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

Dear HLPE Steering Committee

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the scope of the upcoming HLPE report. Attached please find a document with our comments.

Kind regards

Donald Moore

Executive Director

Global Dairy Platform Inc 

Dear drafting experts,

As many persons working in the health and food arena, I find it extremely important to clarify how to best finance initiatives meant to protect, promote and respect peoples’ human rights to food and adequate nutrition, as well as freedom from hunger. It is from this standpoint, that I am offering some constructive criticism of the draft.

While the draft Scope contains many pertinent questions, I am somewhat concerned about the overall title of the forthcoming HLPE report as well as the some of its questions. Some of my concerns are of an analytical origin, others are of a more political nature.

Correction

Let me first correct a small point. It seems to me that this is not about SDGs 17.6 & 17.7

but about 17.16 & 17.17 which state under the Heading Multi-stakeholder partnerships that those who want to work for the SDGs 2030 should:

17.16

Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries

17.17

Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships. (emphasis added)

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg17, accessed 31 January 2017

My comments are first about the fact that the Draft Scope, as currently phrased, cannot lead to an unbiased, scientifically rigorous evaluation of MSP arrangements and the MSP paradigm.

What are “multistakeholder partnerships”? – Need to clarify the object of study

When the partnership paradigm came up, and when the term multi-stakeholder initiatives and public-private partnerships were still used as synonyms, some researchers, including myself, have investigated the question.

An UNRISD Report found in 2003 that this word was primarily a buzzword, and that the word was used primarily for close, rather than arms-length relationships  (Zammit 2003)

There have been recommendation to clearly distinguish between

-          the partnership paradigm (the

-          And specific PPPs/MSIs categories and individual PPPs/MSIs. (Zammit 2003 & Richter, various publications)

There are still many questions concerning the stated benefits of both, the paradigm and specific PPPs/MSIs. And there are increasing concerns about the reshaping of our global health and nutrition governance architecture along the plans of the World Economic Forum’s Global Redesign Initiative into what is called global “multi-stakeholder governance.”

Problematic is that many UN documents and assessments do not seem to not take such critiques into account. In other words, there seems to be, a non-evidence based, overly positive assessment.

An implicit value statement has slipped, for example, into the draft’s opening sentence:

“Multistakeholder partnerships (MSPs) combine resources and expertise of different actors, which has made them attractive as a way to address complex issues that cannot be easily solved by a single actor.”

It would need to be replaced by a discussion how MSPs and stakeholders are actually defined. Concretely, the questions to be answered are:

What is the current official UN definition of MSPs?

What is the current UN definition of stakeholder?

That of the former UN SG Kofi Annan who defined stakeholders  in 2000 as "those individuals and groups that have an interest, or take an interest, in the behaviour of a company... and who therefore establish what the social responsibility of a company entails."

Of that of a Novartis-funded publication, which in 2002, during the run-up to the Rio + 10 Conference on the Environment and Sustainable Development, redefined the term stakeholder, as "those who have an interest in a particular decision, either as individuals or as representatives of a group.” (more cf. Richter 2003, pp. 19 ff)

There is no time for further discussion of the problems of the terminology. I would recommend, to replace MSPs by multi-actor initiatives, and “partners” and “stakeholders” by actors or more specific terms  to permit a more neutral assessment of the various types of initiatives currently lumped together under the term MSPs.

This could be complemented by a note that stakeholders in the original sense have meanwhile been replaced officially be the term human rights holders.

There is also a need

- to review all questions for potentially implicit positive bias

e.g. question No 1 only refers to “how to attract and retain” partners. In WHO debates and policies the question was often: how to have, and actually implement, a “sunset clause” for PPPs and MSIs that do not work (see e.g. my consultancy for the former WHO DG).

This and similar questions would to be added.

- rethink questions which risk to end up giving TNCs and venture philanthropies more influence in processes where they do not belong:

e.g. “how to ensure to all stakeholders a “fair” representation….”

There is a need to review the controversies related to the appropriate/legitimate role of TNCs and rich funders/funding agencies in public and scientific decision making processes.

