School milk and small holder dairy development programmes linked to Tetra Laval operations.
Dear All,
My name is Katarina Eriksson and I am responsible for Partnership Development at Tetra Laval Food for Development. I am also a member of the Swedish Government’s FAO Committee (www.svenskafaokommitten.se).
Tetra Laval Group companies Tetra Pak and DeLaval together address the whole value chain for milk with its goods, services and expertise, from cow to consumer. Tetra Laval Food for Development is actively driving development of the entire dairy and food value chain in partnerships with dairy processing customers, governments, UN and other development agencies and civil society organisations (CSOs).
Dairy development partnerships are for the most part in the form of Dairy Hub projects. The main objective is to increase the collection of locally produced milk from smallholder farmers for industrial processing and packaging, while at the same time improving skills, efficiency and incomes for large groups of farmers. The contribution from Tetra Laval is mainly technical assistance provided by Food for Development specialists in smallholder milk production and school milk implementation.
The Swedish FAO Committee each year publishes a report. In 2018 the theme was “The private sector as a partner for sustainable development”. This publication highlights three perspectives on private sector engagement in development cooperation – the perspectives of the private sector, public sector and civil society. These perspectives are presented by the Tetra Laval Group, The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Below and much more is covered in this report that can be downloaded here: https://www.svenskafaokommitten.se/2018/10/?post_type=artiklar
There are several roles for the private sector in development cooperation, including supplying goods and services, sharing its expertise and knowledge, not the least by good CSR practices, and contributing funds or staff to external charity projects. The private sector also increasingly engages in development cooperation as a partner with governments and with UN and other development cooperation agencies. There are many good reasons why partnerships between governments, UN and other development cooperation agencies and the private sector should be encouraged:
• Common goals – the development of value chains contributes to the creation of jobs and incomes, as well as creating markets for private sector goods and services.
• Market linkages – increased outputs of products are not enough; there also has to be a demand for the products. The private sector can assess market potential and enable access to the market.
• Synergies – partnerships have the potential to make more efficient use of resources. In a public private development partnership, all public and private partners contribute funding and/or resources in their respective fields of competence and expertise.
• Sharing the burden of high initial costs – new models and concepts take time to establish and commercial viability may be many years ahead owing to the introduction of new technology, high initial running costs per unit produced, and time-consuming transfer of knowledge. Joint funding can help commercial entities to reach the production volumes and quality required for a sustainable and viable venture.
As with the formation of all kinds of partnerships, there are some challenges with public private development partnerships:
• The partnership must be in the “sweet spot” where commercial and development goals overlap.
• The respective partners’ roles and responsibilities have to be understood and clearly defined, preferably in a memorandum of understanding (MoU) or partnership agreement. Each partner should also follow its own due diligence process to assess its future partner, and decide whether it wants to enter into a partnership with the party concerned.
• Something that is often overlooked is the need for all partners to allocate time and resources in the development phase of a project. These resources are needed if the project is going to be implemented in a reasonable time frame. Also, the better prepared a project is, the higher the chances of all project goals being reached, and the lower the risk of problems and conflicts in the implementation phase.
• Profit making and non-profit making partners have to handle the potential conflict of interest in providing a solid business case on the one hand and the role of profit making when dealing with public goods on the other. This contradiction can be managed, for example by not transferring any public funds to the private sector unless they cover project-specific costs. Another solution is to engage a third-party implementor in order to avoid the transfer of funds to the private sector.
A number of recommendations are also made in the report:
• Allocate resources for the development of partnerships and partnership projects as a core activity and not on a case-by-case basis.
• Look for partnerships where partners’ core businesses and competencies are involved. Make use of the private sector’s ability to create necessary market linkages for long-term viability.
• Respect partners’ different objectives with the partnership and identify the “sweet spot” where goals overlap.
• Clarify partners’ different roles and responsibilities to avoid difficulties during implementation.
• Avoid overly lengthy and complicated due diligence and approval processes, without compromising on quality, especially for smaller-scale interventions.
• Be open to partnerships irrespective of size or budget. It is the results and outreach that matter, not the size of the budget spent. Even very small projects can have a big impact.
