Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Dear HLPE Secretariat,

please kindly find attached WFO’s contribution to the report on Multi-stakeholder Partnerships to Finance and Improve FSN in the framework of the 2030 Agenda.

Thank you very much and best regards,

Maria Giulia de Castro

World Farmers’ Organisation, WFO

From Susan Bragdon and Nora Meier, Quaker UN Office Geneva

Looking at the questions related to the potential controversies related to MSPs; the respective roles and responsibilities of public, private stakeholders and civil society in such partnerships: 

We strongly support Nora McKeon’s call that the HPLE study PPPs in this area before advocating for their use.  We also agree with Claudio Schuftan who says “By definition, PPPs, the accompanying mechanism of MSPs, create financial and/or other economic dependencies of public institutions on private sector actors and will thus invariably create an economic, and a social and institutional, incentive for public institutions to align their policies with the commercial interests of private sector actors. Such an alignment will always compromise the objectivity and independence of public institutions.”  

The rise of PPP as a tool has taken place in an increasingly globalized food system heavily influenced by a widespread belief in the primacy of the market and market-based systems for ensuring food security. This has been paired with a weakening of the public sector both in reality and in perception. Trade rules donor constraints can limit both the space and capacity for governing food systems.

The issue is not pro-private sector and anti-public sector of vice versa. It is about the appropriate roles and boundaries of each. The market and the private sector (industry) may provide some tools to achieve the objectives of food security, but they cannot by themselves fully satisfy the objectives related to food security and poverty alleviation.  The private sector is interested in markets, and in the market demand correlates with an ability to pay rather than to human need.  The private sector research aims to develop products for the most profitable markets, not the neediest users.  Markets don’t consider access to those most in need, distribution, research direction for the neediest, inequality, justice.   

Therefore, in addition to the need to examine PPP as a mechanism, we would like to add that there is a need for a better understanding of the:

· The role of the public sector, in particular the role it must play as a provider of goods and services in food security;

· The role of the private sector in providing food security; and

· The boundaries and appropriate relationship between the two.

At present, there does not appear to be a coherent understanding of the international architecture for food security, of what needs to be done by governments collectively, and the freedom governments need domestically to ensure the food security of their own populations without harming the needs of others. Given the current state of global food security, governments need to provide more than just an enabling environment for markets and the private sector.

We would like to see a reflection that governments play a critical, unique role in sustainable, national food systems and need to have both the space and capacity to act in the public interest.  This relates nicely with the calls from several commentators that the HPLE using a rights-based and duty-bearer lens for this work.   

Looking at the questions relating to who are the stakeholders:

We agree with concerns expressed by other commentators on the use of the term “stakeholder” and the need to make sure clear and rigorous definitions are understood and applied.  We would like to stress that one problem (often mentioned by Pat Mooney) with the term stakeholder is not every stakeholder has an equal stake.  For a small-scale farmer, decisions can be life and death, while for a corporation or company the “stake” may be in profits accrued or lost. 

Finally, looking at the question on how to ensure to all stakeholders a “fair” representation in multistakeholder decision making process:

We would like to make a comment about the need for farmer participation. We know to appropriately represent a country’s situation, there needs to be strong participation by the full range of farmers from different parts of the country. With information and time, better resourced large or medium-scale farmers are likely to be better equipped to participate. However, the situation will always be more difficult for the smaller and more marginalized farmers.

Achieving the participation of small-scale farmers in an equitable and comprehensive manner is far from straightforward. Social, cultural, and economic circumstances vary widely from household to household; most countries are highly heterogeneous ecologically; and the availability of inputs, distance from markets, access to information and technology, etc. all vary widely from one location to another. These factors combine to make small-scale farmers, indeed farmers in general, a highly diverse group.

The situation is exacerbated in that not only are farmers themselves highly diverse but so are the groups that seek to serve and represent their interests. These include such organizations as farmers’ unions, associations and cooperatives organized on a communal, provincial or national level, or along commodity lines. Developmental or other civil society organizations, many having a strong political agenda, may also seek to represent small-scale farmer interests.  

We would therefore like the HPLE to consider the need to more experimentation, experience and information sharing on the practicalities of how to secure the input of highly diverse farmer groups, and in particular small-scale farmers.

ASOCIACIONES ENTRE MÚLTIPLES PARTES INTERESADAS PARA FINANCIAR Y MEJORAR LA SEGURIDAD ALIMENTARIA Y LA NUTRICIÓN EN EL MARCO DE LA AGENDA 2030

 ¿Cuál es el rol de las  partes interesadas en la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición en el Perú a inicios del 2017 ?

