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].
Santosh Kumar Mishra