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

Multistakeholder Partnerships to Finance and Improve Food Security and Nutrition

In the Framework of the 2030 Agenda – e-consultation on the report’s scope

-          The description of the scope is a great improvement over the somewhat confused text that was contained in the MYPoW. A good indication of the importance of dialogue between political process and balanced technical/academic consideration!

-          The HLPE’s analysis of the topic should, of course, take into consideration and be coherent with concepts/values/norms that are at the heart of the CFS’s mandate or that have been adopted in the course of prior policy negotiation even though these may not be part of the mainstream literature on multistakeholder mechanisms. In particular:

-The HLPE should consider defense and realization of the right to food as fundamental, along with FSN outcomes. Reference to the HR framework has important implications for the discussion of the roles and responsibilities of different actors.

- In discussing the various stakeholders in FSN the HLPE should also recall the priority that is assigned in the CFS reform document to actors who are most affected by food insecurity, and are often those most active in seeking ways of improving food security.

- In discussing the issue of ‘financing FSN’ the HLPE should keep in mind the important CFS conclusion (subsequently documented by FAO and now fairly universally recognized although often ignored) that small-scale producers are themselves by far the main investors in agriculture, as well as being responsible for most food production. In the CFS context it has become clear that effective strategies for FSM and the RtF – both public policies and investments – need to defend and support small-scale producers’ own investments. This puts a different spin on the discussion as compared with the overall AAAA conclusions.

-          In discussions of multistakeholder mechanisms there is considerable confusion among the various purposes which they may serve and the levels at which they may operate. It is extremely important to distinguish between policy forums (where issues of conflict of interest are particularly serious), PPPs that are put in place for operational purposes (keeping in mind, however, that in the absence of clear public policy and legislative guidelines operational programmes may lead the way like a tail wagging the dog…), and multistakeholder regulatory mechanisms.  The level is also important in terms of which actors should be around the table. It could be argued that only national actors should be around the table when it is a question of determining national policies (with particular attention, in the case of FSN and RtF, to participation by the marginalized), whereas participation by development partners and external actors can be appropriate when the discussion has to do with programmes geared to putting policies into operation.   

-          There is a dearth of serious evidence regarding the impacts and effectiveness of PPPs in the domain of programmes targeting food security and nutrition objectives in the Global South. One of the most basic and important tasks that the HLPE can undertake would be to collect and collate what little does exist and identify the gaps that need to be filled before confidently touting PPPs as win-win propositions for all concerned.

-          It is also extremely important that the HLPE highlight the necessity of contextualizing its conclusions and recommendations. The literature is full of documents that praise the contributions that PPPs can potentially make but then list a series of conditions for success that could be met in very few countries.

-          It would be very important for the HLPE report to avoid treating the private sector as a single constituency, and to make distinctions instead between the corporate PS and SMEs in developing countries, which have quite different roles to play. Where the corporate private sector is involved issues of conflict of interest need to be addressed, as does the question of the models of production and of processing/distribution (value chains) that they introduce, as compared with sustainable family farm production and markets linked to local, national and regional food systems (cf. the recommendations on ‘Connecting Smallholder to Markets’ adopted by CFS43).   

-          Distinctions need to be made also among different constituencies of civil society (as in the CFS/CSM) rather than treating CS as a single category.

Risk allocation and way forward for successful multistakeholder partnership, engagement and delivery towards food security and nutrition in the face of climate change

In dealing with the challenge of food security and nutrition, countries must act on several fronts in a focused manner simultaneously. One of approach to address the issue is public private partnership (PPP) mode wherein wherein the contractual parties are the public and private partners and the purpose of the document is to govern and establish guidelines for the relationship between all parties. The objective from the public sector point of view is to make sure that the risks are allocated so that the private sector is incentivized to provide the service under the PPP contract but not require the private sector to take risks that they cannot control. The private sector attaches a premium on the risks, which affects the cost of their services. Consequently, the public authority must also consider which risks it will retain because it is able to control these risks more cost effectively. The National Action Plan for food security and nutrition hinges on the development and use of new technologies. The implementation of the Plan would be through appropriate institutional mechanisms suited for effective delivery of each individual Mission's objectives and include public private partnerships and civil society action. The focus will be on promoting understanding of climate change, adaptation and mitigation, energy efficiency and natural resource conservation. Lenders are required in many PPP arrangements, such as concession agreements, to finance the capital investments of a project.