Proponent
Tetra Laval Food for Development Office
Katarina Eriksson, Senior Project and Partnership Development Manager
Date/Timeframe and location
Project name: From powder to liquid improving food safety – Development of ready-to-drink Bienestarina®
Timeframe: Starting with product development trials in 2008, first aseptic (UHT) packages reached children in school feeding programme in October 2010.
Location: Colombia
Main responsible entity
ICBF – Colombian Institute of Family Well-Being
Nutrition context
Bienestarina® is a dietary supplement produced by the ICBF since 1976 and delivered to the beneficiaries of the Family Welfare programmes and the most vulnerable in Colombia. Bienestarina® can be consumed from the age of 6 months.
Bienestarina® is made with fortified wheat flour, milk, cornstarch, soy flour and vitamins and minerals. The product was initially a powder product to be mixed with water, but is since 2010 also available as a ready-to-drink product, aseptically packed in 200 ml UHT portion packages. Product development started in 2008.
A 200 ml portion of Bienestarina® gives 170 calories and a large share of the daily need for a number of vitamins and minerals (Protein 40%, Vitamin A 90%, Vitamin C 70%, Calcium 60%, Iron 25%, Folic Acid 80%, Vitamin B² 90%, Vitamin B¹ 75%, Vitamin B¹² 100%, Vitamin B6 100%, Zinc 100%, and Niacin 90%).
Key characteristics of the food system(s) considered
Bienestarina® is produced from locally produced milk and cereals. The government is promoting nutrition through the ICBF programmes and is since 1976 distributing Bienestarina® free of charge through thousands of distribution points.
Bienestarina® is also distributed to school children through school feeding and pre-school programmes. The local dairy industry is since 2010 engaged in processing and packaging the ready-to-drink version in Tetra Brik® Aseptic 200ml. Slim packages. Aseptic packages (UHT) do not need refrigeration for transport and storage and have a shelf life of 6-12 months.
This is an example of a government funded feeding programme that improves nutrition at the same time as it creates demand for and develops local food production and industry.
Key characteristics of the investment made
Key actors and stakeholders involved (including through south-south/triangular exchanges, if any)
Key changes (intended and unintended) as a result of the investment/s
Challenges faced
Lessons/Key messages
Proponent
Tetra Laval Food for Development Office
Katarina Eriksson, Senior Project and Partnership Development Manager
Date/Timeframe and location
Project name: Dairy Hub and Dairy Academy Development in Bangladesh
Timeframe: 2011 and onwards. From 2014, donor funding has co-funded the development of 3 dairy hubs (no 3,4,5) in a 3.5 year partnership project.
Location: Bangladesh
Main responsible entity
PRAN Dairy in Bangladesh (part of PRAN-RFL Group)
Nutrition context
The Dairy Hub model, as implemented in Bangladesh, was developed by Tetra Pak and its Food for Development Office together with Tetra Pak’s sister company DeLaval. The Dairy Hub project in Bangladesh started as a private sector initiative in 2011 as a response to the dairy processor’s need to source more locally produced milk for processing.
In 2008, as a response to the food crisis, when prices of globally traded milk powder more than doubled, and when Tetra Pak realised that many dairy processing customers in developing countries had problems to cope with these cost increases, Tetra Pak took the initiative to develop the “Dairy Hub model” as a way to help customers in developing countries get access to more locally produced milk and better quality milk.
The model rests upon the idea of linking smallholder farmers to a dedicated dairy processor in a selected area, and providing hands-on practical knowledge transfer. By setting up sufficient infrastructure with appropriate technology and cooling facilities, providing knowledge transfer, and offering the farmers advisory services, the supply of locally produced quality milk will increase and the dairy processor can establish a more stable supply chain.
In Bangladesh, the market for safe, nutritious and affordable dairy products is increasing and milk, being a very nutritious food, should be made available to all consumers. This project links smallholder dairy farmers in Bangladesh to the dairy industry. Small holders increase volumes and quality of locally produced milk and the dairy processor puts safe, nutritious dairy products on the market at affordable prices. Dependence on imported milk powder is reduced and milk is available and affordable also to consumers with low incomes.