- Collect not only success stories but also accounts of failures and summarise the broader concerns over the ‘stakeholderization’ of health and nutrition governance and programmmes.  In other words, the report should not only identify “conditions of success” of MAIs – but also investigate, where the stakeholder discourse and arrangements have created problems and make summarise some of the suggestion to prevent this from happening.

Entirely missing in the draft is reference to Conflict of interest issues

Yet, the ICN2 FFA, refers to them under “Recommended actions to create anenabling environment for effective action,….

Recommendation 3:

Strengthen and establish, as appropriate, national cross

-government, inter-sector, multi-stakeholder mechanisms for food security and nutrition to oversee implementation of policies, strategies, programmes and other investments in nutrition. Such platforms may be needed at various levels, with robust safeguards against abuse and conflicts of interest.” (emphasis added) http://www.fao.org/3/a-mm215e.pdf

Thus the experts would need to investigate, e.g.:

Which are the “robust safeguards against abuse and conflicts of interest”? which are mentioned as a precondition of MSIs to not undermine public policy making?

What are the CoI issues and other concerns related to MSPs?

In particular, what CoI issues are related to the notion of funding public agencies and programmes with private funding? What has been done to prevent that private funders get influence in return?

This would include the question how to prevent that the SUN Reference Note and Learning Exercise, which developed a very problematic CoI concept, risk to undermine national CoI policies where they exist.

It would also entail whether institutional CoI might be better examined as issues of institutional corruption/corrosion as done in the work of Jonathan Marks.

Thank you for considering these suggestions. Wishing you much stamina for giving justice to the relevant issues.

Judith Richter PhD

For further references, see e.g.my publications under http://www.ibme.uzh.ch/de/ethik/team/affiliiert/judithrichter.html

(The 2016 slide show on conflicts of interest contains further references on CoI in the food and nutrition arena in its annotation.)

Please find attached input from Hivos, the Netherlands.

Dear FSN Forum,

Please find attached FIAN International's contribution to the e-discussion on the scope of the MSP report.

Best wishes,

Laura Michéle

Dear moderator,

We thank you for the opportunity to provide an input for this timely report. Please find our feedback in the attached document.

Best regards,

Patrick Mink

I attach a submission by Compassion in World Farming

Please let me know if you would like a referenced version of our submission

Different food systems provide different food and nutrition options; On annual basis the food and nutrition requirements vary everywhere creating imbalances on the FSN

Finally in the face of climate change, increased human population and competition for natural resources for other infrastructural among other development interests;

In the context of 2030 Agenda, could the report capture strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities to realization of FSN in varying food systems?  

The text below provides some initial reflections as a means of contribution to the E-Consultation on the Scope of the abovementioned Report

1. Scope of the Report – The scope of the report is most pertinent in light of the various dimensions and goals of the SDG 2030 Agenda. The report could further aim to push the scope of its exploration to actual FSN outcomes in specific key priority countries, which are high burden countries on undernutrition and food insecurity.

2. Questions – The questions do correctly reflect some of the main issues to be covered. Some thoughts & questions which could shape further groups or categories of questions are:

• What is is that is positively specific / unique about MSP on FSN at national, regional and global levels that must influence the future way MSPs can / should be shaped / delivered??
• What are the principles of good practice in the FSN MSP that truly work? What is it that can be mapped out as success factors to be used in the future as transformational aspects of MSPs?
• How can FSN MSP contribute for increased power from southern based partners and key participants? How can the MSP contribute for increased social mobilisation led by those affected by undernutrition and food insecurity?
• What are the gaps and the existing good practices in the art and science of facilitating and managing effective MSPs, at national, regional and global levels?
• How can Nutrition Governance success factors help shape MSPs for sustainable development?
• What can the latest thinking and action on partnering and multi sector partnerships help in shaping recommendations for future MSPs
• Are Development (International and national) prepared for adequate interaction and work through multisector collaboration? Is the existing space for multisector collaboration resourced with the finance, skills, drive to succeed? If not, what is it that it takes /what is it that needs to happen and how??
• In its scope, suggestions, action points, and recommendations, will the report need to break down
• How can MSPs guarantee / enable that effort, coverage and quality reaches where is needed the most?

