funders, or private foundations, or governments themselves).  It may be useful to see how this information could support your current efforts.   Similarly, looking into previous efforts, like GAVI, in the nutrition world have been tried.  I believe initially GAIN (Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition) was trying to play a similar role to GAVI, but found challenges. Unlike immunization, the cross sectoral nature of FS and nutrition provide challenges in working across sectors for raising resources.

In the background, or a text box, I think it would be useful for this document to provide the current state (levels and trends in the past decade) of financing for food secuirty and nutrition, and to provide any available information on funding gaps.  This will help understand what the funding goal is of MSP financing is to fill these gaps.

The edited book "HORTICULTURAL CROPS FOR NUTRITION SECURITY" speaks volumes on emphasis on consumption of fruits and nutrition to manage hidden hunger rampant among women and children in developing countries."NUTRITION GARDEN" adjescent to homesteads provides needed fruits and vegetables and need to be encouraged.Mental depression is a serious health hazard.Fruits and Vegetable therapy is an ideal pro-nature treatment.

This is an excellent Report, although belongs more in the academic setting rather than practical policy design and implementation context for attaining the stated objectives. The real issues begin around the middle of the Report.

As long the effectiveness and impact analyses are not adequately addressed with proper assessment of transaction costs, and as long as 'agency maximands' and 'internalities' (motivations, accountability and transparency) are not taken into account, formal approaches to providing Frameworks hardly get to the core of the issues.

Harping on external aid can be a last rather than first resort to the food security and nutritional enahncement of communities. Much greater integration of sustainable agricultural (especially horticultural) production in this context is called for. Similarly, resource-intensive (and often unsustainable) consumption (and food production) needs to be replaced by holistic patterns. What in the world comes in the way to produce more green foods, including drought-resistent nutrition such as leafy veggies and quinoa, and enable cost-effective augmentation of food and nutrition? Many factors may constitute obstacles but without exploring these win-win solutions (or low-hanging fruits) it is not very helpful to the attainment of food and nutritional security objectives. 

This Report should have offered greater case-specific insights, including the transaction cost elements (with proper conceptualization of transaction costs).

See also:

P K Rao, 2014, The Architecture of Green Economic Policies, Berlin: Springer.

P K Rao, 2003, The Economics of Transaction Costs: Theory, Methods and Applications, London: Palgrave.

Comments 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

Perhaps, it might be useful to place the stated purpose of the report within an explicitly MSPS specific and justifiable frame of reference, which would enable one to ascertain its pros and cons without resorting to a laborious inductive reasoning of dubious tenability on which the decisions on the use of MSPs financing for achieving FSN are to be based.

As a specific example of the errors such an inductive approach entails, do please consider the inclusion of Gavi in the report. Although its work is very important to global health, the importance of vaccination has an immediacy in people’s mind than that of balanced diet both in the affluent and the poor countries. More significantly, the partners involved in public vaccination cannot be said to be motivated by a desire for profit as those involved in food production and sales. Hence, it is a basic category error to include them here. If it is argued that good health is important for food production, then so is education, security, over population, etc. Though important, their bearing on the issue is indirect.

I think it would be reasonable to keep two things apart while keeping their logical inseparability for FSN foremost in mind. They are what are needed to ensure FSN, and how what is needed may be made available to all. Here again, one runs into a mine field of terminology. Let us hop out of it by distinguishing between what is immediately required for nutrition i.e., food and what is needed for its production etc.

As for the question ‘how’, if we say it is concerned with ensuring that everybody gets an adequate amount of wholesome and varied food, we encounter another point of confusion. It is the obvious fact that in modern world, it is increasingly difficult anyone to produce

All such food one needs, hence, at least some ingredients needed for a balanced diet will have to be procured by some other means, most often by purchase. As current profit driven economy has made so deep inroads into our food supply, MSPS experts of many an ilk have a tendency to equate this ‘how’ into undertaking a purely commercial transaction yielding profit to the seller. Thus, the reluctance to use the clear and concise term ‘affordability’ in many a discussion on FSN.