In addition to milk being available to more consumers, farmers benefitting from the project increase their incomes and invest some of their additional income on improving their diet. Safe, affordable milk can now also be made available for school feeding and other social programs.
Key characteristics of the food system(s) considered
The introduction of milk in aseptic packaging has made it possible to distribute milk without the need for cooling. Safe milk and dairy products are now available to more consumers, not only through retail but also through “traditional trade”, i.e local markets and kiosks etc.
Key characteristics of the investment made
A Dairy Hub project requires investments in:
All investments in “hard ware” are made by the private sector. Some of the investments in training and project management has been co-funded by donor funds (Sida) in a 3.5-year Private Public Development Partnership project implemented by Unido.
Key actors and stakeholders involved (including through south-south/triangular exchanges, if any)
Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock- Department of Livestock Services
Key changes (intended and unintended) as a result of the investment/s
The middle men that used to buy farmer’s milk on irregular basis are no longer involved. The milk reaches the dairy faster and with better quality. Farmers benefit from a secure market for all milk they produce and get a fair price. Farmers’ incomes increase.
Examples of impact after 60 months (Dairy Hub no 1):
When the five Dairy Hubs are completed and fully operational, more than 10,000 farmers will be covered by the project.
Challenges faced
Lessons/Key messages
The PRAN Dairy Hub case is described in HYSTRA’s report “Smallholder farmers and business” “http://hystra.com/smallholder/
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute with comments on the draft FFA. The Tetra Laval Food for Development Office would like to comment as follows:
3.1 Food Systems
The FFA does not single out specific food commodities but rather describes groups of foods (animal-sourced foods, vegetables, fruits etc). FAO published an excellent and very comprehensive report on “Milk and Dairy Products in Human Nutrition” (FAO, 2013 http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3396e/i3396e.pdf) that is worth mentioning. It concludes that milk production and dairy industry development, including production driven by small holder dairy farmers, offer huge opportunities to provide good nutrition, create jobs, daily incomes and reduce food losses. Below are some quotes from the report:
Milk and dairy products play a key role in healthy human nutrition and development throughout life, but especially in childhood.
Milk is an efficient vehicle for delivering several critical micronutrients and improving growth of young children.
Animal milk, rich in bio-available nutrients, delivered to young children, may prevent micronutrient deficiencies and stunted growth. Evidence also shows that milk programming can stimulate local production and simultaneously address malnutrition and poverty.
Milk is a nutritious food and can make a major contribution to household food security and income.
A daily 200 ml glass of milk provides a 5-year-old child with: 21 percent of protein requirements; 8 percent calories; Key micro-nutrients
Dairying provides regular income from the sale of milk surplus for daily household and farm needs
Cattle can thrive on plant matter inedible to humans
In several cases the FFA document indicates that small scale production has to be small scale all through the value chain. This is not true and in many cases inhibits development. Small scale production can efficiently be linked to industrial scale processing and marketing. Below are some suggestions where this can be clarified.
Paragraph 3-4 (page 7)
Instead of only stressing the need to “Enhance the efficiency of traditional food value chains” (probably meaning informal chains, marketing of unprocessed foods) it should be mentioned that for perishable foods (e.g. milk) there is a need to transform informal chains into formal. Also small holder farmers need to be integrated into industrial/formal value chains and get a secure access to market, reduce the losses and improve their incomes. While it is true that “modern food processing and retailing facilities increased availability and access to animal source foods”, it is also true that modern food processing (aseptic packaging of milk for example) does not necessarily need modern retail to reach consumers. With long life products, also the traditional trade can market milk and other sensitive foods.
Page 8
In the list of WHO recommendations of what diets should ensure, the last bullet says: “Adequate intake of animal source foods is guaranteed in children under five”. Why only to children under five? Why not “to all”? These recommendations are probably a quote from another document, but in this FFA it should be concluded that we all need access to animal source foods because of its high nutritional value.