Considerando que son los Estados, la sociedad civil, el sector privado, la comunidad las principales partes organizadas, en Perú se puede encontrar una realidad contrastante en su participación.

En Perú  el Estado ha venido realizando acciones, inclusive formando Ministerios para que se ejecuten programas que  tengan como objetivo principal el de sacar de la pobreza extrema  y desnutrición a las poblaciones más vulnerables. Trabajando articuladamente se han logrado  resultados alentadores en cuanto a algunos indicadores, pero existen otros que, de manera inmediata contradicen los avances como es el caso de la DCI  en relación a la anemia y TBC.

La Sociedad civil  mediante las diferentes organizaciones no gubernamentales  viene trabajando de manera focalizada especialmente en provincias y  ámbitos periurbanos de las principales ciudades, donde se aglomeran los migrantes en busca de mejores oportunidades, especialmente en las grandes ciudades como Lima, la capital del Perú que actualmente sobrepasa  los diez millones de habitantes. Sin embargo; ésta búsqueda de mejoría choca contra la dura realidad, la mano de obra no calificada es explotada, las personas realizan trabajos sin contar con seguridad social ni previsional, viven en asentamientos humanos alejados de las principales vías, generalmente en los cerros y arenales, en condiciones infrahumanas, hacinados en casuchas hechas con esteras, madera (triplay) calamina y cartones. No cuentan con servicios de electricidad, agua ni desagüe.

SECTOR PRIVADO

El sector privado, estaría en la perspectiva de ser uno de los causantes del alza del costo de vida y de la canasta alimenticia mínima, entre las razones de influencia, los principales factores son:

LIBRE COMERCIO

• Las  grandes cadenas de supermercados elevan los costos por los servicios que prestan.
• La   publicidad y marketing son factores que incrementan exageradamente los precios de los productos, los anuncios en los medios de comunicación, el auspicio  de los programas televisivos - muchos de ellos considerados “ basura”  por los formatos que presentan con alto contenido de violencia y banalidad – que conllevan a asumir altísimos costos  que son prorrateados definitivamente a través del consumidor final, de manera que estamos pagando más por etiqueta y envase que por contenido y calidad nutricional. Ejm:  Leche Gloria evaporada, es un producto de alto consumo, con más de 50 años en el mercado, no requiere publicidad. El incremento por el valor agregado es exorbitante:

Leche de vaca   1  LITRO   S/.  0.80  a   S/. 1.20  recolectado en  productor.

Leche evaporada  400 ml.  S/. 3.30 en Supermercado.

De la misma empresa proceden jugos envasados en cartones, con figuras de conocidos personajes  de Walt Disney  “ coleccionables “  la franquicia para el uso en los envases tiene un alto costo, y nadie colecciona una figura porque los envases van a la basura, sin embargo ya se elevó el costo para el consumidor que en éste caso son los niños.

LA EXPORTACIÓN

Hace más de una década, se empezó a exportar productos agropecuarios como:  espárragos envasados, luego páprika, aceitunas, actualmente se está incrementando la variedad de productos agrícolas, especialmente las frutas. Cada vez que un producto empieza a exportarse desaparece de la mesa de los peruanos, si queremos adquirirlos debemos pagar los mismos precios de exportación y no siempre son de la misma calidad, porque para el mercado interno se venden los productos que no pasaron el control de calidad.

Sucedió con el “boom” de la exportación de la quinua o quinoa, la cual es un cereal andino con alto contenido de aminoácidos esenciales y fuente de proteínas, base de la alimentación de la población del altiplano y sierra. Debido a las campañas del gobierno de Ollanta Humala, en el cual su esposa fue nombrada: “Embajadora de la Quinua” y premiada por UNICEF por la difusión internacional, el precio en el mercado interno se disparó de S/. 3.00/Kg  a  S/. 32.00, por lo que se alejó de la mesa de los peruanos. Actualmente sucede lo mismo con las frutas como: palta, uvas, chirimoyas y otras.

En éste tema, definitivamente las políticas de Estado están más preocupadas en mantener una balanza comercial en azul, pretendiendo un crecimiento mediante la exportación de productos no tradicionales, favoreciendo el enriquecimiento de los intermediarios, dejando de lado la prioridad de atender al mercado interno. Ni el campesino ni la población se benefician y aumenta la anemia, la TBC y los avances en la lucha contra la desnutrición son mínimos.