Let us also remember another obvious point, viz.; the same quantity of an identical food item of demonstrably better quality is generally cheaper in Euro terms in Southern Europe than in its more affluent northern part. So, it would be a mistake to envisage a standard affordability of global applicability. It is here one often observes the insidious entry of per capita income into the sad picture.

After these preliminary remarks, I think it would be reasonable to suggest that a state of FSN will be characterised by every person being able to procure what is needed for a varied, wholesome and a balanced diet in a sustainable way. So, what we aim here is to ascertain the role of MSPS financing in achieving this objective. As the report points out, more than 800,000,000 go hungry while over a billion live in poverty, making it impossible for nearly 2 billion people to procure a balanced diet regularly. I submit that how successful the use of MSPS financing should be judged by the degree to which its use mitigates the dietary deprivation of those billions.

Before I touch on the categorical levels at which MSPS is intended to be used, it is necessary to recapitulate the necessary attributes of global FSN:

   1. The food supply is sustainable.

   2. It possesses a sufficient capacity to recover from disruptive shocks (natural and man-made disasters) and provide adequate quantities of a certain variety of dietary ingredients needed for a balanced and wholesome diet.

   3. It is capable of achieving timely physical availability of the relevant dietary ingredients. This is to guard against loss of nutrients, colour, texture, taste, etc., of food and its spoilage.

   4. It ensures the affordability of food with respect to the ability of the social group concerned. Here, I maintain that it is a great mistake to make any sweeping generalisations.

   5. Its elements encourage end-users’ possession of appropriate dietary competence (knowledge of what is wholesome and makes a balanced diet, and skill needed to make or procure it). The end-user is to be preferred because a wholesale buyer may also be seen as a user/customer by a food producer, or by anyone keen on shifting the goal-posts during a debate. When this necessary condition does not obtain, affordability of wholesome food may be ignored leading to food wastage, hence its removal from agricultural production. Further, it would encourage intake, and hence production of unhealthy food and beverages resulting in obesity prevalent today. In addition to defective education, dietary competence can be voluntarily suppressed by subtle mind management using striking audio-visual techniques to encourage the consumption of unhealthy food and drink. This in turn encourages a reduction in bio-diversity in food production a distinct threat to FSN, not to mention its promotion of nutritional imbalance.

In addition to flexibility, the qualitative and quantitative dimensions of attribute 2 above embody an explicit support for bio-diversity in food production and an acknowledgement of the importance of local food cultures. Together with attribute 3, it also emphasises the historical and modern reality in that we do not eat just for nutrition, but we do derive a certain amount of pleasure from the taste, flavour, texture of what we eat. This is a part of general human civilisation we ought not to ignore.

The question then, is to ascertain whether the use of MSPS for financing global FSN enhances the five conditions described above, or does its use affects them adversely. Here, the report does not seem to distinguish among the multifarious impacts of appropriate and inappropriate financing, or their possible combinations.

Let me try to be more specific by taking up the questions CSF has put forward in their given order:

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?

Comment:

While giving many examples, it uses a great deal of space to those without first outlining the requisite frame of reference one needs to ascertain its positive and negative effects on FSN. I think this is a serious methodological oversight that ought to be rectified. Obviously, what we need to determine is what impact the proposed financing would have on 1 to 5 above, and thence collectively on FSN. My feeling is that the report does not devote enough effort to anchor it firmly on a sound epistemological base. After this has been achieved, it ought to develop  a list of do’s and don’ts with respect to the five conditions above, and then it would be comparatively easy to predict the effect of possible MSPS types on FSN, and use the examples to confirm or disconfirm the those predictions. Finally, this would enable one to develop a set of good practices for MSPS.

What are the constraints to raising funds for FSN?

