全球粮食安全与营养论坛 (FSN论坛)

Dear HLPE Colleagues,

We are happy to share with you the World Food Programme’s contribution to the work of the HLPE on the upcoming report on “Multi-stakeholder Partnerships to Finance and Improve Food Security and Nutrition in the Framework of the 2030 Agenda”.

We would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft scope and provide our inputs, and look forward to seeing the first draft of the study in due course.

Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions.

Best regards,

Jacopo Valentini

WFP CFS Team

HLPE Report on Multistakeholder Partnerships to Finance  and Improve Food Security and Nutrition in the  Framework of the 2030 Agenda

World Health Organization / Nutrition for Health and DevelopmentContribution to the eConsultation on the Issues Note

We would like to thank the HLPE secretariat for providing the opportunity to provide inputs into this important topic. WHO/NHD would like to contribute the following points to the scope of the issues note:

First of all, the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition is an important building block that should be integrated in this report on improving food security and nutrition in the framework of the 2030 agenda. In April 2016, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly proclaimed the United Nations Decade of Action on Nutrition (2016–2025) through Resolution 70/259. Under the normative framework of the Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Nutrition Decade marks a new ambition and direction in global nutrition action: to eradicate hunger, end malnutrition in all its forms and reduce the burden of dietrelated noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) in all age groups. The Nutrition Decade represents an unprecedented opportunity for achieving nutrition impact at scale, with a collective vision of a world where all people at all times and at all stages of life have access to affordable, diversified, safe and healthy diets. (Ref: http://www.who.int/nutrition/decade-of-action/en/ )

•      The UN Decade of Action on Nutrition is intrinsically interconnected to the Agenda 2030 

The achievement of the SDGs will only be met when much greater political focus is given towards improving nutrition, as nutrition is both an input and outcome of sustainable development. The UN Decade of Action on Nutrition provides an opportunity for all partners to work together, mobilise action and accelerate efforts towards the elimination of hunger, food insecurity and all forms of malnutrition and meeting the SDGs by 2030.

The Nutrition Decade provides an inclusive umbrella for all relevant stakeholders to consolidate, align and reinforce nutrition actions across different sectors and stakeholders. The work programme of the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition refers to MSP in several ways as important partners for joint actions to achieve the global nutrition targets and nutrition related targets of the SDGs.  (Ref.: http://www.who.int/nutrition/decade-of-action/workprogramme-2016to2025/… )

•      Furthermore, the HLPE report could look into innovative finance mechanisms: How far have MSP engaged in such innovations?

This should also address how to foster the exchange of experiences on these innovations. How domestic resources may be mobilized, for example through taxation of unhealthy products, and on how available country resources (e.g. mobilized in such ways) may be oriented towards nutrition objectives and can better leverage private investments. These and other aspects are part of the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition work programme and are of high relevance to achieve the set global targets of the SDGs. 

•      An essential element for achieving targets is ‘accountability’ and a related tracking mechanism.  Therefore, the HLPE report could look into this very closely. Important questions to address include: How do the various MSP effectively manage to make their multiple stakeholders account for improving food security and nutrition? How have MSP established an effective dialogue on accountability? 

•      We would like to suggest that the HLPE report should also address the need for mechanism and tools needed to manage potential conflict of interest. Potential questions include: How do existing MSP address conflict of interest? What are existing mechanisms and how effective are they? 

Whenever multiple actors come together in a decision making process there is potential for conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest may arise at different stages in decision making processes: such as: - when making a decision on the need to establish a policy or action; - when developing the policy or action; - when implementing the policy or action; and - when it is monitored. When countries engage with a non-state actor it is important to ensure transparency. A Conflicts of interest policy should be in place with a clear design of the engagement process, mechanisms for risk management of Conflicts of interest, mechanisms for monitoring and accountability/ sanctions in order to set out clear governance structures. The roles of the different actors should be defined as well as the expected outcomes of the engagement and responsibility for each actor. (Ref: WHO 2016. Addressing and managing conflicts of interest in the planning and delivery of nutrition programmes at country level. Report of a technical consultation convened in Geneva, Switzerland, on 8–9 October 2015. Available at http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/206554/1/9789241510530_eng.pdf )

•    With regard to innovative approaches and case studies, these could be looked into at all levels (global, regional, national). Furthermore, we suggest that examples should include relevant nutrition and health MS Partnerships.   

Examples of multi-stakeholder partnerships and arrangements (non-exhaustive lists): Every Women Every Child multistakeholder movement; Global Coordination Mechanism for Non-Communicable disease (NCDs); The Partnership for Maternal, Newborn & Child Health; Scaling Up Nutrition movement; Nutrition 4 growth; 

Every Women Every Child multistakeholder movement: - Launched by UN Secretary-General Ban Kimoon during the United Nations Millennium Development Goals Summit in September 2010, Every Woman Every Child is an unprecedented global movement that mobilizes and intensifies international and national action by governments, multilaterals, the private sector and civil society to address the major health challenges facing women, children and adolescents around the world including nutrition. The movement puts into action the Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health, which presents a roadmap to ending all preventable deaths of women, children and adolescents within a generation and ensuring their well-being.

https://www.everywomaneverychild.org/about/

Accountability has been a cornerstone of the Every Woman Every Child movement since its launch in 2010. The sense of community and partnership, and that of common goals and challenges in the area of reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health gave the EWEC movement its strength. This has also helped shape its accountability model, which includes mandatory reporting from commitment makers. 

Global Coordination Mechanism for Non-Communicable disease (NCDs) - The GCM is a Member State-led mechanism that aims to facilitate and enhance coordination of activities, multi-stakeholder engagement and action in order to implement the Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of NCDs 2013–2020. (ref: http://www.who.int/ncds/gcm/en/)

The Partnership for Maternal, Newborn & Child Health (PMNCH) The Partnership has a vital mandate to engage, align and hold accountable multi-stakeholder action to improve the health and well-being of women, newborns, children and adolescents, everywhere. Using new evidence and building on experiences and lessons learned, the Partnership concentrates on its core strengths – alignment, analysis, advocacy and accountability –to contribute to the Every Woman Every Child Movement and provide support to all partners to work together to achieve the full range of targets for the Global Strategy by 2030. (Ref: http://www.who.int/pmnch/en/) 

Nutrition for Growth. http://nutritionforgrowth.org/nutrition-growth/

Nutrition for Growth represents an opportunity for governments, investors, civil society organizations and citizens to come together to invest in solutions to improve nutrition. It is a platform for governments and other partners to make high-impact commitments to end malnutrition in all its forms and to ensure brighter and more prosperous futures. 

The World Economic Forum’s System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Food Security and Agriculture - This initiative seeks to develop a long-term strategy and ways of working across the public, private and social sectors to achieve a 20% improvement each decade in food security, environmental sustainability and economic opportunity. This will be achieved through a marketbased and multi-stakeholder approach, in line with the New Vision for Agriculture (NVA). (Ref: https://www.weforum.org/system-initiatives/food-security-and-agriculture). 

MULTISTAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIPS TO FINANCE AND IMPROVE FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION IN THE FRAME WORK OF THE 2030 AGENDA

Brief outline

Stake holders in the food security and nutrition includes; communities in various categories in the rural, urban, fishermen, Pastoralists etc. These people are faced with various challenges; environmental degradation  and depletion, soil and water erosion. Pests and disease outbreaks in crops and animals, income and Multidimensional poverty. Climate change, drought, floods, and conflicts over food production resources.

Each of these challenges has a bearing on food security and nutrition.

In most cases the communities may not be able to address the food insecurity and nutrition especially where there is poor food production and utilization.  

It takes the intervention of all stake holders and partners to address the situation. These are National Governments, Non Governmental Organisations (NGO’S), UN Agencies- FAO/WFP, UNICEF, faith based Organisations, financial Institutions and Donors.

The intervention of these stakeholders depends on situation prevailing at that particular moment. There are also International, regional and national banks.  Locally people have developed Village savings and loan associations (VSLA) to address the input acquisition at small scales i.e. farmer levels.  This coupled with trade policies international and regional Markets play roles in food security and nutrition.

Most lending institutions like banks need collaterals to lend money for food production which the rural  people don’t have. The land which is their only assets has no titles and cannot access the funds for food production and Nutrition. Most of the land is owned communally or customarily.  Most of the lending Institutions believe that agriculture is a risky venture. When actually this is an engine of food security and nutrition.

The local foods are very rich in food quality but due to lack or poor Education preparation of these foods needs a lot to be done. On the other side there is lack of Home economics experts to handle crucial role of putting quality food on the table. Storage of food is a bigger problem as in Karamoja Region of Uganda 40% of the food is lost in the storage.

All the stakeholders and Partners are supposed to play their roles to ensure that food is accessible at all times otherwise we run the risk of conflicts in communities that do not have food.

As I have mentioned above some parameters like poverty, both income and multidimensional has to be addressed, Education of the community has to be encouraged to increase the level of understanding to cope with development challenges.  The standard of living has to be addressed too.  

Without this we may be addressing symptoms and leave the root course of food security and nutrition.

Despite the above there have been a number of successes made by multistakeholders and partners which we cannot ignore. Also there have been failures due to challenges arising from hostile operational environments. These will be made clear during the interactions.

We hope to achieve 2030 agenda by working tirelessly as a team.

Abura Levi

District Production and Marketing Coordination Kotido

Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industries and Fisheries in Uganda

CSM Comments on Proposed Draft Scope for the HLPE Report : “Multistakeholder Partnerships to Finance and Improve Food Security and Nutrition in the Framework of the 2030 Agenda”

The CSM believes that HLPE Report #13 will be a particularly complex one to produce. The capacity of the HLPE to objectively assess challenges and opportunies involved in Multistakeholder Partnerships will be heavily dependent on the degree of independence and trustworthiness of the Project Team (as well as the Steering Committee). Candidates directly associated or with history of association with existing MSP should not be selected in order to maximize the objectivity (to the extent possible) of the Project Team. Failure to do so will profoundly affect the legitimacy and capacity of the HLPE to run a proper independent assessment. The following are some critical dimensions the Report should address and/or consider:

1. Rights-holders vs. Stakeholders: It is essential to clearly contextualize the report within the reformed CFS, with the human rights framework as its cornerstone. This means that the term ‘stakeholder’ can only be introduced after having clearly framed the primacy of ‘rights-holders’. This means that the use of the term multistakeholder partnerships must be problematized as it often fails to differentiate between those actors operating in the public interest and those working for private corporate interest. The term multistakeholder places all actors in equal standing and suggests they have equal legitimacy to participate in decision making and/or assume certain roles and functions. It is therefore essential to distinguish in particular those actors who are directly affected by hunger and malnutrition and whose human rights must be respected and guaranteed by the State. States have obligations to involve them in decision making processes that affect them whereas the State has no such obligation with respect to corporate actors. When describing partnerships among different actors the different interests, rights and roles of these actors must be adequately diversified and acknowledged rather than being all collapsed under the umbrella of the ‘stakeholder’ concept. Differentiating roles will ensure that the primacy of the participation of rights-holders is ensured and their perspectives are duly factored in. Indeed, States’ ability to ensure the realization of their human rights depends on this;  

2. Need to recognize power asymmetries: Inherent in the term multistakeholderism is the assumption that power is shared equally across actors and thus adequate decision-making can be achieved through trust and compromise among equal partners. In reality, there are often great power asymmetries between the actors in a multistakeholder partnership, especially between those groups most affected by malnutrition and hunger and the actors representing corporate interests. These power differentials must be recognized and addressed to ensure that the decision-making that takes place within these partnerships is not unduly influenced by those actors that wield the most power;

3. Questioning the MSP paradigm: There needs to be ample space dedicated to addressing the tensions, controversies and limitations of multistakeholderism. The general positive tone of the concept note suggesting that multistakeholderism is desireable and thus the emphasis is placed on how to properly implement such partnerships is highly questionable as the starting point of the HLPE journey. The scope of this report needs to be much broader in order to truly examine whether or not MSP are indeed an adequate and necessary method for addressing food security and malnutrition. Contemporary examples demonstrate their extreme limitations due to the power they place in the hands of corporate actors and the threat they pose to public-interest decision making. These problems need to be explored openly in this report with room for honest debate and critique. 

The report must be open to discussing whether certain partnerships are really needed in the first place (and if so why), what possible alternative options there could be (the current presentation of MSP involving the private sector as the only option is unacceptable) and what safeguards are needed to avoid potential risks within different forms of collaboration. The purpose of the report should not be limited to merely identifying the “conditions of success of MSP” but rather engage in a more fundamental discussion of the MSP paradigm.  It is also important that the report emphasizes the need to explore the various actors referred to when talking about “stakeholders”: what interests do they represent; what is their role in society and their legitimacy in carrying out certain functions/ being involved in certain decisions; what power (economic, political) do they have and what are the power dynamics between them, etc.;

4. Impact of MSP on public interest mandate and human rights: To be able to adequately inform policy deliberations within the CFS, the report must place its assessment of the (potential) impact of MSP for food and nutrition security within the framework of the right to food. This means looking at how partnerships with different actors might affect States’/public institutions’ capacity to decide on and implement measures that promote FSN within the progressive realization of the right to food. While there is currently a huge drive towards including the private sector not only in the implementation of FSN programmes but also at the policy making level, there is a huge lacuna with regard to independent studies that assess the impacts of such engagement on public policy, on human rights and on the nature and form of governance. It is paramount that before continuing to promote partnerships with private interest actors (in whatever form and under whatever name) such are assessed with regard to their potential human rights risks, so that effective measures can be taken to address these. The report can contribute to this by reviewing the existing (independent) literature and experiences in this field and also pointing to research gaps. The whole discussion on conflicts of interest and institutional corruption is central when discussing public sector engagement with private interest actors, and must have a central role in the report. Furthermore, the report should assess the profound implications in terms of governance arrangements that some of these partnerships might entail.

A continuación me permito presentar mis contribuciones al foro dando respuesta a algunas de las preguntas planteadas desde mi perspectiva y experiencia como profesional en el campo de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional participando en escenarios, locales, regionales y nacionales para la formulación, ejecución y evaluación de planes y políticas de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional en Colombia.

Madame, Monsieur,

Je vous fais parvenir ma contribution à la réflexion sur les partenariats multipartites.

Je vous en souhaite bonne réception

--

Justin EYAAN

Kania and Kramer (2011) out of Stanford Univseristy have articulated an excellent theory of a multi-stakeholder model (termed a Collective Impact System) that the Province of Manitoba has opertaionlized over the last four years to address the severe and ongoing food security crisis in northern Canada. This multi-stakeholder model is known as the Northern Manitoba Food, Culture and Community Collabortive. 

The theory has offered an excellent framework or scaffolding through which to coorindate the public (all levels of government), private (corporate interests) and non-profit (community-based organizations) sectors within Manitoba around the singular goal of addressing food insecurity in the north. Our model adds Northern Advisors and the community members of the communities we support as critical components to the theory in order to capture the lived experiences of the people closest to the issue in the north. 

Importantly, we have seen significant gains in the depth and breadth of the reach of our food security porgamming, and related objectyives, as a resul tof this model. 

Difficulties/Controversies we have encoutnered include:

• - Seeking partnerships that have, hitherto, only impeded progress on food security in the north. For example, inviting the monopoly retailer that serves to perpetuate conditions of severe food insecurity in the north to be part of the collective. 
• - Aligning the disparate interests of public, private and non-profit stakeholders to a single shared measurement system that addresses all parties' needs

Successes include:

- Developing a decision making system designed to facilitate decision making for grants and administrative support, among over 15 collaborators, spread across the entire country of Canada

- Developing a theory of change and two comprehensive evaluation frameworks: one to assess the impact of project funding on food security in the north, the other to assess the impact of the multi-stakeholder model to serve the philanthropic needs of the northern food security sector.

-Successfully attracting and retaining partnerships across all levels of governemnt, private and non-profit sectors. Started with 2 and have now grown to almost 20. 

- Successfully moving from fragmented, isolated impact to a more cohesive sectoral approach which generates deeper collective impact. 

Who are the stakeholders?

This is aspect of Food security and Nutrition. As long as producer of the food is not inolved there is a big gap of stake holders claim. So first Farmer and thereby regional heads, and consumer bodies.

The Farmers how many.  First fix two options. 1. make individual farmer as food security responsible in the village. So let him /her production to be stored for his consumption and excess to sent for Market or store it and market it for upcomeing period. Gender prefernce is more important. what are food ? particularly relted food grains, Pulss. These  are two item to save not only food security but also Nutrition aspect. This comes dowm heaviely from food prices  by producers. most of the developing countries had a large population in Agriculture. say for eg. Inia 65% population still lives with agriculture, wherein wages are very less and souring food prices restrict the food for all.

In this model farmers o big size can invest to small farmers in labor cost in food grains, which makes evern small farmer too can responsibly enjoy good food

The multistake holder also need market head of local area along with business partners and a lead banker who is interested with food  business, and a government head from the Dept. of Agriculture , along with another 3-5 personnel options in the lead organizations in the region.

Question is how to define :? as a food security goal it is most important to bring locals fist in one stage to execute and represent as elected body of farmer , along with selectd defines with governance. why governance?   unless governance is there no good price for productuin to the farmer as well as fair market and logistic system exist. This makes funding/financing is under regulatory body.

what aims goals etc? 

The aim is food security with fair prices. this under climate smart way prodctuin and consumption with good nutrition. potential to good agronomic practices by farmers leds good food, results safty and nutritional sysems.

A clear guidalines to be provided for developing and developed world. Why difference for developing and developed. In developed world it is economic indicators of Industrial index, where as in developing countries it had become lively hood. if 1% population of USA do agriculture, whereas in developing countries ranges 40-70% population involved. Hence unless we strengthen these peoples we cannot increse daily earn or remove poverty..

what is existing MSP?   many is not in sound, sound projects are not evely distributed. poor agronomic practices with climate changes often results crop failure and food production losses. so farmer is in debts?

Although can be addressed in theory of all the question raised in the project, unless a pilet project on trail for one year for limited countries and may be counties will make us reshape the food security. Some regional problems may not be with some other places. some policy matters may not hinder in other country/s. some of the Governance system may moderate in some places than it hails.

For all this train the farmer who is responsble for good prodction with market oriented policies by developing small scale agroIndustries ( as making regional employment and youths involvement in food security and nutrition), that results some signicancy in the matter.

For more information I any any one needs a pilot project can be contacted us.

However Always with CFS to evolve a solution on food security and utrition.

According to "How to define “multistakeholder partnership" for food security and nutrition?

I think that the design of the MSP shoud be locally organised in order to be close to the local problems. I think there is no best way that fit all countries and regions issues.

In addition to roles and responsibilities, the accountability of different actors in a "multi-stakeholder partnership" is critically important.  That is, to whom are they accountable, and how do these people hold them accountable?  This is one of the issues in participation of philanthropic organizations, which set their own terms of accountability.

The other issue regards how power is made more equitable in the partnership.  Are food-insecure people and movements they join truly in the driver's seat, in determining which policies will be recommended and supported by the partnership?  Or do they have only token representation?  How is power-sharing evaluated in the partnership, and by whom?  The answers to these questions are important in determining whether a partnership accomplishes its stated goal or is just window-dressing, or a way to funnel international aid.