LA CONTAMINACIÓN

• Parque automotor en las ciudades, provocan la contaminación ambiental, porque permiten la circulación de vehículos en mal estado o antiguos que emiten  gases tóxicos, los que unidos a los humos de las empresas industriales, generan mayor polución.
• Los residuos y deshechos industriales  terminan en cloacas que desembocan en el mar.

Extracto de un artículo publicado en el diario: “El Comercio de Lima” el 29 de Junio de 2015 “Ventanilla sufre alta contaminación por plomo. Monitoreos del aire confirman que vecinos de zona industrial del distrito chalaco están expuestos a emisiones de plomo.  “Casi todos los días siento como si me exprimieran limón en los ojos”, dice Paula, una estudiante del primero de media del colegio particular Arturo Padilla, ubicado en plena zona industrial de Ventanilla, cerca del asentamiento humano Virgen de Guadalupe. El plomo esparcido en el aire en niveles tóxicos, generado por la actividad de varias empresas fundidoras de ese metal pesado que operan en el área, sería la causa de ese ardor.

La presencia del agente contaminante fue confirmada por el último monitoreo del aire realizado en la zona por la Dirección Regional de Salud (Diresa), entre el 20 de setiembre y el 6 de octubre del 2014. El estudio arrojó que los valores de plomo (1,55 microgramos por m3) y cadmio (0,32 microgramos por m3) sobrepasaban los máximos registros permitidos por la norma internacional (0,5 microgramos por m3 para plomo y 0,25 microgramos por m3 para cadmio). Actualmente el proceso está en manos del Ministerio del Ambiente.

En el ámbito rural: La contaminación del agua  y la tierra, causada por las actividades primarias de extracción de recursos mineros, de manera legal  o ilegal son los directos  responsables de que existan metales pesados en las cuencas principales como la del Lago Titicaca en la región Puno, llegando a incidir directamente en la salud de la población en general, pero álgidamente en los menores de cinco años de edad, quienes actualmente sufren de anemia, coincidentemente en las zonas donde se encuentran ubicados asentamientos mineros categorizados a nivel mundial. Por ejm. Puno  76% de anemia en menores de 5 años. El promedio nacional tampoco es alentador: 43.5%  al 2015 (Fte: INEI-ENDES)

LA CORRUPCIÓN

Altos índices de corrupción en los diferentes gobiernos desde hace más de 20 años, demuestran que el pueblo peruano ha pagado obras sobrevaluadas, concesiones, compras del estado, entre otras, por sumas que alcanzan varios miles de millones de soles que podrían haber servido para mejorar el nivel de vida de toda la población.

PERSPECTIVAS

Periódicamente los diferentes niveles de gobierno propician reuniones, eventos, cursos de capacitación, formulan voluminosos manuales y socializan acuerdos a nivel nacional e internacional, muestran cifras y compiten por supuesta eficiencia y aparentemente por logros en las metas previstas. La realidad es muy diferente, las cifras son las que hablan de la incapacidad de poder disminuir o erradicar – como lo hizo Cuba – la desnutrición crónica infantil, con lo que el futuro de éstas nuevas generaciones es más incierto aún que las anteriores.

Ante éste panorama urge que se tomen medidas entre los colegios profesionales para que, de manera organizada y articulada con los sectores de gobierno central, regional y local puedan erigirse en fiscalizadores del cumplimiento de los objetivos de los ODS.

Mg. Lily Dora Núñez de la Torre Caller

CNP  2136

La Molina, Lima – Perú

Enero 2017

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this eConsultation. The best way to better implement the goal  by giving education and awareness to stake holders involved. Food security.

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

With best regards

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?

Who are the stakeholders in food security and nutrition? [Note: This contribution is being made in the context of diet and physical activity interventions in the workplace.]:  A broad range of stakeholders have a legitimate interest in diet and physical activity interventions in the workplace. In addition to those that might naturally be considered to be stakeholders in workplace health activities – employers, employees, trades unions, company insurance funds and ministries of health and labour for example, other stakeholder groups need to be involved. These include private sector organisations representing the agricultural industry, food producers and retailers, and transport and leisure interests.