Once again, this depends on the actual attitude of the potential contributing ‘partners’ towards the multiple ramifications of the five conditions listed earlier. For an exhaustive identification, we will have to analyse the components of each one of them. Let me give an example by taking up various aspects of sustainability of food supply. A non-exhaustive list of what is essential for its sustainability might be:

I.       Sustainability of ecosystem services which includes the right concentration of carbon dioxide in the air, availability of water, mineral and organic (fodder), soil porosity, salubrious climate, etc. Irrigation, appropriate use of fertilisers and biocides can be seen as supplementations of those services. Sustainability of those services depends on environmental well-being, i.e., the equilibrium among the living species in a local that entails local bio-diversity and the existence of optimal population of each species. So, the question would be, do the ‘partners’ of MSPS really willing and able to finance actions under those restraints, or are they going to disregard them. Inclusion of this and various aspects of the other four points would make the report holistic and more complete.

2.  Is the structure of the report comprehensive enough, and adequately articulated?

Comments:

It is difficult to see how to justify the exhaustive classification of MSPS’s in this two-dimensional way. Obviously, if one wants accountability in them, it is hard to see how this may be achieved without imposing some enforceable legal framework on their formation. In my view, the level at which they are to operate, i.e., policy design, devising policy implementation strategies, and finally executing them on the field might be called the triple division of such partnerships but their combinations are of little interest for a variety of reasons.

But, cutting across all the three possible levels of partnership is the crucial question, whether it is going to enhance the five conditions necessary for FSN. This crucial dimension is missing in the report.

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?

Comment:

See my comments above.

Are there topics under-or over-represented in relation to their importance?

Comment:

As remarked earlier, examples and two-dimensional classification of MSPS is over-represented, while a benchmark to assess the attributes of MSPS that may contribute to global FSN is missing.

Are any facts or conclusions erroneous or questionable? If any of these are an issue, please send supporting evidence.

Comments:

This question has been already answered in broad outline taking as my point of departure what must be taken into account to ascertain the capacity of MSPS financing to achieve FSN. If for instance it is injurious to environmental well-being or supports actions that would bring about voluntary suspension of one’s dietary competence or hinder one’s acquisition of it, chain reactions would set in hindering our achievement of FSN. Such partnerships are undesirable.

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?

Comments:

It would be more useful to use a clean-cut and justifiable classification as suggested here. As the discussion is limited to financing, a clear distinction must be drawn between the determination of appropriate goals with respect to achieving FSN and financing them. Setting goals, if they are to be achieved with acceptable degree of success, depends entirely on local food culture, available material resources (only some of these can be provided by the outsiders), number and competence of local man-power, and finally finance. If agricultural, trade and other relevant policies result from open two-way consultations between local people and the authorities our goal may be within reach. Involving other partners here on financing seems to be premature, for this is a question to be answered with reference to local nutritional needs and the extent to which they are currently satisfied. Surely this is outside the competence of any financier be it a foreign government, commercial entity or a local NGO with national interests at heart. Only outside competent body I can see is the FAO with its broad understanding of many local needs in nutrition and food habits.

At the policy level, such outside partners may join in suggesting financing portion of the policy complex. However, any attempt on their part to change the goals themselves is not desirable. It is here that they might attempt to apply inappropriate shifts to goals that have led to child malnutrition. Eg. Advice to make peanuts a cash crop to earn foreign exchange in West Africa some years ago.

At the next level, i.e., design of implementation strategy, we once again run into a major stumbling block, viz., MSPS insistence of using the most modern methods. In other words, advocacy of capital-intensive means in thickly populated areas (slums in ‘boom cities’) areas where high unemployment or unjust under-employment and very low professional competence is the norm. These strategies may give a high food yield, but they do not give those millions money to purchase what is produced, hence, they are inappropriate. Dick Tinsley’s contribution gives a striking example of this. If it is argued that such surplus food could be exported or sold to those who could afford it, how far have our efforts gone anywhere near feeding that 2 billions mentioned at the beginning of the report?