Page 9, paragraph 4
“Greater post-harvest food processing at community level” is mentioned as a solution to reduce relative prices or the time it takes to obtain or prepare more nutritious food. This statement is not true for all foods. Small-scale processing at community level is in many cases not viable and does not always result in good quality. Communities and small scale producers could also be linked to market through efficient, professional and more large scale processors with developed market channels to reach consumers.
Priority actions, page 10-11
Add to bullet five: Strengthen facilities for local food production and processing, especially for nutrient-rich foods. Link small holder farmers to industrial/formal value chains
3.1.2 Sustainable healthy diets
In the discussions about environmental impact of food production, it is now more and more acknowledged that also nutritional content has to be a factor in the assessments of environmental and climate impact of food production. The study “Nutrient density of beverages in relation to climate impact” is the first to estimate the composite nutrient density, expressed as percentage of Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNR) for 21 essential nutrients, in relation to cost in GHG emissions of the production from a life cycle perspective, expressed in grams of CO2-equivalents, using an index called the Nutrient Density to Climate Impact (NDCI) index. The NDCI index was calculated for milk, soft drink, orange juice, beer, wine, bottled carbonated water, soy drink, and oat drink”. The study showed that due to a very high-nutrient density, the NDCI index for milk was substantially higher (0.54) than for the other beverages. Results in its entirety were published in the scientific journal Food and Nutrition Research 23 August, 2010 on www.foodandnutritionresearch.net
It could be added under “Priority actions” that “Nutrient density should be taken into account when assessing environmental and climate impact of food production”
3.2 Social Protection
School feeding is a proven way of stimulating local food production and processing as well as a way to improve children’s nutrient intake. However, it is important to remember that not all foods are suitable for small scale local supplies. Domestic production is usually a requirement from governments but food supplies from the closest village are not necessarily the best solution for all foods. In the school feeding paragraph on page 14, “small farmers” should be replaced by “farmers and food processors”.
School feeding should have more weight in this document as an effective tool to address malnutrition and at the same time encourage good eating habits, improve health and school performance and at the same time create a market for high quality, nutritious, locally produced and processed foods.
3.3 Health
School feeding could be mentioned as a way to address both wasting and stunting, just like it is already mentioned under actions to address anaemia in women of reproductive age.
3.3.4 Nutrition education for behavior change
The recommendation to “advice so that farming communities make healthier food produce available, e.g., by procuring food from small farmer cooperatives for dietary diverse school feeding programmes” again presumes that direct sales to local schools is the preferred model for supplies to school feeding programmes. Again, this may work for certain produce but is hard to monitor and does not work for milk for example. Milk is a very common nutritional component of school feeding programmes and needs to be processed and packed before distributed to schools. This cannot be done on a community level without great challenges in distribution. Small producers can be effectively integrated in industrial value chains with the right support from the public and private sectors.
4.4 International trade and investment
Why is not “animal sourced foods” mentioned in the third paragraph as an example of healthy foods?
Ms. Katarina Eriksson
>> РУССКАЯ ВЕРСИЯ НИЖЕ
This Tetra Laval Food for Development contribution to the discussion focuses on school milk and how to best address the food safety aspect when procuring milk for schools. However, this can be applied also on other foods. Examples from a couple of countries are included. I will also touch on the financing and sustainability of school feeding programmes.
Tetra Laval Food for Development provides technical assistance to governments, NGOs, food processing customers and others involved in school feeding programmes, building on Tetra Pak’s close to 60 years of experience in supplying systems for the processing and packaging of school milk and other nutritious beverages distributed in schools. In 2019, Tetra Pak carton packages reached 68 million children in 56 countries through school milk and other school feeding programmes.
According to a recent survey made by International Dairy Federation, around 160 million children in 62 countries benefit from school milk. 81% of programmes use carton packaging, most often in the form of aseptic (UHT, long life) packaging. The most common product is plain whole or semi-skimmed milk. A majority of programmes are publicly funded, fully or partially subsidized. https://store.fil-idf.org/product/school-milk-programmes-2020/
Food safety is always important, all through the value chain, and especially so when the food is to be consumed by children and when the food is a sensitive and perishable food such as milk. When procuring food for schools, food safety must be one of the criteria for selecting foods and suppliers, and the requirements must also be relevant for the school environment at hand. There is no “one-size-fits-all” here, as the standard and logistic situation differs between countries, regions and schools. But in all cases, if food safety cannot be guaranteed, the food should not be distributed to school children.