What are the interests and motivations of each stakeholder?: The fundamental question to be asked is: Why should any potential stakeholder wish to become involved in the promotion of health and well being in, and through, the workplace?” Several answers are possible, and in reality stakeholder involvement may well be based on a mixture of some or all of them. They include:

a)     altruism: we do it because we believe it is the right thing to do irrespective of cost.

b)     investment: we do it because we perceive that there will be a return on our investment. This can be tangible e.g. an employer might expect that sickness absence costs will diminish, and / or intangible – the workforce will see that we are a caring employer and commitment and morale might rise as a consequence.

c)     compulsion: we do it because we have been told we have to. The significant risk with this approach is that we will do the absolute minimum.

d)     lost opportunity : we do it because the potential benefits are so great that we cannot afford not to, or that our competitors are doing it, thus we must do the same to maintain our market position.

[Source: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/griffiths-stakeholder-involvement.pdf, accessed on February 14, 2017, Tuesday]

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?

How to define “multistakeholder partnership” for food security and nutrition?”: With multi-agency involvement, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between stakeholders and those agencies who may not be ‘stakeholders’ in the full sense of the word but who are working as partners in the intervention. To clarify the situation it is necessary to examine the meaning of the terms ‘stakeholder’ and ‘partner’. The term ‘stakeholder’ has numerous definitions, many of which are linked to the context in which the term is being used. Two general definitions are useful in this context – the first of these is that a stakeholder is a person or group with an interest, involvement or investment in something; and, in the second the word is used to describe people who will be affected by a project, or who can influence it, but who are not directly involved in doing the work. A partnership on the other hand is defined as a relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility, as for the achievement of a specified goal [Source: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/griffiths-stakeholder-involvement.pdf, accessed on February 14, 2017, Tuesday].

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?

Goals of multistakeholder partnerships (MSPs): In multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs), non-governmental actors (such as civil society organizations and companies) work with governmental actors (such as intergovernmental organizations and public donor agencies). The core idea is to build a “win-win situation” where public and private partners pool their resources and competencies to address common social or environmental aims more effectively. The most recent of the biennial UN resolutions on “Towards global partnerships” defines partnerships as “voluntary and collaborative relationships between various parties, both public and non-public, in which all participants agree to work together to achieve a common purpose or undertake a specific task and, as mutually agreed, to share risks and responsibilities, resources and benefits” [Source: https://www.un.org/ecosoc/sites/www.un.org.ecosoc/files/files/en/2016doc/partnership-forum-beisheim-simon.pdf, accessed on February 14, 2017, Tuesday].

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

There is no one -size-fits-all mode l or approach to building such global partnerships, and their form and function will need to reflect the unique features and requirements for success of each sustainable development challenge. Nevertheless, a set of overarching design principles can be identified to enhance the legitimacy, effectiveness and accountability of global MSPs [Source: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1738Global%20Multistakeholder.pdf, accessed on February 14, 2017, Tuesday].

What are the potential controversies related to MSPs?

a)     Imposing rigid and top-down ‘blueprint’ approaches and ‘conditionalities’ with respect to strategies and priority-setting, funding requirements and procedures, and implementation modalities - thereby undermining country ownership, and potentially distorting national and local development funding and investment priorities.

b)     Reinforcing a ‘sectoral’ and ‘projectized’ approach to development problems and solutions, thereby undermining the potential to address the drivers of systemic change and for scaling impact through a more programmatic approach.

c)     In vesting in sufficiently in building the structures needed to manage the complexity and challenges of working effectively across global, regional and national/local levels.

d)     Seeking to expand the development role of the private sector in MSPs without putting into place agreed rules and other measures to ensure private sector transparency and accountability.

e)     Power imbalances in the governance and operation of the MSP, and exclusion or lack of meaningful participation of stakeholders, in particular local actors.

f)      Lack of shared measurement systems; weak monitoring and impact evaluation; insufficient focus on learning and knowledge-sharing.

[Source: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1738Global%20Multistakeholder.pdf, accessed on February 14, 2017, Tuesday].

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?

a)     Establish a multistakeholder governance structure that is fit -for-purpose with respect to the MSP’s mission and governance and operational needs, including addressing up-front (as much as possible) issues around potential asymmetries of power and conflicts of interest.

b)     Invest in a multi-layered ‘backbone’ (support) infrastructure capable of managing the complexity of working at and across global, regional and national levels - with the national backbone as the hub for strategy, planning and implementation, and serving as a platform for facilitating national and local-level partnerships.

c)     Align with country priorities and work through national and local planning, budgeting and fund allocation systems in order to build genuine ownership and strengthen capacity, and to enhance the efficient and effective delivery of finance and other means of support.

d)     Advance integrated and results -driven approaches to development challenges through multi-stakeholder dialogue, country-based strategy frameworks and use of programmatic approaches.