At the field level where the strategies are executed, we are talking about the farmers, husbandmen, fishermen, etc. Once again, to what extent are most of the MSPS members are willing to finance activities commensurable with their present know-how (and what they might acquire within a short time), local food needs and traditions (of course, they can be improved gradually with benefit while an abrupt change may spell unforeseen crisis. Eg. Green Revolution in Pakistan and Mexico in wheat production), and the available local resources? Unless this whetting of the potential MSPS members is undertaken at those three levels, one can be certain of the ills discussed the report. As for its instances of success, it is not at all clear whether their effect on my five points have been ascertained. This is important, for an adverse effect on any of them will soon have serious consequences for the FSN of the area involved.

Only a tangential reference has been made to the all too familiar problem of corruption. It is impossible to justify terming the phenomenon a cause of adverse effects on any one of the five points by commission; rather it is a hindrance to enhancing them. Unfortunately, it is a question of ethics, and as such outside the brief of the present discussion in spite of its impact on our success.

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?

Comment:

This has been taken up in the comment text.

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?

Comments:

In my view, it is not so much the ‘type of partnership’ as described in the report that really matters. What matters are two crucial things; does it enhance FSN by promoting its five principal attributes, and secondly, does it enter our endeavours at its appropriate segment of financing policy design without altering the nutritional goals, agree on financing strategies while not interfering with action strategies, and finally,  playing a benign advisory role at the field level. Why this delegation of responsibility is advocated has been discussed earlier.

As it is always the case in efforts to achieve a material objective, viz., availability of wholesome dietary ingredients at an affordable cost to all, it is the success of action to generate, preserve and make available those items that counts. Although important, financing is only an enabling factor in the sense it is required to reward those who undertake those actions, and to procure the materials and services directly necessary for undertaking those actions, i.e., seed, animal feed, farm implements, agricultural extension services, etc. A logical distinction is made here between them and indirect necessities such as infra-structural needs like transport, education, reasonable health, security, etc.

I think there is a tendency to conflate those two direct and indirect necessities, especially in this report as the inclusion of Gavi indicated. I believe making this basic distinction clearly in mind is essential in order to avoid confusion in delegating responsibilities including financing. Do please note this is not to denigrate the importance of those indirect requirements, but to underline the importance of keeping them integrated but distinct.

As I have tried to underline here, financing by definition is not our primary goal. As such, its impact is limited. I have advocated a careful separation of responsibilities with reference to each partner’s area of real competence while giving priority to that in local nutrition.

I would not call this a ‘weakness’ of MSPS financing, but rather a rational attribution of importance. It requires no ‘research’ to understand that a cultivator may need money to obtain an optimal yield; it is that yield and its attributes that are of principal relevance to FSN. Therefore, I would rather speak of financing as an important adjunct of FSN, but not as the primary means of approaching it. Thus, it would be a mistake to talk about the limitations of MSPS financing, rather of problems arising from assigning it responsibilities outside its domain, or allowing it to influence that domain.

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?

Comments:

Throughout my remarks I have mentioned a number of do’s and don’ts, especially in connection with policies. I shall not list the negatives to save the reader the tedium of reading the same thing with a minus sign in front of it. Then one may at one’s leisure check any MSPS financing in, or has been in action against the check list below and see what contribution it has made to actual nutrition of the people.

Legal:

1. Ensure that all financing partners are bound legally, but in an enforceable way. A financial deposit with a third party that might be forfeit if one’s commitments are not met?

Policy level

1. Financing partners may not determine the priorities and qualitative aspects (what type of food to produce and where) in the agriculture policy, nor will they influence its qualitative aspects unless to point out that it may be too excessive or inadequate for the end-users in the area those policies apply.
2. They may influence the financing policy within the above restraint, but it shall not call for means of implementation that are beyond the current know-how and the resources of the area involved. This is to rule out the use of funds to create a newer financial infra-structure without any increase in food supply.

When financing involves loans in addition to such conditions of instrumentation, repayment may often drive the authorities to resort to cash crops minimising the overall impact on nutrition. Import of food by this method seldom has any nutritional benefits to the poor.

Strategy:

1. All too often policy and strategy are conflated in discussions. I think we will have a clearer understanding if we distinguish the former as a statement of the principles of intent and the latter as the general means of achieving the goals described therein.

