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

Consultations

Consultation sur la version V0 du Rapport: Partenariats multipartites pour le financement et l’amélioration de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition dans le cadre du Programme de développement durable à l’horizon 2030

Au cours de sa quarante-troisième session plénière (17-21 octobre 2016), le CSA a chargé le HLPE d’élaborer un rapport sur «Partenariats multipartites pour le financement et l’amélioration de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition dans le cadre du Programme de développement durable à l’horizon 2030», lequel sera présenté en octobre 2018 à la quarante-cinquième session plénière du CSA.

Dans le cadre du processus d’élaboration de ses rapports, le HLPE organise une consultation pour solliciter vos contributions, suggestions et commentaires sur la version V0 du rapport. Le HLPE utilisera les résultats de cette consultation  pour améliorer le rapport qui sera ensuite soumis à une révision par des experts externes avant l’approbation de la version finale par le Comité directeur du HLPE.

Les versions V0 des rapports du HLPE sont délibérément présentées à un stade précoce du processus, comme des documents de travail, pour laisser le temps nécessaire à la prise en compte des  observations reçues, de façon à ce que celles-ci soient réellement utiles à l’élaboration du rapport. Ce processus de consultation est une partie essentielle du dialogue scientifique entre l’équipe du projet HLPE, le Comité directeur, et la communauté du savoir dans son ensemble. 

Afin d'enrichir le rapport et de l'illustrer d'exemples variés, les participants sont invités à soumettre des études de cas concrètes, pratiques, bien documentées et significatives de partenariats multipartites existants, tels que définis dans la version V0 du Rapport, en utilisant le questionnaire spécifique fourni à la fois comme annexe à la V0 du Rapport et comme document séparé (fichier Word éditable).

Le HLPE encourage également la présentation d'autres documents, références et éléments de preuve sur les activités et l'impact des partenariats multipartites en matière de sécurité alimentaire et de nutrition.

Pour renforcer l’ensemble du rapport, le HLPE accueille toutes les  suggestions, liées notamment aux questions suivantes :

  1. Ce rapport a pour but d'analyser le rôle des partenariats multipartites dans l'amélioration et le financement de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition. Pensez-vous que ce projet parvient à atteindre un juste équilibre et à donner suffisamment d’importance aux sujets liés au financement? Quelles sont les contraintes qui entravent la collecte de fonds pour la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition ?
  2. La structure du rapport est-elle assez complète et adéquatement articulée ? Les concepts sont-ils clairement définis et utilisés de façon cohérente tout au long du rapport? Y a-t’ il des aspects importants qui aient été omis ? Y a-t’ il d’importantes omissions ou lacunes dans ce rapport ? Y a-t’ il des sujets insuffisamment abordés ou surreprésentés par rapport à leur importance ? Y a-t’ il des faits ou des conclusions erronés ou contestables? Si l'un ou l'autre de ces problèmes se pose, veuillez nous faire parvenir des preuves à l'appui.
  3. Dans le rapport, il est proposé de classer les partenariats multipartites existants en grandes catégories de façon à  mieux cerner les défis spécifiques et à formuler des recommandations concrètes pour chaque catégorie. Trouvez-vous cette démarche utile pour définir les réponses politiques et les mesures spécifiques à adopter ?
  4. Le rapport suggère une méthodologie et des critères de référence pour décrire et évaluer les partenariats multipartites existants. Existe-t-il d'autres outils et méthodologies d'évaluation qui devraient être mentionnés dans le rapport?
  5. Le rapport a relevé certaines des principales potentialités et limites des partenariats multipartites prenantes multiples, par rapport à d'autres processus non multilatéraux. Pensez-vous que d'autres défis/opportunités clés doivent être abordés dans le rapport?
  6. Le dernier chapitre analyse les facteurs internes et l'environnement favorable qui pourraient contribuer à améliorer la performance des partenariats multipartites en matière d'amélioration et de financement de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition. Pouvez-vous donner des exemples précis de politiques et de programmes conçus pour façonner un tel environnement propice, ayant réussi ou échoué, qui pourraient permettre d'illustrer et d’étayer ce chapitre?

Nous remercions d’avance toutes les personnes qui vont lire et commenter cette première version de notre rapport et nous proposer leurs contributions. Nous espérons que cette consultation sera féconde et enrichissante.

L'équipe du projet HLPE et le Comité de pilotage.

Cette activité est maintenant terminée. Veuillez contacter [email protected] pour toute information complémentaire.

*Cliquez sur le nom pour lire tous les commentaires mis en ligne par le membre et le contacter directement
  • Afficher 55 contributions
  • Afficher toutes les contributions

Sara J. Scherr

EcoAgriculture Partners
United States of America

Dear Colleagues,

Congratulations for producing an initial draft of the report on multi-stakeholder platforms.  I read it with interest and there is strong material there. I was disappointed, though, to find little in the report on multi-stakeholder platforms that are organized around broader themes but strongly inclusive of food security.  This seems like a particular gap, given the impetus of the Sustainable Development Goals toward integrated strategies, and the effects on food security of sectoral activities in agriculture, forestry, health, land health, water quality, etc.

