GLOBAL FORUM ON FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION · Web viewETS Union Farms of Africa (UFA) is a hi-tech Agro-Entrepreneurial Enterprise specialized in agro-consultancy, transformation,

HLPE e-consultation on the V0 Draft of the Report:

Multistakeholder Partnerships to Finance and Improve Food Security and Nutrition in the Framework of

the 2030 AgendaFrom 16 January to 19 February 2018

http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/cfs-hlpe/multistakeholder-partnerships-v0

− Questionnaires received −

These proceedings are compiled by the Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)for the High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE)

www.fao.org/fsnforum

http://www.fao.org/fsnforum

http://www.fao.org/fsnforum

http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/cfs-hlpe/multistakeholder-partnerships-v0

Proceedings / 2

Table of contents

Topic.......................................................................................................................4Questionnaires received.........................................................................................6

1. Union Farms of Africa, Cameroon..................................................................62. Jan Brouwers, Wageningen University & Research, Netherlands................163. Narayan Hegde, Baif Development Research Foundation, India.................224. Patrick Mink, 10YFP Sustainable Food Systems Programme, Switzerland...295. Matthew Fielding, SIANI, Sweden................................................................396. Natasha Hayward, Global Agriculture and Food Security Program - World Bank, USA..........................................................................................................527. Katarina Eriksson, Tetra Laval Food for Development, Sweden..................708. IFAD, Italy....................................................................................................799. Oriane Barthélemy, GISA, France................................................................9310. Emmanuel Boon, International Centre for Enterprise and Sustainable Development (ICED), Ghana............................................................................10311. Jacopo Valentini, World Food Programme, Italy.....................................11312. Jacopo Valentini, World Food Programme, Italy.....................................12313. Jacopo Valentini, World Food Programme, Italy.....................................13314. Anuradha Gupta Prithvi, Innovations-10YFP-SFS program partner organization, India...........................................................................................14415. Solomon Assefa, ICARDA.......................................................................15616. Habib Halila, ICARDA.............................................................................17017. Abid Hussain, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council , Pakistan...........17818. Abid Hussain, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council , Pakistan...........18819. Abid Hussain, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council , Pakistan...........19620. Andrew Magadlela, ARC, South Africa....................................................20421. Andrew Magadlela, ARC, South Africa....................................................21522. Andrew Magadlela, ARC, South Africa....................................................22323. SUN Movement Secretariat....................................................................23524. Petronella Chaminuka, Agricultural Research Council (ARC), South Africa

245

www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe

http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe

Proceedings / 3

25. Petronella Chaminuka, Agricultural Research Council (ARC), South Africa254

26. Frank Mechielsen, Hivos, Netherlands...................................................262



Proceedings / 4

Topic

During its 43rd Plenary Session (17-21 October 2016), the CFS requested the HLPE to produce a report on “Multistakeholder Partnerships to Finance and Improve Food Security and Nutrition in the Framework of the 2030 Agenda” to be presented at CFS45 Plenary session in October 2018.

As part of the process of elaboration of its reports, the HLPE is organizing a consultation to seek inputs, suggestions, and comments on the present V0 draft. This open e-consultation will be used by the HLPE to further elaborate the report, which will then be submitted to external expert peer-reviewers, before finalization and approval by the HLPE Steering Committee.

HLPE V0 drafts are deliberately presented early enough in the process – as a work-in-progress, with their range of imperfections – to allow sufficient time to give proper consideration to the feedback received so that it can play a really useful role in the elaboration of the report. It is a key part of the scientific dialogue between the HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee, and the rest of the knowledge community.

In order to enrich and illustrate the report with a variety of examples, participants are invited to submit concrete, practical, well-documented and significant case-studies of existing MSPs, as defined in the V0 Draft, through the use of the dedicated Questionnaire provided both as an annex to the V0 Draft, and as a separate editable word file.

The HLPE also encourages the submission of further material, references and evidence on the performance and impact of existing MSPs in the field of FSN.

In order to strengthen the report, the HLPE welcomes all the suggestions, including contributions regarding the following questions:

1 The purpose of the report is to analyze the role of MSPs in improving and financing FSN. Do you think that this draft is striking the right balance and give enough space to finance related issues? What are the constraints to raising funds for FSN?

2 Is the structure of the report comprehensive enough, and adequately articulated? Are the concepts clearly defined and used consistently throughout the report? Are there important aspects that are missing? Are there any major omissions or gaps in the report? Are there topics under-or over-represented in relation to their importance? Are any facts or conclusions erroneous or questionable? If any of these are an issue, please send supporting evidence.

3 The report suggests a classification of existing MSPs in broad clusters, in order to better identify specific challenges and concrete recommendations for each category. Do you find this approach useful for identifying specific policy responses and actions?



http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/cfs-hlpe/sites/cfs-hlpe/files/files/multistakeholder-partnerships/HLPE-Multi-Stakeholder-Partnerships-for-FSN_Draft-V0-16_January_2018.pdf


http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/cfs-hlpe/sites/cfs-hlpe/files/files/HLPE_MSP_V0_Template.docx



Proceedings / 5

4 The report suggests a methodology, and key criteria, to describe and assess existing MSPs. Are there other assessment tools and methodologies that should be referenced in the report?

5 The report has identified some of the main potential and limitations of MSPs, with regard to other non-multistakeholder processes. Do you think that there are other key challenges/opportunities that need to be covered in the report?

6 The last Chapter analyzes the internal factors and enabling environment that could contribute to enhance the performance of MSPs in improving and financing FSN. Could you provide specific examples of successful or unsuccessful policies and programmes designed to shape such enabling environment that could contribute to illustrate and strengthen the Chapter?

We thank in advance all the contributors and we look forward to a rich and fruitful consultation on this early draft of the report.

The HLPE Project Team and Steering Committee



Proceedings / 6

Questionnaires received1. Union Farms of Africa, Cameroon

Contribution no. 3

1. Name of MSP: UNION FARMS OF AFRICA # (for HLPE use only):

2. Thematic domain of activity:

(Maize, pawpaw, moringa, plantain, cassava and cucumber) Food production; food supply chain;

(Agroforestry, use organic fertilizer, preservation of watersheds) Natural resource management;

(Farmers Business School Training, Seminars, workshops/conferences and networking) Education, information, knowledge sharing;

(Fundraising, campaigns, exhibitions, consultation, sales, grants and subventions) Resource mobilization;

(Agritourism) Other (specify): We organise farm visit among colleagues, students and International Agribusiness youth linkages

Brief description of mandate / activities / objectives:

ETS Union Farms of Africa (UFA) is a hi-tech Agro-Entrepreneurial Enterprise specialized in agro-consultancy, transformation, marketing and international linkages. Founded in Buea, South West Region of Cameroon in 2007 by Prince Justin AJINGA TANYI, Registered as African Leadership Community link Advancement Programme (ALCOMLAP) C.I.G and Transformed in 2015 into Union Farms of Africa (UFA) cooperative with three co-founders namely: Julius AWAN FOKIM, Nelson NEBA SUH and Oscarline NKEMNTA. We now have more than 100 professional’s farmers trained in the latest techniques of agro-entrepreneurship skills and a membership of 50 active shareholders. We advise and support global agro companies that are leaders in their industries. Union Farms of Africa SCOOPS, REG. No.: SW/AR-0132 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Peace-Work-Fatherland

UFA

UFA considers quality, health, safety and environment of utmost importance in its day-to-day operations. “Leading the Green Revolution”. BOA They offer their time and resources in coaching and mentoring the Board of Directors. “Building Africa by Africans”

Mission Statement

Our mission is to provide our customers with the best possible agro-services and products obtainable in a way that the principles of integrity and gravity are not sacrificed in favor of profitability. We also provide a



Proceedings / 7

platform that enhances the skills of our workforce for better performance to become better men and women with improved social and economic well-being

Vision

Sustaining advances in agricultural technology to the benefit of institutions and communities.

3. Website (official website of the MSP and, or, relevant web sources):

www.unionfarmsofafrica.com

4. Year of Origin / Creation: 2007

5. Scale/Level of operation (choose one option):

( )Global (Specify major areas/regions of presence:………………..…………….……………………)

( )Regional (Specify region1 Africa)

(…) Sub-regional (Specify sub-region2: …………………………………………………………………….)

( ) National (Specify country Cameroon and CEMAC Countries)

( ) Local (specify country: ……………………………………….…………………………………………)

I) STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION

6. Number of main partners: 5

7. Composition of the MSP: list of main partners: names and/or categories (i.e.: public sector, private sector, civil society, others3)

1For the answer to this question, please use the 7 “FAO regions”: Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Carribean, Near East, North America, Southwest Pacific, as described online:

http://www.fao.org/unfao/govbodies/gsbhome/council/council-election/en/

2 In some cases it might be relevant to specify a sub-region or a regional intergovernmental organization such as African Union, European Union, MERCOSUR, ASEAN…

3See V0 draft for a more detailed description of the three first broad category. For “others”, please specify.




Proceedings / 8

- Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Cameroon, public.

-Manplanet LTD Cameroon, Private

-Catholic University Institute of Buea, Cameroon Provate

-West Coast Maize Farmers Cooperative Cameroon, Civil Society

-African Youth in Agribusiness Cameroon, private

8. Which partner(s) initiated the MSP? How the MSP may have evolved?

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Cameroon, We started with 5 members and now we have more than 60 registered members and more than 20 thousand trained farmers.

9. Degree of formalization: does the MSP result of an informal agreement, or is there a formal structure of decision-making?