Then, a sound policy to enhance FSN in an area (global, regional or national, or smaller units) will take into account two critical conditions:

I.                    Ensure that all the other policies in its ambience will not undercut its success. Eg. A trade policy supporting food exports will defeat even the best result achieved by the agriculture policy, especially the latter is intended to alleviate hunger among the rural and urban poor. This indicates inter-policy disharmony, a state of affairs to be avoided. Often this type of policy ambience distortion in favour of ‘trade and industrial development’ pushes the poor farther down the route to malnutrition as Dick Tinsley has carefully documented in his contribution to this discussion.

II.                  Elements of the policy to achieve FSN should not work at cross purposes, i.e., they should not oppose or hinder the main goal, viz., achieving FSN. This danger has been described above, when MSPS financing is allowed to operate outside its domain. Such actions lead to failure owing to intra-policy disharmony.

Very often however, this apparent disharmony may be due to the policy strategy confusion noted above. Having said that, let us look at how MSPS financing may adversely affect our chances of achieving FSN. This would result under the following situations:

I.                    Financing partners insist on the use of technology beyond the capacity of the target population to use and maintain within a short period (hunger cannot wait for the end of an x-year plan before it is appeased). This is a distorted strategy designed to ‘develop how to create food, and not ‘what’ is needed.

II.                  Financing partners insist on ‘modern’ capital intensive methods in areas high population density and low levels of know-how obtain. This may require employing very few locals and many outsiders while the majority of deprived locals have no way to procure the food produced, and disposed according to ‘the law of supply and demand’. Triumph of trade and human misery over humane civilised behaviour amply illustrated by Mr. Tinsley’s account.

Field Operation:

How strategic decisions are to be implemented should be left entirely in the hands of people who are skilled in the relevant kind of food production and disposal. FAO and similar professional organisations may play a very important part here. Financing at this level definitely needs tight public control, but it ought to motivate by the principles of cooperation than purely commercially sound banking principles. Here, one may learn a great deal from the way ‘land banks’ established after 1815 in Europe boosted the standard of living of millions of people whose situation was as bad as if not worse that of the rural and urban poor in developing countries today.

1. Cultivars and household animal breeds financed should be local varieties, and their improvement ought to be undertaken locally so that their enhancements are synchronous with the increase in local knowledge and skill needed to benefit from them.
2. Disposal of food should be on a cooperative basis, and financing partners who wish to introduce ‘modern marketing’ using ‘cell phones’ (even among the poor illiterate teenagers) are best kept far from the long-suffering rural poor. Cooperative farms, fishing groups, low-tech local processing and packaging, simple but good storage, cooperative outlets and small family-owned restaurants are some of the means that may be used to enable the deprived to both contribute to FSN in general and to their own nutrition in particular. If MSPS financing is against this, then its role in achieving global FSN seems to be marginal at best.

Best wishes!

Lal Manavado

Dear Sir, Dear Madam,

I was reading thoroughly the MSPs V0 draft and I must congratulate the authors for its wide scope and appropriate actions. I am afraid I have no competence on the four  main Sections and only I would make a comment on:

• 2.4   Action-oriented cluster- crop improvement. I would refer about my previous report on lysine genetically enriched cereals.
• 2.42 Food Delivery. I would suggest establishing a nutritional control in the pediatric population by evaluation of BMI (Z-score) before and after 8-24 weeks the subsidized food program was launched in the area.. Even a pilot study will give you an early feedback. (Box 3 SUN probably stresses this kind of control).

From my medical point of view this MSPs initiative is a firm step against the four Malnutrition forms.