In particular, I hope that the next draft of the report will include reference to multi-stakeholder platforms that have been proliferating worldwide for ‘integrated landscape management’. A survey of 420 such initiatives in sub-Saharan African, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe and South/Southeast  Asia. In the Southern  regions,  38-40% of initiatives (by region) had achieved major impacts on agricultural yields and  42-69% had achieved major impacts on food security. Food security was one of the objectives in 77% of these initiatives, and the most important of multiple objectives in 18.2%  of the initiatives.

EcoAgriculture and partners in the Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative have produced a number of synthesis papers  that include literature  and field examples. Seewww.ecoagriculture.org and www.peoplefoodandnature.org.

Practitioner-oriented material include  Heiner, et  al 2017 a conveners’ guide for facilitators of MSPs for ILM; Denier et al 2015 –a primer on ILM, Buck and Scherr 2014 on ILM and resilience for food-insecure, and Forster and Getz 2014 on city-regions as landscapes. I attach these in this email and the following.

Louise Buck and I at EcoAg, and colleagues at  ICRAF are currently finishing a journal article that provides a framework for incorporating natural resource and environment elements in analysis of food security and using ILM to enhance food security for vulnerable groups, with a case study from Laikipia, Kenya. We can share that with you in the next round of review. ICRAF, CIRAD, FAO and others have excellent related analytical work and case studies.

Best regards,

Sara

Sara J. Scherr, PhD

President, EcoAgriculture Partners

Chair, Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative

1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Suite #601

Washington, D.C. 20036

USA

Attachments:

http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/cfs-hlpe/sites/cfs-hlpe/files/files/multistakeholder-partnerships/City-Regions-as-Landscapes-for-People-Food-and-Nature%202014.pdf

http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/cfs-hlpe/sites/cfs-hlpe/files/files/multistakeholder-partnerships/Managing-for-Resilience-Buck-and-Bailey-2014.pdf

https://ecoagriculture.org/publication/public-private-civic-partnerships-for-sustainable-landscapes/

https://globalcanopy.org/sites/default/files/documents/resources/GCP_LSLB_English.pdf

Dick Tinsley

Colorado State University
United States of America

I have been glancing over the reference article, which made me wonder if it would be beneficial to start the conversation on a somewhat provocative note, in the hope that it will lead to some out-of-the-box thinking and more effective approach to addressing the important concerns of food security and nutrition. As I read the material it appeared to represent the traditional approach that research goes directly to extension/education and once learned acceptance will follow automatically, and that your impoverished intended beneficiaries have sufficient discretionary control over their fate to readily accept the results. If you think about it, that really represent a rather absurd assumption perhaps coming from a very superficial understanding of the plight of impoverished smallholder farmers or casual laborers.

As an agronomist let me start with food security which very quickly links to nutrition. The major concern here is not the knowledge of good agronomic practices, nor the possible limited access to production inputs, but the limited operational capacity of the farmers for timely implementation of the crop management. This very quickly come a matter of calorie energy balance. While we acknowledge that smallholder farmers are poor and hungry, rarely do we factor that as a major drag on their farming activities. A more detailed look might indicate most smallholders have access to about 2000 kcal perhaps up to 2500 kcal/day. This barely meets basic metabolism requirements and limits the diligent daily effort to a couple hours a day. Ask them to do more and it would be classified as genocide. Now, if it takes 300 diligent person hours, mostly men, to manually cultivate a hectare of land, how long will it take these undernourished farmers to prepare a hectare of land? Would it be as much as 8 weeks, nearly half way through a rainy season? How much decline in potential yield would this delay result in? Would it be possible to manual hoe one’s way to food security and a balanced diet? Or would the need to for caloric energy take priority as the only means to optimize the economic opportunity? Under these typical and dire circumstance would the most effective action be to look at how to reduce the overall drudgery, increase the return to labor? Could this be done by promoting and facilitating access to sufficient contract tillage with customized private tractors? Is there any other way to increase the operational capacity of smallholders so they can achieve food security and improved nutrition? How often are our innovations for smallholder farmers more labor intensive and thus we are asking poor, hungry, exhausted, over-extended farmers to work harder will beyond their caloric capacity? If we do that are we conspiring for their genocide?

You might want to look at a couple webpages to illustrate this concern including a complete case study from Ethiopia:

http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/calorie-energy-balance-risk-averse-or-hunger-exhasution/

http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/ethiopia-diet-analysis/

http://webdoc.agsci.colostate.edu/smallholderagriculture/BrinksDrudgery.pdf

Shifting to casual labor this is easier to get at.  It is really a question of what can be afforded with the wages being paid.  Here it becomes a straight forward exercise on obtaining a list of consumer prices which usually take about an hour wondering through an open-air market, then determining what the daily casual labor wage is, and who must be supported from it. Now try and balance the nutrition. This is usually a mind-boggling and highly depressing exercise, but should be the starting point for looking at how to improve nutrition for the deeply entrenched impoverished relying largely on manual labor employment. In looking at this remember the bottom line is optimizing economic opportunity. What are the hard choices that must be made, and how much discretionary decision making is possible?