e)     Combine the potential benefits of vertical funding models (e.g. pooling of diverse funding sources and blended finance; improved coordination and harmonization; and reduced fragmentation and duplication of efforts) with the benefits of horizontal funding models at national and local levels (e.g. ownership; subsidiarity; flexibility; and local empowerment - all of which can contribute to enhancing development impact).

f)      Support locally-controlled finance mechanisms where appropriate and feasible. While local funding mechanisms may not be suitable in all cases, global goals and targets that require local action need locally-accessible finance provided to locally-accountable organizations in order to succeed.

g)     Ensuring robust monitoring and evaluation to support learning and knowledge-sharing, evidence -based decision-making, and to strengthen accountability for results among all partners, public and private.

[Source: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1738Global%20Multistakeholder.pdf, accessed on February 14, 2017, Tuesday].

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?

a)     Create a platform for building consensus and trust between diverse stakeholders including women and marginalized and/or vulnerable groups.

b)     Enhance the quality and credibility of the multi-stakeholder self-assessment.

c)     Promote shared ownership by government and civil society.

d)     Increase transparency and accountability.

[Source: http://www.redd-standards.org/more/information-note-on-multistakeholder-processes/131-information-note-on-multistakeholder-processes-english/file, accessed on February 14, 2017, Tuesday].

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?

In recent years, the term “multi-stakeholder partnership” (MSP) has gained much currency in development circles, trouncing the popularity of Public-Private Partnerships (PPP). However, proof of successful practice in the realm of Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D) is scant as documented examples of truly effective MSPs are few. MSPs are about partnerships that are greater than the sum of its parts and about creating lasting and meaningful impact at all levels of action. They are meant to promote a more holistic approach to development and better governance. The concept of MSP as an instrument for achieving development goals is sound, particularly when stakeholders with unique complementary strengths or core competencies add value to development efforts and pool their resources and assets in solving problems. But while many laud the virtues of MSPs, most are struggling to make them work. The central challenge seems to revolve around the nurturing of a working relationship based on trust, mutual respect, open communication, and understanding among stakeholders about each other’s strengths and weaknesses. Stakeholders from each sector bring their own organisational mandates, interests, competencies and weaknesses to partnerships. Without open acknowledgement of these factors, and without processes in place to facilitate negotiations among stakeholders for optimal outcomes, effective MSPs will not emerge [Source: https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/2117.pdf, accessed on February 14, 2017, Tuesday]. 

Generally speaking, the questions reflect correctly the main issues proposed.

Regarding the questions to be addressed on HLPE e-consultation:

1. 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?

Multi-stakeholders are type public-private-people/civil society. They combine their resources and expertises; and all together (MS+resources)  are inputs in this process. Generally, they are already identified (see SFS-10YFP for instance).

2. 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?

In literature there is different approach about vocabulary. However, a suitable attention should be paid on definition of MSPs as actors, network or interactions/role in. Their functions as MSP  (especially for food security) is influenced by financial issues.

The major challenge is to build and strengthen this network through co-interest and motivation, and financial incentives come apart.

3. 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?

A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods seems to be appropriate in order to assess MSPs actions. Education, success stories as well as failures can contribute to an added value through information and behaviour changes.

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

Directly or indirectly MSs participate to development of the strategies and policies, no matters level (at all of them). The involvement of public actors is obviously higher.

5. What are the potential controversies related to MSPs?

Potential controversial topic may refer to unbalanced representation (as contribution, decision making, financial etc.). For instance, a multi-sectoral coordination can be a solution.

Alexandrina Sirbu

Professor, PhD -

"Constantin Brancoveanu" University

Romania

National Council on Food and Nutrition Security Suggestions to the Report on Multistakeholder Partnerships to Finance and Improve Food Security and Nutrition in the Framework of the 2030 Agenda