Many schools in the world are not equipped to store, handle or cook food. Children either eat food they bring from home, buy something near the school or simply don’t eat while in school. To invest in “food-safe” infrastructure is costly and takes time and involves much more than the school itself. Tetra Pak has developed a model of school feeding that can safely be applied in these situations. Portion packed UHT (long life) milk or another nutrient rich beverage is served to children in their class-rooms. There is no need for cooking preparation or chilled storage. Products can be delivered weekly or monthly depending on the storage capacity of the school. Products are sourced from a dairy or food processor in the region, and based on locally grown/produced foods. UHT (Ultra-High Temperature) products have a shelf-life of 6-12 months without the need for preservatives or chilled distribution and are widely used in school milk and school feeding programmes globally.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, it has also been shown that school milk or school food distribution can continue also during school closures. In some cases weekly food packages with UHT milk, canned and dry foods, all with a long shelf-life and no need for chilled storage, have been delivered to families or made available for pick-up at schools or distribution centres. An innovative example is the “Non-Contact Delivery” model developed in China, to make hand-over of school milk safe for all involved. The delivery person stores the UHT milk in a cabinet and the purchaser will be given a password by mobile, with which they can open the cabinet and collect the milk. You can read more here: www.tetrapak.com/insights/cases-articles/nutrition-to-school-children-during-covid-19
World Food Programme issued a position paper on the use of milk in its operations in 2017, stating that there are two cases in which milk can be used in WFP operations, either as an ingredient in other products or “distributed to older children through platforms that are outside of the home, where safety and quality standards can be guaranteed”. School feeding programmes are an example of the latter. It is further stated in the document that food safety risks can be minimized if the milk has undergone ultra-high temperature (UHT) processing and packaging.
“Safety risks are further minimized as the milk is generally pre-packaged in plastic-coated cartons. In this form, the milk has undergone ultra-high temperature processing to ensure quality and safety. While schools provide on-site cooking facilities and are controlled environments, the preparation of milk (i.e. the reconstitution of milk powder) on-site should be avoided given the risk of unsatisfactory hygiene and sanitation conditions.” www.ennonline.net/attachments/2668/WFP-2017-Use-of-Milk-in-WFP-operations-position-paper.pdf
WFP, Tetra Pak, Tetra Laval and Parmalat jointly implemented a pilot school milk programme in Zambia in 2011-2013. The idea was to pilot a model of production, procurement and implementation of “Milk for Schools”. The procurement specification noted that the milk should be UHT processed and packed and it also included a requirement that the milk sourced for the programme should be produced by smallholder farmers. This was also shown on the carton package itself, with a special design for the school milk programme: “Supporting Zambian Small Holder Dairy Farmers”. There is a similar school milk case being implemented now in Burundi, where WFP procures UHT milk from the local dairy processor Modern Dairy, creating demand for local milk. As a result, milk production and farmers’ incomes have increased, and thousands of jobs are created. FAO and IFAD also provide resources and technical assistance to support the development of the dairy value chain in Burundi. www.tetralaval.com/sustainability-tetra-laval/new-school-milk-programme-in-burundi
As shown in the school milk cases in Zambia and Burundi, a requirement in a public or donor funded procurement process could be that all or a certain share of the milk, fruits, vegetables, grains, meats etc sourced for the school food products by the processor, should be sourced from smallholders. Through collection systems, bulking centres and local traders, smallholder produce can be collected for processing by certified plants that can meet the requested quality and food safety criteria.