Ruling on existing protocol, one of the major problem in Africa is Food security system. 

Household food security exists when all members, at all times, have more than enough food for required  active and healthy lifestyle, presently in Nigeria we live in hunger or fear of starvation, many farmers produces more than enough Food products, but he lacks potentials and knowledges of how to retain the food products till off season for such food crop,this is a situation where by the perishable foods  get spoil easily and there is need to look for a beautiful ways to preserve such food products and also be very sure that they still retains all the nutritional content without loosing anyone. According to the United States Department of Agriculture. Food security incorporates a measure of resilience to future disruption or unavailability of critical food supply due to various risk factors including droughts, shipping disruptions, fuel shortages, economic instability, and wars to mention but a few of the risk factors. 

Now, I wonder why our government cannot or let me say that,they cannot imitate the lifestyles in Europe,  by getting cold rooms with regulations to store different kinds of vegetables and fruits, in such a way that the refrigeration system can be attached to their trucks and wheels to the farm during harvesting, this will go a long way to preserve and at the same time retain the nutritional content of such crops.  Even our dear market men and women can combine to buy the bigger cold room that will be suitable for the food crop they deal with, that we would at all times get fresh products from farms. Especially for corn e.t.c.

Our government should look into this aspect very well, when we are talking about food security and the nutritional value of food in our national Nigeria. 

I consider local, national and regional stakeholder mapping as imperative to address Multistakeholder Partnership to Finance and improved Food Security and Nutrition in the framework of the 2030 Agenda. The different stakeholders' interest to Finance and Improve Food and Nutrition security could be aligned and targeted instituional framework developed. Policies targeting different interest and alignment group could (e.g. high interest and high alignment) then be developed. This will require wide consultation but it is a step in the right direction.

Thanks for the opportunity.

Please find the attached suggestions.

A number of program interventions could be suggested for the forthcoming policy consultation with copartners; they are listed as follows:

1.     Community Based Drought Management for the Pastoral and Agro-pastoral Livestock Production Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa.

2.     Mechanisms for joint preparation of strategies and programmes for the progressive control and eradication of TADs, zoonoses and emerging diseases.

3.     Strengthening the involvement and role of AU-IBAR in emergency situations in Africa based on the experiences of FAO.

4.     Climate change is forecasted to lead to contraction in cultivable land areas in most African countries. Lands that are predicted to be unfavorable for crop farming can be utilized for grazing expansion of improved environmentally tolerant animal breeds. This requires more investment on research / innovations to develop better adapted breeds to the new environmental conditions and to be accessible to small producers. AU-IBAR can take initiative in that direction.

5.     African domestic livestock breeds had adapted over the time to their environmental settings and are optimum producers within those settings. Conventional livestock producers often strategize the selection of hard breeds that are tolerable to harsh environments and poor management practices. AU-IBAR can build on that by taking the lead to sensitize national and regional research insinuations to further explore that option. The response for the adoption of the research results is expected to be high amongst traditional livestock keepers since that is their common practice.

6.     Modeling scenarios predict severe constraints to the horizontal expansion of crop farming due to poor soils resulting from the CC. Significant cultivable land losses are predicted in Northern & Southern Africa due to unfavorable planting conditions of high temperatures and moisture stresses. Yield from rain-fed crop-farming is forecasted to decline by up to 50%  in some African countries and around 20-30% of plant and animal species are likely to be subjected to the risks of extinction if rise in global temperature exceeded 1.5 -2.5 C° . AU-IBAR can launch an initiative at the continental level to identify animals that are at risk of extinction (endangered species). This can be lead jointly with RECs and cooperation of Au-member states to go about exploring possible means for conservation (e.g. by encouraging rebreeding programs and establishment of regional genes banks .etc.), benefiting from the available innovations & technologies and, seeking financial support from relative organizations that are concerned with gene conservation world-wide.

7.     Documenting existing continental data/information and build evidence on both the negative and positive contribution of livestock to climate; and effects of CC on animal resources in particular and the natural resources base too.

8.     Facilitate/ prioritize research work to build on the existing knowledge on both negative and positive contribution of livestock to climate change, and on natural resources.

9.     Evidence based advocacy work on the contemporary CC issues at all levels, from grass root level to high policy makers in a coordinated manner.