1. Concerning who are the stakeholders in food security and nutrition, it is important to contemplate the civil society. The interaction between government and civil society enriched food security and nutrition public policy of Brazil, besides achieving promising results in the fight against hunger and poverty. Brazil found original solutions to eliminate hunger and poverty, imposing to the State the obligation of implementing public policies that guarantee the fundamental rights of the human being: the right to minimum income, food, health, education and work. The Brazil’s main lessons from this dialogue in the social construction process of new governance for the public policies to reduce hunger and poverty and to promote the human right to adequate food were:

i) Systemic and intersectorial approach for the provision of public policies within the State;

ii) Civil society relevant role due to social participation formal mechanisms;

iii) Human rights framework in guiding the public policies formulation;

iv) Family and peasant agriculture, women, indigenous peoples and traditional communities seen as leading elements of food and nutritional sovereignty and security;

v) Primacy of traditional and agroecological forms of agricultural production respecting the rights of men and women to cultivate, conserve, use, exchange and sell creole seeds, preserve native foods, medicinal plants and the planet's biodiversity;

vi) About the family primacy, mentioned in section iv, must be added that its support in Brazil made possible to learn that it is not just a poverty reduction form, but also constitutes an action that generates a virtuous circle by producing a more diversified food production, protecting the environment and generating market and local economy. Therefore, this virtuous circle tends to improve nutrition: as food becomes healthier, there is a greater supply and diversity of nutrients, more local production systems are protected, traditional knowledge is valued, among other benefits.

2. The public–private partnerships might be consider, under certain conditions and prior regulation.  It is important to note that this report agenda requires technical expertise coupled with human rights principles political commitment. Therefore, it is essential to protect decisions from conflicts of interest and private sector interference. Otherwise, actors who lead to hegemonic and conflicting nutrition systems will continue to play a decisive role at the decision making process and it will become impossible to overcome challenges in this area of nutrition.

3. Within this context, public-private partnerships, if viable, require prior regulation in order to create mechanisms that place the primacy of collective interest over the interests of private sectors or groups (especially large and/or transnational corporations with high economic power). Food Security and Nutrition, even when financed by the private sector, must have full autonomy to recommend actions from the perspective of strengthening human rights, promoting healthy eating and preserving local food production systems. Therefore, it is relevant to protect decisions from conflicts of interest and interference from hegemonic sectors and violators of the human right to adequate food.

SUBSTANTIVE WORK OF WHO, PARTICULARLY IN RELATION TO HEALTH SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT, SHOULD COUNTER THE PRIVATIZATION AGENDA, BUT DOES IT?

1. Donor countries (the US in particular) continue to push WHO towards working with industry through ‘multi‐stakeholder partnerships’, rather than giving WHO the chance to implement regulatory and fiscal strategies that could make a real difference. (David Legge) Moreover, bilateral donors (and big philanthropies) demand WHO provides data according to their particular interests. Therefore, the types of data produced by WHO (and other UN agencies) are greatly influenced by a donor mandate that goes beyond the simple compilation of country-reported statistics. We know that donors seek to add value primarily through providing technical interventions (and not right to health or social determinants, for instance). So, here we are clearly faced with a biased stumbling block?(i) (Elizabeth Pisani, Maarten Kok)

(i): Consider: While economics is not WHO’s core expertise, the impact of poverty and income maldistribution on population health clearly justifies WHO working with other agencies within or outside the UN system to focus much more attention on these questions of disparity.

2. Things being the way they are right now, it is difficult to make sense of the shrinking scope of WHO’s role in global health governance, partly because of the ambiguity of the slogans about ‘stakeholders’ and the fait-accompli of ‘multistakeholder platforms’ and ‘public-private partnerships’ now used profusely. The continued use of the term ‘stakeholders’ (and the bundling together of public interest civil society organizations with international NGOs, private sector enterprises and philanthropies under the term ‘non-state actors’) appears to endow all of these private ‘stakeholders’ with having the right to have a ‘seat at the table’, with only the tobacco and arms industries declared off limits. Such ‘sitting rights’ sharply jeopardize the human rights enshrined in the various human rights (HR) instruments that address the rights of real people --the right to health prominently included.(ii) (D. Legge)

(ii): It is important to note that the treatment of WHO by the rich countries is part of a wider onslaught on the UN system generally. The whole UN system is held hostage to short-term, unpredictable, tightly earmarked donor funding. The same strategies of control have been applied across the UN system generally through: freezing of countries’ assessed contributions, tightly earmarking voluntary contributions, and creating dependence on private philanthropy, as well as periodic withholding of assessed contributions and applying continued pressure to adopt the multi‐stakeholder partnership model of program design and implementation that, as said, gives global corporations an undeserved ‘seat at the table’.

3. The Reform of WHO, aimed at realizing the vision of its Constitution, will require a global mobilization around the urgently needed democratization of global health governance; and this is not separate from, but part of, a global mobilization for HR and greater equity. Why? Because to claim that global health governance is somehow independent of global economic and political governance, is simply absurd. Nonetheless, such claims, still voiced by many, play an important political role for them in that they help to obscure the vested interests and power relations at play in the constraining (shackling) of WHO. (D. Legge)

Is WHO tinkering with a bureaucratic model inherited from the postwar era?