(Registered with the Ministry of Agriculture and ministry of small and medium size enterprises Cameroon represented by Prince. Justin Ajinga Tanyi) full legal entity: legal personality

(Yes, we have MoUs) formalized agreement among partners, but no legal personality for the MSP

(Yes) informal arrangement

Describe the decision-making process (including frequency of meetings of the governing bodies…)

At Union Farms of Africa, we have three levels. The General Assembly, Board of Advisers and Board of Directors. We are start with the advisory board, go through the general assembly. We have two weekly board of Directors meeting, one monthly board of Advisors meeting and two yearly General Assembly meetings.



Proceedings / 9

10. Governance structure: describe the roles, responsibilities and level of involvement of the different partners in the partnership. Describe, the case being, power asymetries between partners. Which partner(s) lead the MSP?

Rule and responsibilities of partners

- Provide technical expertise- Help in networking our members and staff- Assist in training and coaching.- Facilitate meetings with other partners and promote our activities in their structures

Ministry of agriculture and rural development at time send her experts to train our members and assist in board meetings with external partners.

11. Representativeness: How and by whom are the members chosen? Do they speak only for themselves or represent a broader category of stakeholders? How long is their mandate? How does the MSP ensure inclusiveness and “fair” representation of the most affected people?

The board is elected by the members to work for three years. All key decision are voted during general assembly meetings by all our members.

What are the channels of communication between the MSP and the government(s)? Are the decisions/recommendations of the MSP to the government(s) are prescriptive or consultative?What public strategies/priorities this partnership supported at different scales?



Proceedings / 10

We have many channels of communication:

Farmers media, seminars, radio, social media and meetings.

Recommendations are both consultative and prescriptive.

The strategies we are using is reaching the farmers with latest agribusiness techniques.

12. Finance: How and by whom the MSP is funded? Who underwrites the partnership? Add relevant data about the budget, and budget share of each category of partners (public, private, civil society). Is the budget sufficient for work plan implementation? What are the financial tools and mechanisms used by the MSP?

The MSP is funded 90% by share of members, the other funds from partners are in form of technical support. The board of directors underwrites the partnership. The budget is hardly sufficient to run the projects.

We use simple financial tools like cash book and excel to keep our day to day running. Something we depend on the mother bank for complicated financial tools.

II) OUTCOMES

13. What is the main function of the MSP? Is it mainly:

(Agribusiness training and coaching) “policy-oriented”

(Farmers filed schools and agribusiness exchanges) “action-oriented”

( agrotourism) Other (specify):

14. What are the main areas of contribution of the MSP? Please tick in the table below the main, secondary and tertiary areas of contribution of the MSP.



Proceedings / 11

For each of the areas of contribution mentioned above, please give examples of the MSP outcomes and impacts:

- Policy design, policy implementation, laws, advocacy and awareness:

More than 20 thousand farmers have been trained by Union Farms of Africa and certified by the ministry of Agriculture in Cameroon.

- Increased participation/inclusiveness: priority given to women as well as to marginalized and vulnerable groups:

60 percent of youth in agribusiness are women running their own cooperatives.

- Capacity building, among the MSP partners, and beyond


Outcome Area Primary Secondary Tertiary

1. Policy design, policy implementation, laws, advocacy and awareness

2. Increased participation/inclusiveness: priority given to women as well as to marginalized and vulnerable groups.

3. Capacity building, among the MSP partners, and beyond

4. Resource mobilisation and fund raising

5. Activities related to facilitating improved FSN outcomes (e.g. environmental stewardship towards biodiversity/ water conservation…)

6. Outcomes that directly contribute to FSN(e.g. increased production, economic growth, income and employment generation, improved diets, better nutrition education and information…)

7. Monitoring and evaluation

8. Other (Specify: Promotion Agritourism)


Proceedings / 12

We organiser quarterly seminars to build the capacity of our partners.

- Resource mobilisation and fund raising

We do fundraising campaigns and some time apply for grants for our projects.

- Activities related to facilitating improved FSN outcomes (e.g. environmental stewardship towards biodiversity/ water conservation…)

We practice agroforestry through the planting of moringa and cocoa in a project called alternative farming.

- Outcomes that directly contribute to FSN(e.g. increased production, economic growth, income and employment generation, improved diets, better nutrition education and information…)

In the past years, we created more than 750 agribusiness in Cameroon and Central African states. We have created approximately 3000 jobs in the agro industry and have educated the farmers on how to manage their diet and nutrition through our farmers business school.

- Monitoring and evaluation

Our technician and interns constantly work with our farmers in monitoring and evaluating their farm projects.

- Other (Specify: Promotion Agritourism)

We constantly organiser agribusiness tour with universities, ministries, NGos, friends and religious bodies to spread the work of agriculture and show case it advantages.

What are the main organizational and collective benefits gained from setting-up this MSP?

- Job creation- Environmental protection- Food security- Rural development- Fight youth migration

III) OVERALL ASSESSMENT

15. Please rank your overall assessment of the MSP, ranking from 1 to 5 (with 1 being lowest to 5 highest)



Proceedings / 13

I will rank my MSP at 2

16. Explain your above ranking

Our MSP is still struggling to be at its best.

17. How do you assess the MSP according to the following criteria (high, medium, low)? Why?

Criteria / Assessment Low Medium High

Inclusiveness

(the intention to include everyone affected by decisions, especially those who are routinely ignored)

Accountability

(assigned responsibility that a representative or a group acquires with the action of speaking or deciding on behalf of someone else)

Transparency/Access to Information

(openness to public scrutiny, availability of information)

Reflexivity

(capacity of a MSP to learn from mistakes, to assess long-term trends, and to react accordingly

Effectiveness

(assessment of the achievement of MSP’s objectives)

Efficiency

(comparison between the use of



Proceedings / 14

resources with the potential benefits the MSP can generate, including intangible benefits)

Resource mobilisation

(raising of financial resources, and other enabling resources to improve FSN)

Impact

(impact onFSN in its four dimensions at different scales)

18. Any comments on the above ratings:

Our organise is run by volunteers, that makes it difficult to operate on full scale

19. How do you rate the power relations between participants? (choose one option)

( ) More Equal

( Equal ) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal

20. Explain your above rating

IV) THREATS, OPPORTUNITIES,LESSONS LEARNED AND WAYS FORWARD

21. Could you identify current strengths supporting and/or weakness challenging the MSP?

22. Could you identify projected threats and/or opportunities that the MSP would cause/offer, (included for those stakeholders that are not included in the MSP)?



Proceedings / 15

23. Which conditions could enable the MSP to better function?

24. What is the potential of this MSP to influence public priorities across sectors and allocation of budget for improved FSN? What is its potential to mobilisefurther funds for improving food security and nutrition?

25. What is the potential of this MSP to address the specific needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups most affected by food insecurity and malnutrition?

26. How can other regions/countries use this experience to organize similar spaces? what are the necessary conditions to extrapolate/adapt/scale-up this MSP experience?

REFERENCES

27. The HLPE is interested by any article, mainly scientific references but also practical experiences on MSPs you would like to share (scholarly articles, reports, reviews, analysis, etc):

28. Any other observation.



Proceedings / 16

2. Jan Brouwers, Wageningen University & Research, Netherlands Contribution no. 19

1. Name of MSP: # (for HLPE use only):


(…) Food production; food supply chain;

(…) Natural resource management;

(…) Education, information, knowledge sharing;

(…) Resource mobilization;

(X) Other: local governance for nutrition


Uganda presents a case of a multi-stakeholder participatory process to operationalise the Uganda Nutrition Action Plan at district level. Partners collaborated together, under the guidance of the Office of the prime Minister and with support from FHI360 funded by USAID, to support local district authorities develop and govern their district nutrition action plans.


As of 2016 in ten districts local governance was coordinating nutrition programmes, with synergy between ministries, civil society and private sector. By 2017 in all districts in Uganda local authorises are governing their nutrition programmes following the same approach: https://www.multisectoralnutritiontoolkit.co.ug/



( ) Global (Specify major areas/regions of presence:………………..…………….……………………)

(...) Regional ……………………………………….….……………………………..)




Proceedings / 17

( X ) National: All districts of Uganda



6. Number of main partners: Office of Prime Minister (coordinating all actors, incl. 1) ministries like health, Agric, Education, Water and Local Governance; 2) donors; and 3) INGOs)


One of the key features of this MSP is that it associated different categories of actors: public, private, civil society, INGO,s donors. See details in documents.

The site shares the methodologies developed and documented lessons learned (see bottom of webpage): https://nutrition.opm.go.ug/index.php/approach/


Gov. of Uganda


(X) full legal entity: legal personality

(X) formalized agreement among partners, but no legal personality for the MSP

(X) informal arrangement

Describe the decision-making process (including frequency of meetings of the governing bodies…).

This involves a detailed process of both formal and informal events and steps. See lessons learned documented at https://nutrition.opm.go.ug/index.php/approach/


5 See V0 draft for a more detailed description of the three first broad category. For “others”, please specify.



Proceedings / 18


The main parties leading this MSP were the District Nutrition Coordination Committees. They were the driver of their respective Nutrition Action Plans, supported by other actors. See details in documentation of lessons learned: https://nutrition.opm.go.ug/index.php/approach/

11. Representativeness: How and by whom are the members chosen? Do they speak only for themselves or represent a broader category of stakholders? How long is their mandate? How does the MSP ensure inclusiveness and “fair” representation of the most affected people?

What are the channels of communication between the MSP and the government(s)? Are the decisions/recommendations of the MSP to the government(s) are prescriptive or consultative? What public strategies/priorities this partnership supported at different scales?