The Chinese school milk programme is yet another example of how school food is only procured from producers that have fulfilled certain qualifications. In China more than 21 million children drink milk in school (2019). The dairies supplying the milk need to have a special school milk license to qualify as a supplier. To improve food safety further, Tetra Pak is also working with partners to make sure that the milk is handled in a safe way once it reaches the schools. Partners jointly inspect and evaluate each potential model school on staff training, operational standards, safety protocols and issue management, storage, distribution, and carton recycling. Read more in this article: www.tetrapak.com/insights/cases-articles/milk-safety-schools-in-china
In many cases one of the objectives of the school feeding programme is to create a market for local agriculture products. Smallholder farmers benefit from the market created by the school feeding programme. However, schools are sometimes closed and farmers need a market for their products also during school holidays. Smallholders must be able to access the formal commercial market as well as the school feeding market. Efficiency and productivity need to be addressed and linkages to formal processors and traders created so that farmers have a reliable market for all their products, all year round. Only then will farmers be able to develop and grow their business.
Food produced by schools themselves or by smallholders, processed on-farm or by small scale processors, and then taken directly to schools for preparation/serving, will always be of varying quality and very difficult to control. School feeding programmes of any scale need to be built on a food-safe system. Smallholders can effectively be part of such a system as long as the food is passing a processing/handling stage where foods can be controlled, processed and packed in accordance with pre-determined food safety and quality standards.
Finally I would like to touch on the issue of funding.
School food should ideally be the responsibility of the public sector, and funding should come from either the national or a regional/municipal budget. If this is not possible, the government should organize a system through which students can get access to good nutritious foods during the school day, which parents pay for. Many countries have a hybrid of these two models, making sure children from the poorest families get the food for free and others, that can afford it, pay for it. Regardless of which model is used, there must be a nationwide quality and procurement standard that all regions follow when procuring food for schools. Dietary standards for school food could be a guide when deciding which foods to procure.
Ultimately, a school feeding law will be a good base for guaranteeing that children get the food they need in school. Collection of impact data is also key to ensure sustainability of school feeding programmes.
В рамках настоящего вклада в данное обсуждение со стороны инициативы Tetra Laval «Продовольствие на благо развития» основное внимание уделяется «школьному молоку» и методам эффективного решения вопроса безопасности пищевых продуктов при закупке молока для школ. Вместе с тем это можно применить и к другим пищевым продуктам. Приведены примеры нескольких стран. Я также буду затрагивать вопрос финансирования и устойчивости программ школьного питания.
Инициатива Tetra Laval «Продовольствие на благо развития» обеспечивает техническую поддержку правительствам, НПО, клиентам, занимающимся переработкой пищевых продуктов, и другим участникам программ школьного питания, на основе почти шестидесятилетнего опыта Tetra Pak в области систем поставок для переработки и упаковки «школьного молока» и других питательных напитков, распределяемых в школах. В 2019 году в рамках программы «Школьное молоко» и других программ школьного питания продукция Tetra Pak в картонной упаковке была доставлена 68 миллионам детей в 56 странах.
По данным исследования, проведенного недавно Международной молочной федерацией, потребителями «школьного молока» стали около 160 миллионов детей в 62 странах. В рамках 81% программ используется картонная упаковка, чаще всего это асептическая упаковка (ультрапастеризованная продукция с длительным сроком хранения). Самой популярной продукцией является цельное или полуобезжиренное молоко. Большая часть программ реализуется за счет государственных средств, субсидируется полностью или частично. https://store.fil-idf.org/product/school-milk-programmes-2020/
Безопасность пищевых продуктов важна всегда, на всех этапах производственно-сбытовой цепочки, и особенно в том случае, если пищевые продукты предназначены для детского потребления, а также если пищевые продукты требуют особых условий хранения и относятся к категории скоропортящихся, как, например, молоко. При закупке продовольствия для школ безопасность пищевых продуктов должна быть одним из критериев выбора продукции и поставщиков, а требования должны соответствовать имеющимся в школе условиям. В этом вопросе не существует единого решения, так как положение в области стандартов и логистики отличается в разных странах, районах и школах. Однако в любом случае, если безопасность пищевых продуктов гарантировать невозможно, такая продукция не должна поставляться школьникам.