Allow me a hypothetical example that I recently posted on the Secure Nutrition forum on LinkedIn using some real data from Angola after attending a seminar/webinar promoting eggs to avoid childhood stunting. The example is a porter in Luanda, the capital of Angola, where he has a piece meal income loading or unloading lorries. His typical daily wage is $2.50 for working as part of a 6-man team loading or unloading 5 10-ton lorries, typically filled with 120 100kg sacks per day. Yes, that is a deliberate 20% overload, which I think is typically based on an interview with rice transporter in Tanzania. The wages represent $0.50 per lorry. The $2.50/day is set to equal the government established agriculture casual labor wage for Angola. The choice of a porter is because I think they are some of the more deeply entrenched impoverished workers who tend to be among the “invisible” people, frequently overlooked by social workers, etc.

Our typical hypothetical porter is in his late 20s, has a wife, a preschool son, and toddler daughter, all of whom he loves and wishes to take care of including preventing the toddler from becoming stunted from malnutrition, and thus as mentioned in a recent Secure Nutrition seminar/webinar, he would like to provide her an egg/day. Given he normally has a wage of $2.50/day, but he still has some transportation costs getting to & from work, needs some cooking fuel to prepare meals, some kerosene for oil lamp at night, etc. he can only spend $2.00 on food to feed his family. Also, let us acknowledge that his work as a porter is hard manual labor that will require him to exert something in the order of 4000 kcal/day, while his wife doing mostly domestic work around the house including several hours collecting water will exert 3000 kcal/day of this 2000 kcal/day represents basic metabolism for both husband and wife. The children will exert considerable less, with the toddler exerting 550 Kcal/day and the preschool son 1200 kcal/day. Thus, just in terms of calories the family will need 8750 kcal/day. Anything less than that family will lose weight they cannot afford to lose, or the diligence of the work will decline putting the family a greater financial risk. Thus, the main questions is based on the consumer price in Zaire Province of Northern Angola what can a family afford to buy with their $2.00 daily food allowance.

If they spent the entire $2.00 on maize meal they could purchase 1.7 kg maize meal which would provide only 6000 kcal/day which with nothing else would leave a daily deficit of 2500 kcals. No opportunity for substituting some beans to increase the protein in the diet but will reduce the calories and work potential, let alone some green vegetable to enhance the vitamin and mineral. That egg to minimize the little girls stunning is totally out of the question. If they spent the $0.40 for an egg, how would that impact the porter’s ability to load or unload the lorries? Would he have to quit after only 4 lorries were worked, coming home early but with $0.50 less income? What would happen if by chance he wretched his back and couldn’t work for a week? What alternatives foods would you purchase to feed the family, and if that reduced the calories, how would it impact on manual work, family income, family health, and food security? What would be a more appropriate minimum wage that would allow this typical impoverished family to afford a more nutritious diet? Would adjusting minimum wage what a family would need to buy a balanced diet be a good starting point for improving nutrition and food security?

While I will fully acknowledge this is a synthesized analysis, how realistic is it? If not, please comment on what might be more realistic. Does it illustrate that too often there is very limited discretionary dietary decisions for the deeply impoverished? As we work to improve the nutrition of the impoverished, how important is an exercise like this in understanding the discretionary limits on diet and quality nutrition, and address how to bring greater discretionary control to the beneficiaries? If this analysis represents the discretionary limits the porter and his family have, how effective will an extension/educational or the organization structures in the briefing paper effort be to inform fellow porters on the importance of more balanced diet? How much do you think the porters are already aware of their dietary limits but do not have the means to make positive adjustments?

Allow me to provide a couple webpages:

The exercise: http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/1028-2/

The consumer prices for Angola: http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/consumer-price-comparisons-usa-vs-host-country/#tab-ada7482e-6bc6-8

If anyone wishes to contribute additional case example of the Hard Choices: Compromises in Quality Nutrition, I would be happy to post them on the website for all to consider with due recognition for those contributing.

The bottom line of this contribution is the need to distinguish research/extension from development. This is easily done by a little known and often overlooked component of the technology development and dissemination process.  It is called integration and takes research results and adjust the results and the economic environment into which it is being introduced. The example is for agronomic in Malawi, but could easily be shifted to nutrition. I think we need to look a little more at this integration activity primarily for those interested in development. Without it I fear the overall effort at FSN will have only limited impact.

Final webpage: http://smallholderagriculture.agsci.colostate.edu/integration-an-under-appreciated-component-of-technology-transfer/

Thank you