HLPE consultation 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
During its 43rd Plenary Session (17-21 October 2016), the CFS requested the HLPE to produce a report on “Multistakeholder Partnerships to Finance and Improve Food Security and Nutrition in the Framework of the 2030 Agenda” to be presented at CFS45 Plenary session in October 2018.
As part of the process of elaboration of its reports, the HLPE is organizing a consultation to seek inputs, suggestions, and comments on the present V0 draft. This open e-consultation will be used by the HLPE to further elaborate the report, which will then be submitted to external expert peer-reviewers, before finalization and approval by the HLPE Steering Committee.
HLPE V0 drafts are deliberately presented early enough in the process – as a work-in-progress, with their range of imperfections – to allow sufficient time to give proper consideration to the feedback received so that it can play a really useful role in the elaboration of the report. It is a key part of the scientific dialogue between the HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee, and the rest of the knowledge community.
In order to enrich and illustrate the report with a variety of examples, participants are invited to submit concrete, practical, well-documented and significant case-studies of existing MSPs, as defined in the V0 Draft, through the use of the dedicated Questionnaire provided both as an annex to the V0 Draft, and as a separate editable word file.
The HLPE also encourages the submission of further material, references and evidence on the performance and impact of existing MSPs in the field of FSN.
In order to strengthen the report, the HLPE welcomes all the suggestions, including contributions regarding the following questions:
- 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? What are the constraints to raising funds for FSN?
- Is the structure of the report comprehensive enough, and adequately articulated? 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? Are there topics under-or over-represented in relation to their importance? Are any facts or conclusions erroneous or questionable? If any of these are an issue, please send supporting evidence.
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
We thank in advance all the contributors and we look forward to a rich and fruitful consultation on this early draft of the report.
The HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee.
- أقرأ 55 المساهمات
Dear HLPE, see our feedback in the attachment.
Kind regards,
Frank Mechielsen
Senior Programme Manager Sustainable Diets
Hivos
Case study "Uganda Food Change Lab" implemented by KRC with support from Hivos and IIED.
Dear HLPE,
Please find attached the case study template for SIANI, the Swedish International Agriculture Network Initiative.
Best regards,
Matthew Fielding
Page 50 complementary suggestions
Impact is conceptually distinct from effectiveness (Hulme, 2000). While effectiveness deals with short and medium term, immediate and intermediate direct outputs, impacts designate broader outcomes, ultimate results, including indirect and/or long-term, intended or unexpected. Those ultimate results are more affected by exogenous factors. In the context of improving or financing FSN, effectiveness could be measured, for instance, by the quantity of food provided through humanitarian assistance in a context of emergency, with regards to the initial target. Impact analysis would assess the improvement in FSN status of the vulnerable groups targeted by this humanitarian assistance.
One of the main debates in the literature on impact analysis and development projects focuses on attribution, meaning how to attribute specific impacts to specific actions and decisions. How to identify the specific direct and indirect contributions of a MSP to FSN and differentiate it from the effects of other exogenous factors, beyond its control? Some authors have developed techniques to identify and measure attribution (see Box 12). Others have questioned the feasibility and even the relevance of measuring attribution (Pawson, 2013), preferring to use impact analysis to understand the complex pathways involving many actors and factors leading to impacts, and to improve development practice instead (Roche, 1999).
Box 12
It would be interesting either to complete the box with the methods developed to understand impact pathways and to document contribution or to make another box on contribution analysis
Different methods to analyze impact: attribution or contribution ?
Randomized control trials (RCTs):
(Banerjee and Duflo, 2011).
Participatory Impact pathways analysis (PIPA, which is more a method to document contribution than attribution)
(first used in January 2006 in Ghana with seven projects funded by the Challenge Program on Water and Food)
ImpresS method (Hainzelin 2017 ; http://www.cirad.fr/en/content/download/12046/141801/version/2/file/Persp42+Hainzelin+ENG.pdf,
Barret et al. 2017 ; https://doi.org/10.19182/agritrop/00005)
Impact pathway (Douthwaite B., Kuby T., van der Fliert E., Schulz S., 2003. Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agricultural Systems, 78, 243–265.)