Многие школы в различных точках мира не имеют условий для хранения, обработки или приготовления пищи. Дети едят пищу, принесенную из дома, покупают продукты рядом со школой или не едят во время пребывания в школе. Инвестиции в инфраструктуру обеспечения безопасности пищевых продуктов предполагают материальные и временные затраты и требуют большего, чем ресурсы самой школы. Компания Tetra Pak разработала модель школьного питания, которая может безопасно применяться в таких ситуациях. Раздача ультрапастеризованного (с длительным сроком хранения) молока в порционной упаковке или иного напитка, богатого питательными веществами, осуществляется непосредственно в классах. Необходимость в каком-либо приготовлении или хранении в холодильнике отсутствует. В зависимости от складских мощностей школы продукция может поставляться еженедельно или ежемесячно. Поставляемая продукция поступает с местного предприятия по производству молочной продукции или пищевых продуктов и изготавливается из выращенного/произведенного на месте сырья. Ультрапастеризованная (прошедшая обработку сверхвысокой температурой) продукция имеет срок хранения 6–12 месяцев и не требует добавления консервантов или реализации в охлажденном виде, этот вид обработки широко используется для производства «школьного молока» и в рамках программ школьного питания по всему миру.
Во время пандемии вируса Covid-19 также было выявлено, что раздача «школьного молока» или школьного питания может продолжаться даже в период закрытия школ. В некоторых случаях еженедельно поставляемые упаковки ультрапастеризованного молока, консервированных или сухих продуктов, обладающих длительным сроком хранения и не требующих охлаждения при хранении, доставлялись на дом, а также в школы или распределительные центры для дальнейшей выдачи. Примером новаторского решения стала разработанная в Китае модель бесконтактной доставки, которая позволила сделать процесс доставки молока безопасным для всех его участников. Курьер помещает ультрапастеризованное молоко в специальную камеру, а покупатель получает пароль по мобильному телефону, с помощью которого он может открыть камеру и забрать молоко. Более подробная информация размещена здесь: www.tetrapak.com/insights/cases-articles/nutrition-to-school-children-during-covid-19
В позиционном документе об использовании молока в деятельности ВПП в 2017 году, который выпустила Всемирная продовольственная программа, указывается, что молоко может использоваться только в двух случаях, а именно, в качестве ингредиента для других продуктов или «при распределении детям старшего возраста посредством платформ, расположенных за пределами места их проживания, в точках, где может быть гарантировано соблюдение стандартов безопасности и качества». Программы школьного питания служат примером последнего. В документе также говорилось о том, что риски, связанные с безопасностью пищевых продуктов, могут быть минимизированы, если молоко прошло обработку сверхвысокой температурой (ультрапастеризацию) и упаковку.
«Риски, связанные с безопасностью, дополнительно минимизируются, если молоко предварительно упаковывается в картонную упаковку с полимерным покрытием. В этом случае в целях обеспечения качества и безопасности молоко проходит обработку сверхвысокой температурой. Несмотря на то что школы оснащены оборудованием для приготовления пищи и являются контролируемой средой, учитывая риски, связанные с неудовлетворительными санитарно-гигиеническими условиями, следует избегать приготовления молока на местах (т. е. восстановления сухого молока). www.ennonline.net/attachments/2668/WFP-2017-Use-of-Milk-in-WFP-operations-position-paper.pdf
В 2011—2013 году ВПП, Tetra Pak, Tetra Laval и Parmalat совместно реализовали экспериментальную программу «Школьное молоко» в Замбии. Целью программы было претворение в жизнь экспериментальной модели производства, закупки и поставки «Школьного молока». В технических характеристиках закупки было указано, что молоко должно быть ультрапастеризованным и должно поставляться в упаковке; кроме того, было предусмотрено требование, согласно которому молоко для программы должно было производиться мелкими фермерскими хозяйствами. Это также было отмечено на картонной упаковке с помощью специального обозначения программы «Школьное молоко»: «Поддержка замбийских владельцев мелких молочных ферм». Подобная программа реализуется в настоящий момент в Бурунди, где ВПП поставляет ультрапастеризованное молоко с местного предприятия молочной промышленности Modern Dairy, обеспечивая спрос на местное молоко. В результате выросли объемы производства молока и доходы фермеров, были созданы тысячи рабочих мест. ФАО и МФСР также предоставляют ресурсы и техническую поддержку для содействия развитию цепочки по производству и сбыту молочной продукции в Бурунди. www.tetralaval.com/sustainability-tetra-laval/new-school-milk-programme-in-burundi
Как показали примеры программ поставки молока в школы Замбии и Бурунди, в случае проведения процедуры государственной закупки или закупки, финансируемой за счет донорских средств, может быть установлено требование, предусматривающее, что молоко, фрукты, овощи, зерновые, мясо и т. д. для целей школьного питания полностью или частично должны закупаться у мелких фермеров. С помощью систем сбора, перевалочных центров и местных торговых предприятий продукция мелких фермеров может направляться на переработку сертифицированными заводами, которые соответствуют обязательным критериям качества и безопасности пищевых продуктов.