4. WHO actually seems strangely detached from the broader political turmoil unfolding around the world. Globalization has created new collective health needs that cross old spatial, temporal and political boundaries. In response, we need global health governance institutions that represent the many, not the few; are sufficiently agile to act effectively in a fast-paced world, on top of being capable of bringing together the best ideas and boundary-shattering knowledge available. (Kelley Lee)

5. WHO may point to its 193 member states and claim to be universally representative, but it is far from politically inclusive. Like the political alienation felt by millions around the world, many members of the global health community have turned elsewhere to move issues forward and get things done. What we see is a steady decline of WHO, clinging furiously to obsolete political institutions and bureaucratic models, yet kept alive by member states as an essential public institution. This decline is not because WHO is not needed, but because it has not adapted to and is not publicly financed for a changing world; it is not the WHO that we need today. (K. Lee)

6. Political innovation must become a fundamental part of the process of WHO reform. Think: How might virtual and interactive town halls improve communication between global health policy-makers and the constituencies they serve? How might the closed world of global policy-making be opened up and strengthened through virtual public consultations, feedback systems and monitoring systems --all of them also aiming at reforming WHO? How might the concept of global citizenship become institutionalized within our global health institutions, especially WHO? (K. Lee)

Prescribing “LEGO models’?

1. Otherwise, in the first decade of the new millennium, donors have pushed for increases in development assistance for health, yes, but in particular for medicines. This has clearly contributed to the re-legitimation of the ‘free trade agenda’ in health and has strengthened intellectual property (patents) protection regimes with their well-known negative consequences. Furthermore, in that development assistance, the mantra they preach to recipient countries is the one called ‘realistic costing of outputs’ that prescribes a LEGO model of program implementation, i.e., with each program comprising a set of planned outputs each of which comprises a known number of prescribed activities all of which have known costs. This approach leaves little, if any, room for flexibly managing complexity in planning and carrying out program implementation.(iii) (D. Legge)

(iii): WHO is made wary of prolonged project implementation processes, in part because they disrupts the ‘production schedule’ demanded by its paymasters. (Elizabeth Pisani, Maarten Kok)

8. What is missing from the whole discourse is carrying out a robust analysis of the root causes of the preventable global disease burden. Only this will provide clearer criteria regarding which ‘stakeholders’ (duty bearers in the proper HR lingo) are part of the problem and which are part of the solution --and therefore which of them can be trusted to have a seat at the table. Human rights principles provide such criteria and so does the WHO report on Social (and political) Determinants of Health of 2008.(iv) (D. Legge)

(iv): The importance of non-medical factors is largely recognized as being a key predictor of health. In 2008, the WHO Committee on Social Determinants of Health stated: “Social injustice is killing people on a grand scale and constitutes a greater threat to public health than a lack of doctors, medicines or health care services”. The general conditions under which people live and work thus have a major impact on health outcomes. These social determinants of health further comprise, among other, the structural determinants of socioeconomic development, working conditions, education, housing, sex and high-risk behavior… What this implies is that health care is just one of the factors to influence health and can, therefore, only be considered part of the solution. (Koen Detavernier)

9. The influence/control of donors over ministries of health in the South is nowhere more evident than in having kept any possibility of these ministries focusing on the human rights based approach in their agenda beyond mere lip service. Instead ministry officials keep pushing the newest slogans such as ‘universal health coverage’, ‘development assistance ‘and public-private partnerships’ that, in essence, are part of a common agenda consistent with the program of the 1% richest. They thus speak for the priorities of the 1% perhaps not realizing that they do so from within a worldview that accepts as natural and unchanging the global inequalities, the environmental degradation and the beneficence of private enterprise. (D. Legge)

Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City

Thank you for the invitation to comment on draft terms of reference

Please find below four general comments on the draft TOR, a comment on the governance aspect of MSPs, and a recommendation about how to better hand the financing aspect of MSPs.

Multistakeholder partnerships (MSPs) combine resources and expertise of different actors, which has made them attractive as a way to address complex issues that cannot easily be solved by a single actor. MSPs are identified in SDG 17 (in particular articles 17.6 and 17.7) as a central tool in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. They will be key in sharing experiences, technologies, knowledges, and in mobilising domestic and foreign, public and private resources, in line with the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) and with the CFS principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food systems (CFS-RAI).