II) OUTCOMES


(…)“policy-oriented”

(….) “action-oriented”

(…) Other (specify):



Proceedings / 19









1.





14. Outcomes that directly contribute to FSN (e.g. increased production, economic growth, income and employment generation, improved diets, better nutrition education and information…)


16. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 20




Inclusiveness


Accountability




Reflexivity


Effectiveness


Efficiency

(comparison between the use of resources with the potential benefits the MSP can generate, including intangible benefits)




Proceedings / 21


Impact

(impact on FSN in its four dimensions at different scales)



( ) More Equal

( ) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal


IV) THREATS, OPPORTUNITIES, LESSONS LEARNED AND WAYS FORWARD






Proceedings / 22

24. What is the potential of this MSP to influence public priorities across sectors and allocation of budget for improved FSN? What is its potential to mobilise further funds for improving food security and nutrition?



REFERENCES





Proceedings / 23

3. Narayan Hegde, Baif Development Research Foundation, IndiaContribution no. 26

1. Name of MSP: Tree based farming for rehabilitation of tribal families in India

# (for HLPE use only):

2. Thematic domain of activity: Tree Based Farming

(X) Food production; food supply chain;






About 10% Indian population is represented by different Tribes, who traditionally lived in and around forests, depending on various forest products and food grain grown on denuded forest lands. Unable to earn their livelihood from these dwindling sources, these families were forced to migrate seasonally to other areas, apart from indulging in denuding the ecosystem. To provide sustainable livelihood and to conserving the natural resources, tree based farming system was promoted by supporting the poor tribal families to develop agri-horti-forestry on their denuded hilly terrains, with the support from KfW (German Development Bank) and National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD). The task was to create awareness about sustainable livelihood through establishment of fruit crops (which they called Wadi programme) and establish backward and forward linkages to develop an efficient value chain. As these tribal families were living in remote areas with small land holdings, multi-stakeholder partnership was needed for efficient implementation of this project and effective communication.


www.baif.org.in (Tree based farming, Rehabilitation of Tribal families)

4. Year of Origin / Creation:1982



(X) Regional (Specify region)6:…Asia

(…) Sub-regional (Specify sub-region7: South East Asia

( ) National (Specify country): India

6For the answer to this question, please use the 7 “FAO regions”: Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Carribean, Near East, North America, Southwest Pacific, as described online:





http://www.baif.org.in/

Proceedings / 24

( ) Local (specify country: …) Gujarat State, Navsari and Valsad districts


6. Number of main partners: Five


1. International Donor: KfW, Government of Germany - Donor

2. Public Sector: Ministry of Finance, Government of India: Recipient under bilateral assistance.

3. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), for Project Monitoring

4. BAIF Development Research Foundation for Project Implementation

5. People’s Organisations – Self Help Groups, Village Planning Committees, Producers’ Cooperatives, for capacity building, transfer of technologies and value chain development.


NABARD and BAIF initiated the MSP to ensure efficient implementation of the project. BAIF initiated the establishment of People’s Organisations and Producers’ Cooperatives.


(…) full legal entity: legal personality

(…) formalized agreement among partners, but no legal personality for the MSP

(X) informal arrangement: MSP of all the partners was informal, while it was formal between BAIF and People’s Organisations


MSP of all Partners met once a year to review the progress of the project.

MSP of BAIF and People’s Organisations met every quarter to review progress, identify the challenges in project implementation and find suitable solutions.


BAIF representative chaired the partnership at project implementation level, while the NABARD


8See V0 draft for a more detailed description of the three first broad category. For “others”, please specify.



Proceedings / 25

representative chaired the larger MSP. All the partners had equal power in presenting their views, within the project guidelines.


All the project participant families formed the members and one person chosen by the family was the member of the Self Help Group (SHG). All the members of each SHG selected their representative to be nominated on the village development committee and Producers’ Cooperative. Selection was mainly dependent on the ability and interest of the person in the development programme.


Channels of communication between MSP and Government were through NABARD, representative of the Government in the MSP. The communication was through dispatch of written reports and minutes of the meetings and participation in discussions.

MSP evolved a new model of farming system which could ensure food security and socio-economic empowerment for the tribal families while conserving the ecosystem and biodiversity, on a wider scale. Based on the result of this MSP, NABARD and the Ministry of Tribal affairs, Government of India launched new schemes to promote Wadi programme (tree based farming), across the country to benefit all the tribal families.


Major funding was by KfW under the Indo-German Bilateral Cooperation. NABARD provided additional finance to meet the uncovered expenses on infrastructural development. Participant families contributed their labour and other resources available with them. They also availed additional loan from local financial resources.

II) OUTCOMES



(X) “action-oriented”

(X) Other (specify): The outcome was intended to influence the National Tribal Development Policy as well.




Proceedings / 26


Over 90% participant families came out of poverty and are leading improved quality of life. The MSP has been ensuring good governance and supporting various value chains. There has been greater awareness about conservation of natural resources. Migration has reduced significantly which has resulted in improved health status and education of children.

Outcome of this MSP has influenced Government and Financial Institutions to support such schemes.


Developed suitable methodologies and approaches to empower weaker sections of the society.




x


x


x

4. Resource mobilisation and fund raising x


x

6. Outcomes that directly contribute to FSN(e.g. increased production, economic growth, income and employment generation, improved diets, better nutrition education and information…)

x

7. Monitoring and evaluation x

8. Other (Specify: Explore new approaches for sustainable development and replicable models)

x


Proceedings / 27



4

16. Explain your above ranking:

MSP was most effective in promoting inclusive development and to understand the challenges of developing them. However, the donors might not have fully understood the importance of MSP from the empowerment angle. Hence, no serious attention was given at the initial stage.



Inclusiveness


x

Accountability


x



x

Reflexivity


x

Effectiveness


x

Efficiency


x



Proceedings / 28




x

Impact


x


MSP is essential for sustainable development and empowerment of weaker sections of the society but the donor agencies are often reluctant to listen to them and make changes in the original plan of action.


( ) More Equal

( ) Equal

( x ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal


Generally, the poor and weak stakeholders are dominated by the donors. Hence, better understanding and concern are needed for efficient MSP

IV) THREATS, OPPORTUNITIES,LESSONS LEARNED AND WAYS FORWARD


Strengths: Mutual trust, confidence of the weaker stakeholders and improved awareness and capabilities to understand the objectives of MSP, by all.

Weakness: Over-concern by the donors and implementing agencies about spending.


Threats: Political interventions and vested interests, Lack of monitoring beyond the project period

Opportunities: Transparency in public spending and development programmes, Lesser dependency on outsiders for improving their livelihood.


Information services for development and management support in self governance




Proceedings / 29

Potentials are high. Participation of representatives of Donors and Government are essential to influence development priorities and programmes.


Very high


This experience is useful for other development countries for inclusive development and empowerment of weaker sections of the society.

REFERENCES


Please refer to BAIF website www.baif.org.in


Nil

4. Patrick Mink, 10YFP Sustainable Food Systems Programme, Switzerland

Contribution no. 24

The following questionnaire aims at collecting detailed inputs on existing MSPs. This material is to be used where appropriate by the HLPE to illustrate its abovementioned report #13 with concrete examples.

1. Name of MSP: Sustainable Food Systems (SFS) Programme of the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production (10YFP)






http://www.baif.org.in/

Proceedings / 30


(X) Education, information, knowledge sharing;


(X) Other (specify): Entire food system, along the entire food value chain from production to consumption


The 10YFP SFS Programme is a global MSP with the goal to accelerate the shift towards sustainable food systems, through both normative as well as action-oriented work implemented by collaborative initiatives at different levels (global, regional and national/local). The 10YFP SFS Programme aims to address the challenges related to FSN with a holistic, system-based approach towards more integrated and inclusive policy-making.

The initiatives of the 10YFP SFS Programme promote awareness raising activities, strengthen capacities and enabling environments, and increase access to information, knowledge and tools , focusing on the areas of sustainable diets, sustainable value chains, resilient food production systems, and food losses and waste reduction.

The mandate of the 10YFP SFS Programme stems from the Rio+20 Conference, where the adoption of the 10YFP was one of the major results in addition to the decision to develop the SDGs. Furthermore, the implementation of the 10YFP is enshrined in SDG 12.1, and the SFS Programme reports through the 10YFP Secretariat to ECOSOC and the HLPF.

Please refer to the Rio+20 document (A/CONF.216/5), the SFS Programme Document and the SFS Programme Terms of Reference for further information.


http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/sustainable-food-system (website of MSP)

http://web.unep.org/10yfp (background information on the 10YFP)



(X) Global. Major areas/regions of presence: currently Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Africa. However, the 10YFP SFS Programme does have members and activities from all continents. Important additional information: Next to the global scope of the partnership, the 10YFP SFS Programme – through its so-called Core Initiatives - implements activities on the regional, national and sub-national level as well. Certain Core Initiatives of the Programme also promote activities across a number of different countries (e.g. Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, Indonesia, Kenya, South Africa, Netherlands). In addition, the 10YFP SFS Programme has more than 20 so-called Affiliated Projects and 4 Trust Fund projects,



http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/initiative/sustainable-and-healthy-gastronomy-key-driver-sustainable-food-systems-core

http://web.unep.org/10yfp

http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/sustainable-food-system

http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/sites/default/files/10yfp_sfsp_terms_of_reference_tor_-_editable_v31oct2017.docx

http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/sites/default/files/10yfp_sfsp_programme_document.pdf

http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/sites/default/files/10yfp-a-conf.216-5-en.pdf

Proceedings / 31

which are being implemented in countries including: Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Malaysia, Nigeria and Sweden, Serbia, Switzerland, Philippines and Thailand, Tanzania.