10.  Coordinate policy and institutional reforms to facilitate the CC adaptation mitigation and adaptation options.

11.  Relevant capacity building across all levels and dimensions, including communities.

12.   Climate Change mitigation programs on African fisheries and aquaculture ecosystems and habitats.

Dear moderator,

Attached please find the contribution from the Private Sector Mechanism of the CFS (www.agrifood.net)

With thanks

The secretariat to the International Agri-Food Network on behalf of PSM

Dear fellows from the StC-HLPE

First of all, congratulations for the excellent work you have been doing in order to achieving high quality reports on relevant dimensions and aspects of food and nutrition security.

As far as I remember, there was an expectation of receiving a demand from the CFS to elaborate a HLPE report on how to improve social participation at national and sub-national levels in policy making, implementing and monitoring related to overcome hunger and all forms of mal nutrition, and to promote food and nutrition security. However, the request of the CFS whose draft scope is in e-consultation has been formulated to my view following a quite different and somehow biased perspective which could be noticed in its very title: The Multistakeholder Partnerships to Finance and Improve Food Security and Nutrition in the Framework of the 2030 Agenda.

I presume this has to do with building up the so-called multistakeholder platforms or partnerships aimed at engaging private sector and social organizations which are expected to mobilize financial and human resources to set in place actions (e.g. local ones) targeted at poor and vulnerable people, hopefully in interaction with governments. By looking at the proposed questions, one realizes that public policies appear as something “external” that platforms should dialogue with. Experiences in many parts of the world conducted by private foundations and similar organizations have been following exactly this perspective, often acting outside the institutional framework (or trying to build shortcuts to it). Analysts have already pointed out their lack of social participation, transparency and accountability. Furthermore, one would easily find examples of solutions biased towards private dynamics (e.g. seed industry). Huge controversies on public-private partnerships could  be found worldwide.

The point I want to make has nothing to do with supporting existing institutional frameworks or governance mechanisms which very often result from governments impermeable to social demands, restricted democratic procedures to sort out conflicts and  also a fragile civil society. My question is precisely the opposite. The core of the report should stress ways, means and requirements for setting in motion processes that could change the picture in relation to what is really central, that is, policy making, implementing and monitoring, including priorities guiding the destination of public resources. To be sure, private foundations and similar organizations are welcome, provided mechanisms for public governance of FNS and governments´ acting are the main points to be addressed.

In this sense, it is important to make clear that experiences like the Brazilian Council on Food and Nutrition Security (CONSEA), as well as similar ones in many countries around the world, has little to do, if anything, with the perspective proposed for the report. Councils are conceived as public spaces for social participation in the making, implementing and monitoring of food and nutrition security policies and programmes. Public spaces inscribed in the institutional framework of governmental acting. As you certainly know, this is one of the various possible models of what is called participatory democracy. I reckon this is the demand of social organizations, movements and networks engaged with the CFS Civil Society Mechanism, as well as at national level. An increasing number of academics are also directing their researches in this sense.

Having said that, I am confident the StC will be able to take into account this central question in the design of the report and the composition of the project team, though constrained by the way CFS has formulated its demand.

With my best wishes

Prof. Renato S. Maluf

Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Former President of CONSEA and former member of the HLPE StC

Comments for Written Submission

•             Who are the stakeholders in food security and nutrition? What are the interests and motivations of each stakeholder? How to attract and retain partners? What are their various levels of responsibility?

This question about stakeholders seems too broad: everyone is a stakeholder in food security and nutrition. Motivations are difficult to assess, and inaccurate attributions of motivations can create both analytical and practical complications. Instead, focus on identifying the key stakeholders with incentives and capacities for entering or supporting MSPs. This report should identify nutrition problems and opportunities that MSPs tackle and should indicate where there is evidence that such partnerships are advantageous or disadvantageous (e.g., transaction costs).

•             How to define “multistakeholder partnership” for food security and nutrition? What are the existing types of partnerships for financing and improving food security and nutrition? What are the tensions between the nature of these stakeholders and the functions of the partnerships?

No comments.

•             What are the goals, effectiveness, impact and performance of various forms of MSPs in reaching FSN objectives, in the context of the 2030 Agenda? What criteria, indicators, qualitative or quantitative approaches and methodologies could be used to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability, and value added for different types of MSPs?

As drafted, this element in the scope seems too dense and may need to be separated into at least two clusters: 1) MSP performance and 2) monitoring, evaluation, and learning approaches for MSPs.