The report shall explore the notion of multistakeholder partnerships related to food security and nutrition, looking at both processes and outcomes. The report shall assess the effectiveness of MSPs in realizing their objectives, in financing and improving FSN outcomes, as well as their contribution to the governance of food systems. The report shall suggest methods to map the different categories of MSPs, and criteria to assess them against the objective of improving their contribution to FSN in the framework of the 2030 Agenda.

The report shall address the following questions:

·         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?

·         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?

·         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?

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

·         What are the potential controversies related to MSPs?

·         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?

·         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?

·         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?

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

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?

The report shall provide a concise and focused review of the evidence-base, coming from diverse forms of knowledge and suggest concrete recommendations directed to different categories of stakeholders, in order to contribute to the design of policies, initiatives and investments required for MSPs to contribute to successfully finance and implement the 2030 Agenda.

On the basis of the analysis, the report will identify the conditions of success of MSPs and elaborate concrete, actionable, actor-oriented policy recommendations to fuel CFS policy discussions in October 2018.

Four general comments

(1) a ‘concise and focused review’ – There are far, far too many topics to present a concise and focused review. If each bullet is given a chapter, the report would have eight chapters, but within some bullets there are additional topics

(2) Some of the topics in a single bullet do not really relate to each other. For example, the first bullet seeks a definition of ‘stakeholder’, a summary of interests and motivations of each type of stakeholder, an analysis of responsibility of each stakeholder, and a proposal for how to keep each category of stakeholder engaged in the process.  

(3) The terms of reference should address and analyze separately – governance, effectiveness, efficiency, responsibilities and liabilities, financial contributions,  political-economic context of MSPs by sector, relation of FAO to each MSP and vice versa, downside risk factors and MSP accountability to beneficiaries

(4) Attention should be given to difference between ‘stakeholder categories’ and the particular ‘organizational/individual stakeholder’ representing each stakeholder category. The current terms of reference unwisely uses the terms interchangeably.

As my current research interests are in the governance aspects of MSPs and financing for sustainable development, let me raise a couple of suggestions for the TOR

Re the governance aspects of MSPs

The first question in the first bullet and the seventh question are not really helpful. Everyone, who eats lunch or alternatively does not have one meal a day, is a ‘stakeholder’ in food security and nutrition. Responses then to the first question too quickly come down to how to designate ‘representatives’ for categories of food-security-and-nutrition stakeholders with little regard how these ‘representatives’ would communicate their appointed categories. Responses to the seventh question assume that all of these people could have ‘fair’, ‘meaningful’ and ‘effective’ participation in all MSPs. And one still needs to incorporate somehow corporate institutions as food-security-and-nutrition stakeholders.

It would be more useful to separate out (a) MSPs that provide advice to Governments at the FAO; (b) MSPs that are focused on a particular sector-based problem; (c) MSPs that are focused on delivering a project in a developing country; and (d)  MSPs which are setting socially responsible global food market standards (e.g. Marine Stewardship Council-type organizations).

Each of these four types of MSPs could well involve different stakeholder category and different combination of individual stakeholders.

Re the financing contributions from MSPs

·         Re the financing  as expressed in the following expressions (i.e. “existing types of partnerships for financing … food security and nutrition”, “respective contributions of each [public, private stakeholders and civil society] in the financing and improvement of FSN?” ; “? What incentives mechanisms and legal and financial tools could be the most effective”)

The way the concept of ‘financing’ is presented suggests that the TOR is looking principally at FDI or philanthropy oriented financial resources. The potential ways that the economic foundation for a solid food security and nutrition system could involve maybe eight to ten quite different financing mechanisms. These financial mechanisms could range from discounts on agricultural loan rates to ecosystem price payments for good water management and from corporate underwriting of relevant R&D to family-based subsidies to local farmers. For a study of a MSPs and financing, the net effect of these vastly different financing systems include (a) the difficulty – really the inability – to aggregate the different forms of capital movement, (b) balancing the internal power relationships inside the MSP to compensate for differences in access to capital by individual stakeholders, and (c) insuring that competitive pressures between MNCs does not allow a particular MNCs to take commercial advantage of their participation in an FAO-sponsored MSP.  In short then my recommendation is that a future TOR explore the relationship between the multiple forms of financing and MSPs and that this topic not be buddle into the 2018 report.   

Observing that the deadline was extended, we would like to resubmit the PSM contribution with a small addition, which you will find in the first page as the 3rd bullet point.