(…) Regional (Specify region9)


(…) National (Specify country:

(...) Local (specify country: ……………………………………….…………………………………………)


6. Number of main partners: 143 members (of which: 4 Co-Lead organizations; 23 member organizations of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Committee (MAC); and 116 Programme Partners (as of 13 February 2018))


10YFP SFS Programme Co-Leads:

- Federal Office for Agriculture, Switzerland (government agency)- Department of Trade and Industry, South Africa (government agency)- WWF (civil society organization)- Hivos (civil society organization)

23 Members of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Committee (MAC):

Government agencies:

- Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable- (SAyDS) (Argentina)

- Brazil - Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (Ministerio da Agricultura, Pecuaria, e Abastecimento) -MAPA

- Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia - Costa Rica

- French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy

9 For the answer to this question, please use the 7 “FAO regions”: Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Carribean, Near East, North America, Southwest Pacific, as described online:







http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/initiative/uluguru-spice-project-usp-affiliated

http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/initiative/establish-low-carbon-consumption-and-production-thailand-indonesia-and-philippines-%E2%80%9Cscp

http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/initiative/my-food-skills-affiliated

http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/initiative/new-products-based-cereals-and-pseudocereals-organic-farming-systems

http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/initiative/inclusive-business-co-creation-accelerator-alliance-agri-food


http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/initiative/mate-market-access-and-territorial-empowerment-affiliated

http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/initiative/national-program-reduce-food-loss-and-waste-affiliated

Proceedings / 32

- Consejo Nacional de Desarrollo Sostenible - Honduras

- Ministry of Economic Affairs - Netherlands

- U.S. Department of Agriculture

Civil Society Organisations:

- Biovision Foundation

- IFOAM Organics International

- UDYAMA

- Global Nature Fund

Scientific and technical organizations

- French National Institute for Agricultural Research INRA

- ENEA

- German Development Institute

- Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School

UN agencies and other inter-governmental organizations

- CIHEAM (Centre international de hautes etudes agronomiques mediterraneennes)

- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)

- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

- UN System Standing Committee on Nutrition (UNSCN)

Private sector

- Pinpoint Sustainability

- FoodDrinkEurope

- Nestle

- Smaackmakers

In addition, the 10YFP SFS programme has 116 Programme partners.


The 10YFP SFS Programme was jointly developed by FAO and UNEP in the context of the Rio+20 Conference and the adoption of the UN 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production (10YFP), with the support of Switzerland and based on the work of the FAO/UNEP-led Agri-food



Proceedings / 33

Task Force on Sustainable Consumption and Production (2011-2015).

Since its launch in 2015, however, the 10YFP SFS Programme is being jointly led by two civil society organizations (WWF and Hivos) and two government agencies (South Africa and Switzerland), while FAO and UNEP remain key partners in the implementation of the Programme in their role as MAC members.




(…) informal arrangement


The Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAC) is the main body for strategic discussions and decision-making. It meets three times per year, with one face-to-face meeting and two teleconferences. The Co-Leads have about monthly calls where they discuss issues related to programme implementation, communication, resource mobilization, and partnerships. Together, the Co-Leads provide for the Coordination Desk, which acts as the secretariat for the 10YFP SFS Programme

In addition, the 10YFP SFS Programme has four task forces, that create and implement joint work plans:

1. On Awareness raising and communication2. On Enabling environments and capacity building3. On Information, knowledge and tools4. On Partnerships and synergies

For more detailed information on the decision-making process and the respective roles and responsibilities of the different members and bodies, please refer to the 10YFP SFS Programme’s Terms of Reference.


For the roles, responsibilities and level of involvement of different partners, please refer to section 2 of the ToR.

Decisions are taken by the Co-Leads and MAC (for their composition see 7. above), with each of them having one vote. There are no major power asymmetries within these bodies, however some Co-Leads and





Proceedings / 34

MAC members are more involved and devote more time than others. Programme Partners are not directly involved in strategic discussions and decision-making, however all three types of members have the possibility to participate in the Programme’s task forces, join forces in 10YFP SFS Programme core initiatives and/or affiliate relevant activities and projects to the 10YFP SFS Programme.


The Co-Leads serve a term of 4 years (renewable) and are elected by the MAC. MAC members serve a term of 2 years (renewable up to two times) and are elected by the Programme Partners of their respective stakeholder clusters. Programme Partners are screened by the Coordination Desk and then recommended by the Co-Leads to the MAC for adoption.

MAC members speak for their respective organization, however the fact that they are elected by the Programme Partners establishes accountability towards their stakeholder cluster.

A number of the Programme Partners are organizations that represent affected people, and several of the MAC members (especially those of the civil society organisation cluster) work with and/or advocate for the most affected. The co-leads have been seeking and encouraging more active involvement of actors from Africa, Asia and Latin America to ensure a better geographical balance and representation of non-Western actors.


The 10YFP SFS Programme has 2 Co-Leads and 7 MAC members that are government agencies, which provides for a direct line of communication with those governments. In addition, the 10YFP SFS Programme can draw upon the 120+ designated National Focal Points of the 10YFP. So far, decisions/recommendations have been of a rather consultative nature. However, several of the 10YFP SFS Programme’s core initiatives are promoting normative work, such as the development of voluntary guidelines for sustainable diets.


The 10YFP SFS Programme does not have a shared budget. The Programme is mostly implemented through in-kind contributions of its members and by creating new collaborations and synergies, as well as pooling and building on existing resources in order to use them in a more efficient way.

The 10YFP SFS Programme has a resource mobilization strategy that is based on a collaborative approach and has shown some successes, however fundraising remains a challenge and all core initiatives are in need



Proceedings / 35

of additional finance in order to ensure their implementation according to the work plan. In line with its resource mobilization strategy, the 10YFP SFS Programme members share information on funding opportunities through an online “resource mobilization platform”, and in addition the Co-Leads make Programme members aware of funding opportunities and encourage them to make coordinated applications to relevant calls for proposals.

In addition to the above, there is a small 10YFP Trust Fund, administered by the 10YFP Secretariat (hosted by UNEP) to which programme members can submit project proposals. Currently there are three ongoing Trust Funds projects being funded (aggregate amount 500.000 USD).

II) OUTCOMES


(X)“policy-oriented”






Proceedings / 36


Areas 1-3 correspond to the 4 objectives of the 10YFP SFS Programme (1: Raise awareness of the need to shift to more sustainable food systems and to apply a holistic, systems approach to addressing food security and nutrition; 2: Build capacity and enabling conditions for the identification, prioritization, development and uptake of sustainable practices across food systems and facilitate access to financial and technical assistance; Take stock of, categorize and disseminate – and if needed develop – accessible and actionable science-based and/or empirically-demonstrated information tools and methodologies to support governments, the private sector, farmers, consumers and other relevant stakeholders to contribute to more sustainable food systems; 4: Bring together initiatives and develop partnerships to build synergies and cooperation to leverage resources towards the mutual goal of promoting, enhancing and facilitating the shift towards more sustainable food systems) and are being pursued through the work of the Programme’s




X


X


X

4. Resource mobilisation and fund raising X


X


X

7. Monitoring and evaluation X

8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 37

4 task forces (on 1: Awareness raising and communication; 2: Enabling environments and capacity building; 3: Information, knowledge and tools; and 4: Partnerships and synergies).

The core initiatives of the 10YFP SFS Programme promote the 4 objectives within the following five focus themes: sustainable diets; sustainable value chains; resilient food production systems; local, national, regional multi-stakeholder platforms; and food losses and waste reduction. Thereby, they promote outcomes that directly contribute to areas 5 and 6.

In addition, the 10YFP SFS Programme has a resource mobilization strategy (area 4) and a monitoring and evaluation framework (area 7).


Building trust, building consensus around concepts and notions, creating new synergies and pooling resources in order to use them in a more efficient way.



4


The 10YFP SFS Programme performs very well overall, however resource mobilization remains a challenge.



Inclusiveness


X

Accountability


X



X



Proceedings / 38

Reflexivity


X

Effectiveness


X

Efficiency


X



X

Impact


X X


Impact is still low to medium as the MSP is still new and more time is required for tangible impact on FSN in all its dimensions and at different scales to materialize. For the same reason, the effectiveness is still medium. Resource mobilization regarding other enabling resources could be assessed as high (in-kind contributions, creating synergies and pooling resources), however the raising of additional financial resources remains a challenge, therefore the overall medium assessment.


( ) More Equal

(X) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal


Co-Leads and MAC members have one vote each in strategic decisions. MAC members elect Co-Leads and Programme Partners elect MAC members.




Proceedings / 39


Main strengths: inclusiveness, ability to create synergies and partnerships and pool resources.

Main weakness: raising additional funds for activities and projects.


The 10YFP SFS Programme will be increasingly working around consensus building on key concepts and notions related to sustainable food systems, as well as taking stock of and highlight best practices in relation to policies that support sustainable food systems. Being a member of the 10YFP SFS Programme offers an opportunity to food system actors to be part of this process.


1) More effective fund raising; 2) increased high-level political commitment to SDGs 2 and 12 as well as the concept of sustainable food systems; 3) more alignment with other relevant MSPs.


The potential to influence public priorities is quite high, as the 10YFP SFS Programme has several governments as well as inter-governmental organizations among its members. The 10YFP’s position as an official vehicle to implement and achieve SDG12, and the 10YFP SFS Programme’s evident links to many other SDGs including in particular SDG2, add to the SFS Programme’s potential to influence public priorities that relate to FSN and Sustainable Consumption and Production.

Although fund raising remains a challenge, there is rather high potential in this area, too. On the one hand, there has been increased interest in the Programme by philanthropic foundations and IFAD has recently joined as a Programme Partner, and on the other hand the GEF Secretariat highlighted the 10YFP SFS Programme as one of the existing global initiatives of relevance to its new Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration Impact Program.


Through activities under its focus theme “Resilient, inclusive food production systems” the 10YFP SFS Programme will support in particular the marginalized and most affected groups.

26. How can other regions/countries use this experience to organize similar spaces? What are the necessary conditions to extrapolate/adapt/scale-up this MSP experience?

Any entity working on promoting sustainable food systems in line with the objectives of the 10YFP SFS Programme can become a member, which will allow them to bring in and collaborate in joint projects, and gain visibility.



Proceedings / 40

REFERENCES


For further references and links, in addition to those already included in this questionnaire, please refer to our general submission.


5. Matthew Fielding, SIANI, SwedenContribution no. 27

1. Name of MSP: Swedish International Agricultural Network Initiative (SIANI)




(X) Natural resource management;




Gender and equality, agriculture.


SIANI is a network-based communications platform focused on food security and sustainable agriculture. The organisation was started to spread awareness and knowledge of agriculture’s essential roll for sustainable development, and now has a specific mandate of working towards achieving SDG2 - No Hunger. SIANI creates a platform for dialogue between different sectors, develop knowledge through different



Proceedings / 41

‘Expert Groups’ that provide support for evidence-based policymaking and continues to strive for multi-lateral cooperation. Through these activities the organisation has attracted membership from countries all around the world and strengthened north-south cooperation.


https://www.siani.se/



( x ) Global - Specify major areas/regions of presence: SE Asia, Africa, Europe

( ) Regional (Specify region12:…………………………………………….….……………………………..)


( ) National (Specify country……………………………………………………….………………………)





- Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Sida (Public)

- Stockholm Environment Institute, SEI (Other, Research)

- Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU (Other; Research)

- Forest Climate Livelihood Network , Focali (Other; Research)

- Swedish Board of Agriculture (Public)

- Federation of Swedish Farmers, LRF (Private)








https://www.siani.se/

Proceedings / 42

- Vi-skogen (Civil Society)

- Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (Civil Society)

- Tetra Laval (Private)

- Swedish FAO committee

- The Royal Academy for Forestry and Agriculture (Other; Research)

- The Agroforestry Network (Other; Research)

- Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, CGIAR (Other; Research)


SIANI was conceived as a result of a joint-workshop where representatives from all four sectors were present. SIANI has since then gone through different phases: 1) establish a platform for cross-sectoral knowledge exchange and organise activities to raise awareness and expand the knowledge of partners, 2) network expansion and consolidation, 3) recognised neutral knowledge platform with a mission statement and goals specifically tailored to SDG2.



(x) formalized agreement among partners, but no legal personality for the MSP



The highest decision-making body of SIANI is the Steering Committee (SC), made up of a maximum of ten members who must collectively comprise a broad and varied experience and expertise from different sectors in the aspects of international agricultural development. The SC meet at least three times a year. Once every year, a SIANI Member’s meeting is held where every member has the opportunity to submit proposals and opinions concerning priorities and ideas for activities. The SIANI secretariat is the responsible party for day-to-day decision-making and hosts weekly meetings where key partners such as SLU and Focali participate in person or through Skype.

10. Governance structure: describe the roles, responsibilities and level of involvement of the different partners in the partnership. Describe, the case being, power asymmetries between partners. Which partner(s) lead the MSP?

SIDA and SEI are the main contractual partners through a core funding contract with the latter. Together with SLU they are the three ex-officio members of the SC, albeit in that capacity they do not have the ability



Proceedings / 43

to vote. However, as hosting organisation SEI has the ability to potentially override SIANI SC decisions. Regarding the cooperation within the larger network, there is no distinction or hierarchy amongst the members.


SIANI membership is free and open to all who register via the SIANI website. The ability to apply for a funded focus group is also open to those who send in applications, though the Secretariat will make decisions concerning qualification and contracts. Likewise, every SIANI membership organization has the ability to approach the Secretariat to collaborate in arranging SIANI Events.

Members of the Steering Committee (a board) sit for a period of three years, and a nomination group is responsible for proposing new members though every SIANI member has the ability to suggest a SC member via email to the Secretariat. Each SC member is nominated based on personal capacity stemming from the perspectives and knowledge of their sector. However, an SC member should to the fullest extent possible be representative of the whole range of SIANI’s collaborating sectors.


There are a number of potential communication channels between SIANI and the Swedish Government. Generally the purpose and method of SIANI is to facilitate joint-action between key SIANI members to act collectively and provide evidence-based knowledge and information that can in turn be the support for informed decision-making. However on special occasions hearings on specific topics like antimicrobial resistance, people from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation being members of SIANI

Through SIANI’s engagement in the Swedish FAO Committee which is chaired by the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation. SIANI publications are shared on the Swedish FAO committee´s website.


SIANI is funded by multi-year grants from Sida in addition to co-funding from a variety of partners on a ‘per



Proceedings / 44

activity’ basis.

Sida supports SIANI’s work in coordinating the actions according with agreed workplan. With the increasing recognition of the platform and its role as a neutral knowledge platform, the contribution from partners are increasing and many activities are now organized fully supported by collaborating partners.

SIANI is hosted by a larger organisation (the Stockholm Environment Institute) and as part of this relationship gains the use of their HR and finance departments.

II) OUTCOMES


(x)“policy-oriented”

(….) “action-oriented”





Proceedings / 45


1. Raising the profile of important issues related to the ‘Swedish experience’ on an international stage – such as the recent AMR work, originating from a Swedish context. SIANI participates in the development of several strategies for development such as public consultations and with written contributions. SIANI has also jointly with other actors been writing opinion pieces to highlight the importance of e.g. agroforestry.

2. Communicating stories and narratives from vulnerable groups, presenting this as learning and opportunities for the education of network members. SIANI has always worked to highlight female role models, and strive to have female representatives and other voices e.g. from youth or minority groups in panels at organized seminars. SIANI has raised the importance of female participation in Forestry at e.g. UN CFS http://www.fao.org/cfs/home/plenary/side-events/37/en/

3. Organisation of regular seminars and activities bringing in a diverse selection of speakers from across the




x


x


x



x


x


8. Other (Specify: ________________)


http://www.fao.org/cfs/home/plenary/side-events/37/en/

Proceedings / 46

globe to ensure multiple viewpoints are included in discussions and debates. SIANI publications are used for training and educational purposes and often cited. For example: 1) https://www.siani.se/publication/bookgender_relations/ 2) https://www.siani.se/publication/antimicrobial-use-livestock-low-income-countries

4. Support smaller groups and individuals to engage in debates and relevant for a, and to give equal opportunity to be heard. SIANI also received funding from collaborators relating to specific activities. SIANI plays an important role to raise the importance of smallholder agriculture for FSN in the public which has resulted in more financial support to the sector through different development policies.

5. We are an information platform so support members to engage with knowledge and skills in these areas. As SIANI is hosted by one of the most influential think tanks within the area of environment and policy, the sustainability aspects of Agriculture and linking FSN to the climate agenda has been a core activity for the network

6. We are an information platform so support members to engage with knowledge and skills in these areas. SIANI has been proactive to raise the following issues and linking them to production and FSN; social safety network and agriculture, food waste and losses to food security, AMR and livestock to food safety, food security and sustainability, food security, climate and agroforestry.

7. We have innovated our own versions of outcome monitoring that are best applied to our work with a distributed network.


Our partners benefit from the fact that we are an independent body who promotes evidence-based approaches to FSN. We facilitate many different dialogues and activities, even safe spaces for discussion and learning.






Inclusiveness


X



https://www.siani.se/publication/bookgender_relations/

Proceedings / 47

Accountability


X



X

Reflexivity


X

Effectiveness


X

Efficiency


X



X

Impact


X





Proceedings / 48

( X ) More Equal

( ) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal


One of the basic tenets of SIANI is to encourage multi-sector dialogues, and much of our funding is distributed on the basis that dialogues will represent multiple viewpoints and be inclusive.



Strong and supportive base in Sweden the partners support each other and regularly share information. New network constellations on specific issues have emerged e.g. Agroforestry Network. However this success is also a limitation as it is hard to locate other donors of to support a Nordic network a similar size and outreach outside the Nordic region.


Threat: The network is dependent on Swedish government support and support from Sida .

Opportunity: is that the partners are willing to invest in this collaboration with their time and with other resources.


A commitment of funding for an extended period (7-10yrs) so work-streams could be properly developed over time and with greater efficiency.

24. What is the potential of this MSP to influence public priorities across sectors and allocation of budget for



Proceedings / 49

improved FSN? What is its potential to mobilise further funds for improving food security and nutrition?

High within the Swedish context and Swedish funding spurs commitments from other donor and philanthropic agencies e.g. our experiences with AMR and livestock.


High, dependant on the partners and the issues that are bring focused on at that time within the network.


Very easily. We can present a transparent model of our system which should be successful in most other contexts.

REFERENCES


SIANI Outputs 2017

Blogs:

1.

Putting Agenda 2030 into practice, how the landscape perspective can contribute?

https://www.siani.se/blog/putting-2030-agenda-practice-how-landscape-perspective-can-contribute/

2.

In the search for food security, how can African scientists make themselves heard?



https://www.siani.se/blog/putting-2030-agenda-practice-how-landscape-perspective-can-contribute/

Proceedings / 50

https://www.siani.se/blog/search-food-security-how-can-african-scientists-make-themselves-heard/

3.

Real –life experiences for understanding women economic empowerment

https://www.siani.se/blog/real-life-experiences-understanding-womens-economic-empowerment/

4.

The importance of self-reflection in research

https://www.siani.se/blog/importance-self-reflection-research/

5.

Why does animal health matter?

https://www.siani.se/blog/why-does-animal- health-matter/

6.

Det internationella baljväxtåret 2016 – vad hände och hur fortsätter vi framåt?

https://www.siani.se/blog/det-internationella-baljvaxtaret-2016-vad-hande-och-hur-fortsatter-vi-framat/

7.

Going organic in Russia – the case for better marketing

https://www.siani.se/blog/going-organic-russia-case-better-marketing/

8.

Can muscles be a secret answer to sustainable aquaculture?

https://www.siani.se/blog/can-mussels-be-secret-answer-sustainable-aquaculture/

9.

Age aside: Young leaders are still leaders

https://www.siani.se/blog/age-aside-young-leaders-are-still-leaders/

10.

How a forest walk can hold a key to immigrant integration

https://www.siani.se/blog/how-forest-walk-can-hold-key-immigrant-integration/

11.

Forgotten fruit always tastes better

https://www.siani.se/blog/forgotten-fruit-always-tastes-better/

(part of the SIANI spotlight on GFAR)

12.

The future food system is open-source, high-tech and operates through networks

https://www.siani.se/blog/future-food-system-open-source-high-tech-and-operates-through-networks/

13.

Boosting youth engagement in sustainable development, what will it take?



https://www.siani.se/blog/future-food-system-open-source-high-tech-and-operates-through-networks/

https://www.siani.se/blog/forgotten-fruit-always-tastes-better/

https://www.siani.se/blog/how-forest-walk-can-hold-key-immigrant-integration/

https://www.siani.se/blog/age-aside-young-leaders-are-still-leaders/

https://www.siani.se/blog/can-mussels-be-secret-answer-sustainable-aquaculture/

https://www.siani.se/blog/going-organic-russia-case-better-marketing/

https://www.siani.se/blog/det-internationella-baljvaxtaret-2016-vad-hande-och-hur-fortsatter-vi-framat/

https://www.siani.se/blog/why-does-animal-health-matter/

https://www.siani.se/blog/importance-self-reflection-research/

https://www.siani.se/blog/real-life-experiences-understanding-womens-economic-empowerment/

https://www.siani.se/blog/search-food-security-how-can-african-scientists-make-themselves-heard/

Proceedings / 51

https://www.siani.se/blog/boosting-youth-engagement-sustainable-development-what-will-it-take/

14.

Leveraging agrobiodiversity: A recipe for food forever and happily ever after (

published at the UN CFS website)

https://www.siani.se/blog/leveraging-agrobiodiversity-recipe-food-forever-and-happily-ever-after/

15.

Indigenous food: More than just taste bud tingling ( in collaboration with Slow Food

Int.)

https://www.siani.se/blog/indigenous-food-more-taste-buds-tingling/

16.

Aquaculture: Pandering to the elite r a tool for rural development and food security?

https://www.siani.se/blog/aquaculture-pandering-elite-or-tool-rural-development-and-food-security/

17.

Leapfrogging into the green future, is it going to be tech for tat?

https://www.siani.se/blog/leapfrogging-green-future-it-going-be-tech-tat/

18.

The gender agenda, a vortex of misunderstandings? (published at the UN CFS

website)

https://www.siani.se/blog/gender-agenda-vortex-misunderstandings/

19.

Smoking hot: changing the way we cook (published at the UN CFS website)


20.

Why good policies and public money (only) won’t change the world (published at UN

CFS website)

https://www.siani.se/blog/why-good-policies-and-public-funding-only-wont-change-world/

21.

Growing food in concrete - urban farming pioneers in Stockholm

https://www.siani.se/blog/growing-food-concrete-urban-farming-pioneers-stockholm/

22.

Wastewater in forestry?

https://www.siani.se/blog/wastewater-in-forestry/

23.

Weaving smart food loops, for me, for you and for the farmer ( published at the UN



https://www.siani.se/blog/wastewater-in-forestry/

https://www.siani.se/blog/growing-food-concrete-urban-farming-pioneers-stockholm/

https://www.siani.se/blog/why-good-policies-and-public-funding-only-wont-change-world/


https://www.siani.se/blog/gender-agenda-vortex-misunderstandings/


https://www.siani.se/blog/aquaculture-pandering-elite-or-tool-rural-development-and-food-security/

https://www.siani.se/blog/indigenous-food-more-taste-buds-tingling/

https://www.siani.se/blog/leveraging-agrobiodiversity-recipe-food-forever-and-happily-ever-after/

https://www.siani.se/blog/boosting-youth-engagement-sustainable-development-what-will-it-take/

Proceedings / 52

CFS website)

https://www.siani.se/blog/weaving-smart-food-loops-planet-farmer/

24.

Trees of refuge giving back lost chances ( published at the UN CFS website)

https://www.siani.se/blog/trees-refuge-giving-back-lost-chances/

25.

Communities in Sweden and in Kenya, water crisis in common?

https://www.siani.se/blog/communities-sweden-kenya-water-crisis-common/

26.

Virtual reality for development: Impact through empathy

https://www.siani.se/blog/virtual-reality-development-impact-empathy/

27.

A playground for a sustainable lifestyle, deep in the woods

https://www.siani.se/blog/playground-sustainable-lifestyle-deep-woods/

28.

Forest and food, a matter of social justice?

https://www.siani.se/blog/forest-food-matter-social-justice/

29.

What happened in Stockholm during the “land rights autumn”?

https://www.siani.se/blog/happened-stockholm-land-rights-autumn-reflections-lasse-krantz/

30.

Trust infusion: Developing a software for sustainable landscapes ( published on the

GLF)

https://www.siani.se/blog/trust-infusion-developing-software-sustainable-Landscapes/

Publications:

1.

Linking water, sanitation and agricultural sectors for food and nutrition security

https://www.siani.se/publication/linking-water-sanitation-and-agricultural-sectors-food-and-nutrition-security/

2.

Farming + Forests= Food Security: Integrated landscapes offer hope of sustainability

in Asian uplands

https://www.siani.se/publication/farming-forests-food-security-integrated-landscapes-offer-hope-



https://www.siani.se/publication/farming-forests-food-security-integrated-landscapes-offer-hope-sustainability-asian/



https://www.siani.se/blog/trust-infusion-developing-software-sustainable-Landscapes/

https://www.siani.se/blog/happened-stockholm-land-rights-autumn-reflections-lasse-krantz/

https://www.siani.se/blog/forest-food-matter-social-justice/

https://www.siani.se/blog/playground-sustainable-lifestyle-deep-woods/

https://www.siani.se/blog/virtual-reality-development-impact-empathy/

https://www.siani.se/blog/communities-sweden-kenya-water-crisis-common/

https://www.siani.se/blog/trees-refuge-giving-back-lost-chances/

https://www.siani.se/blog/weaving-smart-food-loops-planet-farmer/

Proceedings / 53

sustainability-asian/

3.

Use of livestock resources for food security in the light of climate change

https://www.siani.se/publication/use-livestock-resources-food-security-light-climate-change/

4.

Reducing food waste across global food chains

https://www.siani.se/publication/reducing-food-waste-across-global-food-chains/

5.

Slå vakt om fattiga landsbygdsbors rätt Riktlinjer för ansvarsfull förvaltning av

naturresurser

https://www.siani.se/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/170626a_bess-siani_land_tenure_pb_1706-23_final_.pdf


6. Natasha Hayward, Global Agriculture and Food Security Program - World Bank, USA

Contribution no. 31

1. Name of MSP: Global Agriculture and Food Security Program-GAFSP # (for HLPE use only):


() Food production; food supply chain;


() Education, information, knowledge sharing;

() Resource mobilization;

() Other (specify): Coordinated FSN Implementation; Poverty alleviation; Nutrition


The Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) is a multilateral mechanism to assist





https://www.siani.se/publication/reducing-food-waste-across-global-food-chains/

https://www.siani.se/publication/use-livestock-resources-food-security-light-climate-change/



Proceedings / 54

in the implementation of pledges made by the G8++ at the L’Aquila Summit in July 2009 and set up in response to a request from the G20 in Pittsburgh in September 2009. GAFSP’s objective is to improve the income, food security, and nutrition of poor people in developing countries through more and better public and private sector investment. The Public Sector Window addresses the underfunding of agriculture and food security strategic investment plans already being developed by countries in consultation with donors and other stakeholders at the country level. The Private Sector Window, implemented by IFC, uses blended finance solutions and advisory services to support companies and financial institutions operating in predominantly smallholder-based agricultural value chains which may not attract commercial funding due to perceived high risks in the sector.

GAFSP supports long-term, sustainable agriculture development, which includes private sector development, climate resilience, nutrition, fragility, gender, and job creation. GAFSP channels funds to stakeholders in three ways, adapted to their needs: To countries through their governments, to private sector enterprises through innovative financing packages, and to producer organizations with membership of smallholder farmers through the pilot Missing Middle Initiative (MMI).

GAFSP helps farmers to achieve substantial income gains, to be food-secure, and ultimately to share in the gains of local growth and development by investing in a wide range of opportunities across five key components: Raising agricultural productivity; linking farmers to markets; reducing risk and vulnerability; improving non-farm rural livelihoods; and providing technical assistance, institution building, and capacity development.


http://www.gafspfund.org/http://www.gafspfund.org/content/public-sector-window

http://www.gafspfund.org/content/private-sector-window

4. Year of Origin / Creation:

G20 Pledges were made in September 2009; MSP Framework Agreement was adopted in February 2010.


() Global (Specify major areas/regions of presence: “IDA-eligible” countries of Africa; Asia; Near East; and Latin America and the Caribbean)




http://www.gafspfund.org/

Proceedings / 55





6. Number of main partners:


GAFSP is composed of the following groups/partners:

a) Regional/Country “Recipient” Representatives from: - Africa;- Asia; - Latin America and Caribbean; and- Near East;

b) “Donor” Country Representatives:- Australia- Canada- Germany- Ireland- Japan- Netherlands- S-Korea- Spain- UK- USA

c) “Donor” Foundation:- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

d) CSO Representatives (Apex regional CSO representatives):








Proceedings / 56

- Africa CSO- Asia CSO- North America CSO

e) Representative of the UN Secretary Generalf) Supervising Entities:

- Financial Institutions (Investment):

1. + African Development Bank (AfDB)

2. + Asian Development Bank (ADB)

3. + Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)

4. + International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

5. + The World Bank (WB)

6. + International Finance Corporation (IFC, manages the “Private Sector Window” of GAFSP)

- UN Agencies (Technical Assistance):

7. + Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)

8. + World Food Program (WFP)


Country representatives at the “Group of 8++” in l’Aquila, then the Group of 20 (G20) Meeting of Pittsburgh (2009).



() formalized agreement among partners, but no legal personality for the MSP



GAFSP’s governing body is its Steering Committee, which oversees all aspects of policy and decision-making for GAFSP. The Steering Committee includes an equal number of selected donor members and recipient representatives. Other (“non-voting”) stakeholders on the Committee include representatives of GAFSP’s supervising entities, civil society organizations, and the United Nations Secretary General. The GAFSP Steering Committee meets at least once a year. Special meetings, in addition, can be called.

There is also a Donor Committee that oversees the Private Sector Window. The Donor Committee is comprised of all major donors to the Private Sector Window (currently: Australia,



Proceedings / 57

Canada, Japan, Netherlands, UK and USA).

The GAFSP Steering Committee organizes its annual meetings jointly with the Private Sector Window Donor Committee. However, the Private Sector Window Donor Committee also meets separately once a year to review its past year’s activities and approve the next year’s Annual Plan.


The governance and organizational structure of GAFSP includes a Steering Committee, supported by a Coordination Unit:

ii) Steering Committee: oversees the overall activities of GAFSP, providing strategic guidance and oversight to the Program as a whole, making funding allocation decisions for the Public Sector Window, and endorsing the Private Sector Window’s Annual Plan, and consists of the following Voting Members and Non-Voting Members. (Important to note that although there are provisions for vote-taking, decisions are expected to be made by consensus approval): (A) Voting Members: they comprise: (a) a representative from each of the five (5) Initial Contributors to the Trust Fund and each subsequent Contributor which has voting rights; and (b) an equal number of representatives from Recipient Countries, of which at least one (1) would represent Africa. (B) Non-Voting Members: they comprise: (a) a representative of the United Nations Secretary General; (b) a representative of the Trustee; (c) representatives from the Supervising Entities and the IFC as agreed by the Steering Committee; (d) three (3) representatives from CSOs, two (2) of whom represent CSOs headquartered in countries eligible to receive financing from IDA and the other who represents CSOs headquartered in an Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development country; (e) a representative from each Contributor which is not a Voting Member; and (f) a representative from the remaining pre-selected Recipient Country and a representative from each of the additional Recipient Countries as agreed by the Steering Committee. Coordination Unit: A small team of staff provides technical, administrative, and logistical support to the Steering Committee and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC – see below) as requested, and facilitates communications between stakeholders. It is responsible for program-wide functions such as preparing operational guidelines, developing and implementing the monitoring and evaluation system, periodic reporting including an Annual Report for the Program as a whole, receiving and preparing all documents for the



Proceedings / 58

SC meetings, carrying out advocacy and outreach to support the Program as a whole, managing periodic Public Sector Window Calls for Proposals, collection and review (through the TAC) of proposals and funding requests, etc.

In addition, each of the “Windows” (Public and Private Sectors) have parallel structures that allow for the overall management as well as execution of investments, technical assistance and knowledge activities pertaining to the respective forms of financing:

i) For the Public Sector Window:- Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): its role is to provide advice on Proposals to the

Steering Committee for financing via the Public Sector Window;- Trustee: The WB established the Trust Fund receiving donors’ funds and is responsible

for the management of the funds until disbursement to the Supervising Entities;- Supervising Entities: They are responsible for the implementation of development

activities (use of GAFSP investments and TA) in supporting country-defined priorities in FSN;

ii) For the Private Sector Window: - Donor Committee: it is composed of representatives of countries that contribute to

the Private Sector Window of GAFSP. It is responsible for providing strategic guidance for the deployment of Private Sector Window funds. Each member of the Donor Committee has one (1) vote. Decisions of the Private Sector Window Donor Committee are taken by consensus;

- Supervising Entity: GAFSP’s governance agreement stipulates that IFC is the supervising entity for implementing GAFSP support through the Private Sector Window funds. The Blended Finance Committee in IFC approves the use of GAFSP funding for investment projects and the GAFSP Advisory Services Committee approves the use of GAFSP funding for technical assistance.


Please see details on GAFSP Governance and Organization in the following references:

http://www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/GAFSP%20Governance_revised%20Aug%201.pdf

http://www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/5_2%20IFC%20Charter.pdf



http://www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/5_2%20IFC%20Charter.pdf



Proceedings / 59


i) At MSP level: Governments are represented within the Steering Committee of GAFSP, through individual government representatives (for donor countries) or through the regional representatives (for “recipient” countries). The strategic framework of GAFSP is explained in its 5-pillar intervention explained later in this questionnaire and detailed in documents here: http://www.gafspfund.org/content/about-gafsp) Also, in 2012, at the launching of the CFS’s “Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition” (GSF) GAFSP was considered an embodiment of the GSF’s interest in ensuring that enough financial resources would be mobilized for the actions agreed by CFS (p.33 in: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/026/ME498E.pdf) —GAFSP still aims to play this role, including through the strategy of “twin-track approach” where immediate assistance to alleviate hunger has to be combined with longer term development interventions that go to the root causes of poverty and malnutrition (http://www.fao.org/3/a-br644e.pdf);

ii) At field level: governments in eligible countries are responsible for identifying investment needs and preparing related proposals to be submitted in response to Calls for Proposals under the Public Sector Window. They also identify a preferred Supervising Entity (SE) to work with, in the event that their submission is successful. For Public Sector Window-supported investments, one of the key selection criteria to be considered for GAFSP funding is the degree to which the particular project fits in the overall agriculture and FSN strategy of the country. (For African countries, it is necessary to show clearance through CAADP process of vetting of investments). Governments submit proposals directly to the CU, which oversees the Call for Proposals process. Following the independent TAC review and subsequent SC allocation decisions, the CU communicates the decision directly to Government. For approved projects, the Government then continues project preparation in partnership with their selected SE, who will now communicate progress and serve as key interlocutor on behalf of government, with the GAFSP CU and SC through project implementation;

iii) At implementation, for Public Sector investments, governments are in leading the implementation of investments and in the collection and analysis of Monitoring and Evaluation data for each project. The concerned Supervising Entity supports overall implementation, including disbursement of GAFSP’s funds to the Government, and serves as the key channel for communication between the GAFSP CU and the government;;

iv) For Private Sector Window investments, IFC’s Blended Finance Committee approves



http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/026/ME498E.pdf

http://www.gafspfund.org/content/about-gafsp

Proceedings / 60

GAFSP funding for investment operations and the GAFSp Advisory Services (AS) committee approves GAFSP funding for AS (technical assistance) projects.


Demand for GAFSP financial support exceeds the available funds for both public sector window and private sector window funding streams.

With respect to the financial tools/mechanisms:

- The GAFSP Steering Committee solicits contributions from countries, private foundations, and multilateral institutions.

- A multi-donor Trust Fund is established at the World Bank to pool donor funds for the Public Sector Window. For the Private Sector Window, bilateral trust funds are established at the IFC for contributions from each donor;

- All contributions made by the donors to the Public Sector Window of GAFSP are on a grant basis without any repayment obligations;

- Arrangements for reflows from private sector investments under the Private Sector Window are negotiated between IFC and the donors.

- For the Public Sector Window, resources are transferred to the selected Supervising Entities (see above) to finance selected country investments and and/or for technical assistance. Supervising entities receiving funds from GAFSP remain directly accountable to the Steering Committee for the proper handling and use of funds.

- The funds contributed to the Private Sector Window Trust Fund are implemented by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), consistent with the relevant IFC guidelines, policies and procedures and in line with the Principles of Blended Finance for investments.

- For the Private Sector Window, funds are allocated in one of two types of support offered by IFC: (i) Advisory services, on a grant basis; and (ii) Investment services through various non-grant financial instruments including: loans, equity and quasi-equity investments, guarantees and risk sharing facilities.

II) OUTCOMES



() “action-oriented”


14. What are the main areas of contribution of the MSP? Please tick in the table below the main, secondary



Proceedings / 61

and tertiary areas of contribution of the MSP.