Yours faithfully  

Manuel Moya

Catedrático de Pediatría/ E Professor & Head

FAO: Global Forum on Food Security & Nutrition member

Editor in Chief of the Newsletter. International Pediatric Asociation (IPA)

Academician of the Real Academia de Medicina

Pediatric Dept. University Miguel Hernández

Ctra Valencia s/n, 03550 S.Juan. Alicante. Spain

Draft Consultation Comments

Suggestion:1

In the Fig.2 (Page.22) MSP categories according to their main function

It was mentioned in the first chapter that knowledge sector and the banking sector MSPs are also there. MSPs can not only act as a think Tank for initializing any programme of action. Hence their functions are not only action or policy mentioned in the diagram, but they can do a great role as think tanks with bright workable idea formulations and as funding / finance sources.

Suggestion: 2

Page. 27: Knowledge Generation and Sharing : Action Oriented MSPs at a given geographical location can  play a major role in preservation of  tradition  crop varieties . More number of food items should come under (registered ) the protected geographical indication (PGI). This will help in efficient utilization of nutritious traditional food crops such as arrowroots, rice (Navara) and millet varieties, Turmeric, Cardamom  etc in India.This will help in maximizing the  sustainable and efficient use of  crops to enhance sustainable agriculture

Suggestion: 3

With respect to achieving Climate change adaptation and mitigation (SDG13), the largest Climate change funding providers like Green Climate Funds (GCFs) and Adaptation Funds can play a major role as MSPs. Scaling Up Nutrition(SUN) can go hand in hand with Scaling up Climate Smart Agriculture(CSA) activities. 

Greetings to everyone that has contributed thus far.

My little sumission bother around the need for improved awareness on neglected and underutilised species (NUS), especially in developing countries. The work on one of the NUS that i had carried out on Bambara groundnut supported earlier claims by scientists that NUS has immense nutrition potentials. Thus, i believe that more funding, support should be geared into NUS research, so as to provide enough nutrients diversity.

John Olayinka ATOYEBI

Dear Mme, Mr,

with regard  to the HLPE Report on: Multistakeholder Partnerships to Finance and Improve  Food Security and Nutrition in the Framework of the 2030 Agenda e-Consultation on the Draft V0, I strongly believe that acknowledging those contributing and giving inputs could be beneficial for democratizing and adding transparency to the whole process, while increasing at once the overall attractiveness of external publics willing to contribute. 

Hope it helps

Kindest regards

Corrado Finardi Ph.D.

Coldiretti 

Response by the FSN Forum team 

Dear Dr Finardi,

Thank you for having contributed to the e-Consultation on the HLPE Draft V0 on Multistakeholder Partnerships Finance and Improve Food Security and Nutrition in the Framework of the 2030 Agenda. Your comment is online at this link: http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/cfs-hlpe/node/1515.

In reply to your doubts, the full list of participants to the open e-Consultations is always published on the HLPE website, on the dedicated “Process and Docs” page per each report. For example, if you visit the Process and Docs page for the HLPE Report #11 Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition, you will see at the end a link to this list: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/PT_Forestry/Docs/HLPE-Sustainable-Forestry_eConsultations_Participants.pdf

The full list of participants to the eConsultations is always published after the report is issued, so for the MSP Report, this will occur around July/August 2018. Of course the list is also always present on the e-Consultation portal, on the proceedings.

Moreover a specific message of gratitude is present on every HLPE report, referring to this list online. It reads: “The HLPE warmly thanks all the participants who contributed with very valuable inputs and comments to the two open consultations, first on the scope of the report, and second on an advanced draft (V0). These contributions were channelled through FAO’s Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum). The list of contributors, as well as the full proceedings of these consultations, is available online at the HLPE website: http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe.”

We hope this clarifies your concerns, but are happy to elaborate more if you have other questions.

With kindest regards,

The FSN Forum team 

Great work done here regarding the report. We need to incorporate more of horticultural fruits and vegetables in food security agenda. Horticulture especially Olericulture has been saving greatly in the times of urgent needs especially in the developing countries meeting nutritional food security ....... David NIHORT

Hereby I send you attached the commentaries of the Ministry of Health of Brazil regarding the draft version of the report “Multistakeholder Partnerships to Finance and Improve Food Security and Nutrition in the Framework of the 2030 Agenda”.

Best regards,

Rafaela Batista