When evaluating the impact of MSPs for FSN, it might be important to clearly communicate which perspective is adopted: one more concerned with measuring the impact of MSP’s interventions or one more concerned with understanding the processes of change and how to improve MSP actions and activities. Put differently, there are both external changes to look for (more money raised; standards with more buy-in established) and also internal changes (such as trust among MSP participants rises; informal interaction among previously distant actors increases; etc.)
Dear HLPE,
Please find attached the case study template filled in for the 10YFP Sustainable Food Systems (SFS) Programme, in addition to the joint submission of the 10YFP SFS Programme Co-Leads that we have already submitted.
Best regards,
Patrick Mink
Dear HLPE,
Please find attached the joint submission of the Co-Leads (Department of Trade and Industry, South Africa; Federal Office for Agriculture, Switzerland; WWF; and Hivos) of the Sustainable Food Systems (SFS) Programme of the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production (10YFP). We welcome this timely report being prepared by the HLPE, and we very much appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback.
Best regards,
Patrick Mink
Senior Policy Officer
Federal Department of Economic Affairs,
Education and Research EAER
Federal Office for Agriculture FOAG
International Affairs, Sustainable Development, Food Systems Unit
Dear Sir, Dear Madam,
I found very interesting the draft document on the issue of Multistakeholders partnership for food security, which has been posted by the HLPE for consultation .
Cirad as a research organism is deeply involved in numerous partnerships and there is a growing initiative called "dP", for "dispositif en partenariat" in french and "platforms in partnership" in english, which I believe could be taken as one of the example for your study.
You will find attached the comments I dared to make on your document.
I gave a brief example of one of the 22 dP, the case of GREASE, but all the 21 others might have been presented for they are all along the same lines and participate, each of them addressing different aspects in different places around the world, to food security.
I will be too willing to contribute later on if you think it might be helpful for the process.
Sincerely yours
Jacques Pages
--
Attached please find the critique of the V0 of the Jan 2018 HLPE document on MSPs.
Warm regards,
Claudio
As an add on to my previous comment, I wanted to share a link to this recent work on Family Planning --a great example of the full set of analyses and activities for mobilizing resources--It is Health Policy Plus Attaining sustainable financing for Family Planning in SSA. Family planning, like nutrition, has been consistently underinvested in.
A very interesting document. Which reflects clearly the historical disconnect between « food security » on one hand and «nutrition » on the other. Coming from the nutrition world, I learnt a lot about other MSPs.
So far, MSPs have reflected the prevailing institutional set up and have been by and large sectoral. In the context of Agenda 2030 and given the need to address complexity, this is not good enough. We will need to get geography back in the picture and bring around the same table actors who are or should be engaged in sustainable territorial strategies.
Some of the MSPs I am familiar with are focussing on implementation, but in a previous phase the private sector stakeholders actually played a key role in supporting the design and promoting the policy or rationale for these interventions. Conflict of interest and power asymmetry are often obvious.
Funding is readily available for standard interventions that are presented as cost-effective and universal answers, and rarely provide sustainable solutions to local constraints. Short term magic bullets can have negative implications in the mid and long term in social, environmental and economical terms while they may serve the short and longer term interests of some of the stakeholders.
In several instances reference is made to “the UN system”. In my experience specialised agencies and funds have very different logics and respond to different constraints. This is the case for engagement with the private sector. The ability of funds to participate in and benefit from MSPs bears no comparison to that of specialised agencies. This in turn contributes to further imbalance within the UN system and a distortion of programmes and policies towards quick impact action and away from addressing resilience, sustainability and complexity.
تم إغلاق هذا النشاط الآن. لمزيد من المعلومات، يُرجى التواصل معنا على : [email protected] .