•             To what extent do existing MSPs influence national, regional and international policies and programmes for FSN?

The United States does not see value in this guide question for the report.  Instead, it seems like the substance of this question would be adequately addressed by the preceding question about the performance and impact of MSPs.

•             What are the potential controversies related to MSPs?

The intent of this question is unclear. As long as MSPs have clear goals, commitments, and modalities for cooperative work, it does not seem worthwhile to speculate about potential controversies. Perhaps it would be more fruitful to instead focus on strategic/operational challenges or key issues that MSPs encounter in this space.

•             What are/should be the respective roles and responsibilities of public, private stakeholders and civil society in such partnerships? What should be the respective contributions of each in the financing and improvement of FSN?

As drafted, this question seems to imply that there are generic roles, responsibilities, and contributions for broad categories of stakeholders.  Rather than looking at “what should be?” it may be more valuable to examine points where individual stakeholders can most efficiently realize mutual advantages and synergies through their contributions to MSPs for FSN.

•             How to ensure to all stakeholders a “fair” representation in multistakeholder decision making process? How to ensure meaningful and effective participation of the people affected by the MSP, in the decision-making process, including in the setting and implementation of priorities?

From this point on, the suggested scope has a strong normative tone. Since one of its stated purposes is to provide recommendations on ways to improve MSP contributions to FSN in the framework of 2030, there is clearly a role for “how to” sections. However, these should follow from the assessment (as indicated in the introduction). An examination of the current decision-making process should come before this discussion. Stakeholder representation depends on the MSP members. In some cases, parties to an MSP may have in their rules of governance decision-making processes that include members only. We recommend removing the “fairness” assessment and considering participation under the preceding question.

•             How to improve MSPs in order to better implement the SDGs and improve FSN? What incentives mechanisms and legal and financial tools could be the most effective, efficient in this perspective? How the choice of the tools impact on the governance and on the effectiveness of MSPs?

No comments.

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

The United States is concerned that discussions of what roles should be for members of MSPs and of what constitutes “fair” representation for all stakeholders could have implications that move outside the scope of the HLPE and overreach into national policy areas of government.

The topic of this report is an important one, the basic structure proposed is sound, and in general the issues are correctly identified. The report has two main objectives: to do an assessment and to suggest changes or improvements. The report’s success will depend on a good balance between these objectives. This implies doing a solid analysis based on well identified criteria, which questions 2 and 3 provide, and having recommendations flow from this analysis. The report is weaker in this second aspect. It introduces concepts like “fairness” with respect to decision-making without having clearly defined the existing system and identifying issues that currently exist. Similarly, the focus on identifying “potential” issues before discussing actual ones is important.

This framing seems to imply that MSPs are pre-determined to be the best approach towards FSN outcomes, which in itself is an interesting “upstream” assumption.  The scope could address this concern with an overarching question: “What are the current assumptions/evidence about the value of MSPs to FSN outcomes?” For example, what factors could help parties determine the optimal environment or scale where MSPs would be advantageous? As noted above, the report should identify nutrition problems and opportunities that MSPs tackle and should indicate where there is evidence that such partnerships are advantageous or disadvantageous (e.g., transaction costs).

Since nutrition-sensitive programming is at the heart of MSP collaboration on FSN, the report should explicitly address challenges with measuring nutrition-sensitive financial contributions. This was a topic at the G7 Food Security and Nutrition Technical Working Group meeting in Tokyo last October and the international community is still working on these challenges, so this report is an opportunity to add insight, evidence, and recommendations.

Are you aware of references, examples, success stories, innovative practices and case studies that could be of interest for the preparation of this report? What are the existing MSPs related to FSN that you consider more relevant and why?

Partnership is a key component of U.S. domestic nutrition assistance programs and our ending hunger efforts. Our partners include nonprofit, faith based, corporate, and governmental organizations that share our mission. USDA's Food and Nutrition Service helps our partners find ways to leverage federal support for local impact and gives them access to extensive information resources. Some partners are focused around advocacy, conducting research, or educating decision makers and the general public. Corporations often have branches and foundations that focus on social responsibility and philanthropic activities. This website https://www.fns.usda.gov/get-involved/partnerships describes FNS partnerships and how to get involved.

We note several existing types of MSPs such as: Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture, New Alliance for Food Security, and Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN).