Consulta del HLPE sobre el borrador cero del informe Asociaciones entre múltiples partes interesadas para financiar y mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición en el marco de la Agenda 2030
Durante su 43ª Sesión Plenaria (17-21 de octubre de 2016), el Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial (CSA) solicitó al Grupo de alto nivel de expertos en seguridad alimentaria y nutrición (HLPE, por sus siglas en inglés) elaborar un informe sobre “Asociaciones entre múltiples partes interesadas (MSP, por sus siglas en inglés) para financiar y mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición en el marco de la Agenda 2030” que se presentará en la 45ª Sesión Plenaria del CSA en octubre de 2018.
Para preparar el proceso de redacción del informe, el HLPE está organizando una consulta para recabar aportaciones, sugerencias y comentarios sobre este borrador cero. Esta consulta electrónica abierta será utilizada por el HLPE para continuar elaborando el informe, que luego se enviará a colegas que harán de revisores expertos externos, antes de ser finalizado y aprobado por el Comité Directivo del HLPE.
Los borradores cero del HLPE (V0) se presentan deliberadamente con la suficiente antelación en el proceso -como un trabajo en curso, con sus imperfecciones- para dar tiempo suficiente a considerar adecuadamente los comentarios recibidos y que puedan desempeñar un papel realmente útil en la elaboración del informe. Es una parte fundamental dentro del debate científico entre el Equipo del Proyecto y el Comité Directivo del HLPE, y el resto de la comunidad científica.
Con el fin de enriquecer e ilustrar el informe con diversidad de ejemplos, se invita a los participantes a presentar estudios de casos concretos, prácticos, bien documentados y significativos de MSP existentes -tal como se definen en el borrador cero-, usando el Cuestionario específico que se proporciona como anexo al borrador cero, y por separado como fichero de Word editable.
El HLPE alienta también a presentar material, referencias y evidencias adicionales sobre el desempeño y el impacto de las MSP existentes en el campo de la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición (SAN).
Con el fin de reforzar el informe, el HLPE recibirá con satisfacción todas las sugerencias, incluidas las contribuciones con respecto a las siguientes preguntas:
- El objetivo del informe es analizar el papel de las MSP en la mejora y la financiación de la SAN. ¿Cree que este borrador está logrando el equilibrio correcto y ofrece suficiente espacio para financiar temas relacionados? ¿Cuáles son las dificultades para recaudar fondos para la SAN?
- ¿Es la estructura del informe lo suficientemente exhaustiva y está articulada adecuadamente? ¿Están los conceptos claramente definidos y se emplean de manera consistente en todo el informe? ¿Hay aspectos importantes que faltan? ¿Hay omisiones o lagunas importantes en el informe? ¿Los temas están excesiva o insuficientemente representados en relación a su importancia? ¿Existen hechos o conclusiones que puedan rebatirse o cuestionarse? Si considera que alguno es problemático, le rogamos envíe evidencias que lo justifiquen.
- El informe sugiere una clasificación de las MSP existentes en categorías amplias, a fin de identificar mejor los desafíos específicos y las recomendaciones concretas para cada categoría. ¿Considera que este enfoque es útil para identificar respuestas y actuaciones específicas en materia de políticas?
- El informe apunta a una metodología y criterios clave para describir y evaluar las actuales MSP. ¿Existen otras herramientas y metodologías de evaluación a las que se debería hacer referencia en el informe?
- El informe ha identificado algunas de las principales potencialidades y limitaciones de las MSP, con respecto a otros procesos que no involucran a múltiples partes interesadas. ¿Piensa que hay otros desafíos/oportunidades clave que deben ser incluidos en el informe?
- El último Capítulo analiza los factores internos y el entorno propicio que podrían contribuir a mejorar el resultado de las MSP para mejorar y financiar la SAN. ¿Podría aportar ejemplos específicos de políticas y programas exitosos o fallidos diseñados para conformar un entorno propicio que pueda contribuir a ilustrar y reforzar este Capítulo?
Damos las gracias por adelantado a todos los colaboradores y esperamos contar con una consulta productiva y fructífera sobre este borrador inicial del informe.
El Equipo del Proyecto y el Comité Directivo del HLPE
- Leer 55 contribuciones
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.
Esta actividad ya ha concluido. Por favor, póngase en contacto con [email protected] para mayor información.