3. Case studies / Success Stories –  below is a list of various (and random) case studies and success stories to follow; it will be important that with the reflection on various of these and others, the report highlights what are truly transformational MSPs in the FSN sector, and what is ‘business as usual’ with a ‘trendy’ name:

• Good nutrition governance practice examples can inform this report: for example the success stories of Brazil, Peru, Bangladesh among others as documented by the Institute for Development Studies, Action Against Hunger and others portray much of nutrition governance; and so does the Global Nutrition Report
• Scale Up Nutrition Initiative, among others, needs to be followed and recommended upon – at global and country levels; what are the various perspectives / perceptions of those partners being part of the SUN? and how have results been achieved through SUN which could not have been otherwise?
• Other Case Studies of MSPs: Integrated Seed Sector Development; System of Rice intensification in Cambodja; the World’s Economic Forum vision for Agriculture: Grow Africa and Grow Asia; Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture; Power of Nutrition; the emerging No Wasted Lives coalition
• Some National based MSPs: in Tanzania where I currently work for example there is SAGCOT
• National Government Food and Nutrition Action plans / Strategies that contemplate MSPs: such as the Tanzanian very new Multisectoral Nutrition Action plan (2016-2021); the Nepal MSNP; and others  – What have been ? arebeing the MSP experiences under these frameworks?
• GAIN has a business model of working in MSPs – are there good learnings and practice driving from that which can be replicated?

I trust you find some of the above useful,

Kind regards

Mariana Merelo Lobo

International Humanitarian and Development Practitioner | Action, Learning and Facilitation through Collaborative Change

Partnership Brokers Association Associate

Action Against Hunger International Country Representative in Tanzania (part time) | International Development and Humanitarian Consultant (Part Time)

Email: [email protected] | Skype: marianamerelolobo | Mobile: +255 759 349 521

- Partnerships between local government and civil society can be very useful in building local food systems, especially through Local Food Policy Councils

- SDG 12 on responsible production and consumption finds its natural echo in Community Supported Agriculture, where there is a direct relationship between producers and consumers that enables farmer-led prices that support decent livlihoods for the producer, and access to affordable nutritious food leading to social inclusion and improved eating habits for consumers. The concept of agroecology also includes revisitng the traditional producer-consumer relationship

- Public procurement policies that favour groups of local small-scale agroecologically grown food producers also support responsible production and consumption, as well as ensuring nutritious fresh food forchildren/those in hospitals/homes for the elderly.

- All of the above relocalise food systems and therefore contribute to SDG 13, the fight against climate change.

Contribution from Italy

Lesson Learned “Multistakeholder partnerships for improving the nutritional characteristics of food products".

Overweight and obesity are a public health problem whose solution cannot be entrusted exclusively to the health care system: the potential recipe for success in the reformulation of food products favoured by children requires cross-cutting, multi-sector interventions, with close cooperation between health authorities and the food industry.

We started from Vienna Declaration on Nutrition and Noncommunicable Diseases in the Context of Health 2020 n. 5 …  (requires the widespread and active engagement of all relevant sectors and players and their engagement in whole-of-government, whole-of-society and health-in-all-policies approaches is crucial. Policy options for governments to consider include production, consumption, marketing, availability, access, economic measures and education-based interventions, taking into account the cultural dimensions of nutrition), the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Agenda 2030 (need to invent governmental and multi-stakeholder coalitions for implementation, and recognizes the necessity to the food manufacturing sector has launched a series of voluntary initiatives in which each producer has set goals and targets).

As part of a broader initiative to fight childhood overweight and obesity, we have identified several product categories (baked goods, cereals, and sweets; non-alcoholic drinks; and dairy products and ice cream) for which the food industry commits to reducing sugar, saturated fat, trans fatty acids, and salt, together with a constant effort to modify serving sizes and provide additional information on labels.

This is a multistakeholders approach (win-win strategy) that we have defined the “Shared objectives for improving the nutritional characteristics of food products, with a particular focus on children (3-12 years)”, in which the commitments made so far are important to achieve the goal of improving the nutritional characteristics of food products, but it is essential that the effort to study and design new formulations continue to be pursued, together with the dissemination of a culture that promotes healthy lifestyles from an early age.

http://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_pubblicazioni_2426_ulterioriallegati_ulterioreallegato_0_alleg.pdf