Еще одним примером закупки продовольствия для школ только у поставщиков, которые соответствуют определенным требованиям, стала китайская программа поставки молока в школы. В 2019 году в Китае потребителями молока стало более 21 миллиона школьников. Чтобы получить статус поставщика молока для школ, предприятия молочной промышленности должны иметь специальную лицензию на поставку молока в школы. По линии дополнительного улучшения безопасности пищевых продуктов Tetra Pak также работает с партнерами, чтобы обеспечить безопасность операций с молоком после его доставки в школы. Партнеры совместно проводят проверку и оценку каждой потенциальной образцово-показательной школы на предмет подготовки персонала, операционных стандартов, протоколов безопасности и урегулирования проблем, хранения, распространения и переработки картона. Более подробную информацию см. в этой статье: www.tetrapak.com/insights/cases-articles/milk-safety-schools-in-china
Очень часто целью программы школьного питания является формирование рынка местной сельскохозяйственной продукции. Мелкие фермеры используют рынки, созданные за счет реализации программ школьного питания. Однако школы иногда закрываются, и фермерам необходима площадка для сбыта продукции во время каникул и праздничных дней. Наряду с рынком школьного питания, мелкие фермеры должны иметь выход на официальный коммерческий рынок. Необходимо проработать вопрос эффективности и производительности, а также обеспечить связь с официально действующими производственными и торговыми предприятиями, с тем чтобы фермеры имели стабильный доступ на рынок для реализации своей продукции в течение всего года. Только в этом случае фермеры смогут развивать и расширять свое хозяйство.
Пищевые продукты, производимые непосредственно в школах или на мелких фермерских хозяйствах, перерабатываемые на фермах или на мелких производственных предприятиях, а затем поставляемые непосредственно в школы для приготовления/подачи, всегда имеют разное качество, которое очень сложно контролировать. В основе программы школьного питания любого масштаба должна быть заложена система обеспечения и контроля безопасности пищевых продуктов. Мелкие фермеры могут эффективно интегрироваться в такую систему, при условии что пищевые продукты проходят этап переработки/обработки, на котором контроль, обработка и упаковка осуществляются в соответствии с установленными стандартами безопасности и качества пищевых продуктов.
Наконец, я хочу затронуть вопрос финансирования.
В идеале школьное питание должно входить в зону ответственности государственного сектора, и финансирование должно поступать из средств национального или районного/муниципального бюджета. В случае если это невозможно, правительство должно организовать систему, посредством которой учащиеся в течение учебного дня смогут получить доступ к качественной и питательной пище, оплачиваемой за счет средств родителей. Многие страны реализуют гибридную модель, включающую оба указанных варианта, и обеспечивают бесплатное питание для детей из самых бедных семей, предусматривая необходимость оплаты питания теми, кто может себе это позволить. Независимо от используемой модели при закупке продовольствия для школ должны действовать национальные стандарты качества и закупок, обязательные для всех регионов. Стандарты школьного питания могут служить руководством при принятии решения о виде продовольствия для закупки.
В конечном итоге эффективной основой для гарантированного удовлетворения пищевых потребностей школьников должно стать законодательство в области школьного питания. Кроме того, ключевым инструментом обеспечения устойчивости программ школьного питания является сбор данных о воздействии.
Катарина Эрикссон
Инициатива Tetra Laval «Продовольствие на благо развития», Швеция