The breadth of GAFSP mandate and results covers all 7 of the above “outcome areas”.

1) Policy: GAFSP leads to the desired “policy convergence” in the field of FSN through its broad representation and the inclusion of some of the most active investors and implementers of FSN globally. GAFSP was indeed identified by CFS to illustrate the kind of MSP needed for the implementation, on the ground, of the policy convergence formalized in the CFS’s “Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition” (GSF) (e.g. p.46 of http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1213/gsf/GSF_Version_2_EN.pdf).




– Policy implementation, advocacy/awareness







8. Other (Specify: Knowledge sharing________________)


http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1213/gsf/GSF_Version_2_EN.pdf

Proceedings / 62

Although the most recent (2017) version of the GSF edited out the mention of specific programs and initiatives, it still includes calls repeatedly “for the countries, international organizations, civil society, the private sector, all relevant NGOs and other stakeholders should promote strengthening of partnerships and coordinated action”. GAFSP could be seen as the implementing arm of the CFS’s policy convergence. GAFSP also contributes to the implementation of regional partnerships. For example, in African, GAFSP will support countries and projects that are within the agreed Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP)—thus contributing to the implementation of the CAADP policies and the country agriculture and food security strategies.

2) Participation/Inclusiveness: (i) CSO participation in decision making at strategic as well as implementation levels is one of the strong features of GAFSP. CSOs participate actively in the GAFSP Steering Committee where they represent the voices of smallholder farmers and farmer organizations. The recipient region CSO representatives receive funding to enable them to travel to recipient countries, visit project sites and take part in GAFSP-wide knowledge exchange and decision-making meetings. The same interest in CSO participation permeates project selection, design, implementation and monitoring and evaluation (See: “recent material produced by CSOs at: http://www.gafspfund.org/content/civil-society-organizations); (ii) Recipient voice: representatives of GAFSP recipient countries have the same number of voting seats as donors on the GAFSP SC; (iii) Gender: GAFSP-supported projects encompass a range of good practices to ensure women’s equitable access to income-generating activities and employment; promoting women’s leadership in farmers’ organizations and self-help groups; ensuring women’s equitable access to agriculture-related productive assets and training opportunities; and raising awareness of women in improved nutrition, food preparation, and feeding practices (for examples of results from Public Sector Window support: ://www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/00817%20Gender_Final-LR1.pdf

and from Private sector support: see ”Closing the Gender Gap” in: http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/b183a973-f4d4-454b-8eff-c74ce017f4aa/ChangingLives_Nov17_FINAL_updated_Jan2018_web.pdf?MOD=AJPERES); (iv) smallholder farmers are the specific target of GAFSP support;

3) Capacity Building: Capacity building is in each of the operations supported by GAFSP. Private Sector operations often combine investment with advisory funding to increase client capacity. The monitoring and evaluation system follows capacity building at farmer, household (by gender), community and government levels. One recent initiative at GAFSP is directed at capacity building of small scale Farmers and Producers Organizations while at



http://www.gafspfund.org/content/civil-society-organizations

Proceedings / 63

the same time addressing other causes of the “Missing Middle”—the market failures that limit access of these small organizations to credit and other sources of private funds (See: http://www.gafspfund.org/content/missing-middle). One of GAFSP’s main “pillars” is institution building. This includes both public and private sectors. In particular, the Advisory Services of Private Sector support is explicitly oriented to building capacity of potential market partners in FSN;

4) Resource Mobilization and Fundraising: By pooling financing from multiple donors, GAFSP channels funds along the entire value chain. Eleven donors have pledged a total of USD1.59billion to the Public and Private Sector Windows as of December 31, 2017. Financing has been critical for recipients, particularly for countries and food-related enterprises that historically have had few alternative sources of funding. By pooling financing from multiple donors, GAFSP has been able to use funds to increase impact and generate scale. GAFSP provides additional financing allocations beyond the more traditional funding sources and standard replenishment cycles. However, requests for funding to date have far exceeded available funds within each Public Sector Window Call for Proposals, only the top one-third of proposals have received funding (http://www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/GAFSP%20AR16_Final_sprds%281%29.pdf). Both Public and Private Sector projects also leverage financing from other investors in GAFSP funded projects.

5) (Indirect) Improved FSN Outcomes: From its origins as a global response to the food price crisis of 2007/8 to today’s contribution to achieving SDG2, GAFSP supports the fight on hunger and malnutrition through urgently needed additional support to ensure that the fundamental reasons for hunger are being addressed—thus increasing the resilience of the rural poor and their production systems to climate change and the reversal of natural resource degradation where possible. Nearly ¾ of the Public Sector Window-supported projects have elements that directly support “climate smart agriculture” through improved resilience (increased adaptation) to climate change, or decrease the impact of agriculture on climate change, while increasing productivity, incomes and food security. (Specific examples on climate and food security through GAFSP support can be found here: http://www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/GAFSP%20Climate%20Change_Final-LR1.pdf). Many of the Private Sector-supported projects are also categorized as climate smart agribusiness projects;

6) Direct Improved FSN Outcomes: As of December 2016, GAFSP had a portfolio of $1.3 billion in financing in 38 countries around the world, with $1.019 billion in grant financing from the Public Sector Window, $226 million from the Private Sector Window, and $13.2 million to the pilot Missing Middle Initiative. GAFSP is active in 38 countries, with approximately 58 percent of funds in Africa, and with other projects located across Asia,



http://www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/GAFSP%20Climate%20Change_Final-LR1.pdf

http://www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/GAFSP%20Climate%20Change_Final-LR1.pdf

http://www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/GAFSP%20AR16_Final_sprds(1).pdf


http://www.gafspfund.org/content/missing-middle

Proceedings / 64

Latin America, and the Middle East. The portfolio stretches along the entire value chain supporting public sector investments, private sector development, and increased capacity for producers’ organizations and smallholder farmers. The Program provides support to the poorest countries, for country-led agricultural and food security interventions that are technically robust, focused on long-term development goals, and are supervised by experienced development finance institutions. The present GAFSP portfolio (up to 2016) is expected to improve the lives of more than 12 million persons. (For more details, see: http://www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/GAFSP%20AR16_Final_sprds%281%29.pdf).

GAFSP overall “5 pillars” of support (covering areas of direct support for both the public sector and private sector windows of financing—this is a partial list of investment areas):

i) Raising agricultural activity by supporting:Adoption of high-yielding technologiesTechnology generationWater managementLand rights and land use

ii) Linking farmers to markets: Reduction in transaction costsValue additionMobilization of rural finance

iii) Reducing risk and vulnerability:Price and weather risk managementStrengthening food-related social protection for peopleImprovement of nutrition of vulnerable groups

iv) Improving non-farm rural livelihoods: Improvement in the investment climatePromotion of non-farm rural entrepreneurship

v) Technical assistance, institution building and capacity building:Sector strategy development, investments, and implementationEnhancing design, monitoring, and evaluationKnowledge development and dissemination

- The Public Sector Window resources support all of the above areas of intervention. Within the above “5 pillars”, the Private Sector Window resources are specifically used to support and demonstrate new and innovative financing aimed at increasing





Proceedings / 65

the commercial potential of small and medium sized agri-businesses and farmers by bringing them into the local, national and global value chain. It supports projects that foster research, development and innovations through entities operating in the “last mile” and finances projects that can demonstrate higher productivity, lower use of water resources and inputs such as fertilizers.

7) Monitoring and Evaluation: All GAFSP operations are monitored closely and align with the SDGs. In addition, GAFSP projects include an impact evaluation to foster learning, accountability, and effectiveness. About one third of the Public Sector Window-supported projects undergo in-depth impact evaluations using experimental or quasi-experimental methods, while the remainder of the portfolio undergoes rapid impact evaluations. There are many opportunities for exchange of lessons learned among members of MSP (through “knowledge forums” and other means) and with the FSN global community at large.


As a MSP, GAFSP represents the following “synergistic” advantages:

- Provides funding outside standard, longer replenishment cycles provided sufficient donor contributions have been made;

- Is recipient-led with broad participation from multiple stakeholders drawing on expertise from multiple Supervising Entities, with recipients selecting their preferred Supervising Entity;

- 93% of GAFSP financing reaches the project;

- Selects investment-ready proposals and therefore has quicker preparation for longer term investments, using a formula-based allocation and has low administrative costs;

- Benefits from the technical input of globally renowned and acknowledged experts who review each Public Sector Window proposals;

- Targets support to agriculture and food security, and has a global focus;.

- Targets exclusively countries with high rates of poverty and hunger to enhance impact –



Proceedings / 66

- The Private Sector Window works with private sector companies and financial institutions to strengthen access to markets, inputs, finance, and sustainable farming techniques of smallholder farmers..

9. III) OVERALL ASSESSMENT


4


In seven relatively short years, GAFSP stands as a proven, effective mechanism, already working to deliver on FSN and key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in general, channelling funds to stakeholders in differentiated ways, adapted to their needs—to countries through their governments; to private sector enterprises through innovative financing packages; and to farmer organizations through creative pilot projects. It has raised significant additional funds that are being invested through public- and private-sector channels and the first projects to be completed are showing successful results and outcomes. The sections above mentioned specifically gender, climate change, and other focus areas, in addition, key areas such as Nutrition (http://www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/00817%20Nutrition_Final-LR1.pdf) and creative private financing http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/2eaedaa9#/2eaedaa9/1 are also to be highlighted. GAFSP is a model that can be scaled up for FSN.

By the end of 2016, the GAFSP portfolio had grown to $1.3 billion and was active in 38 countries, with approximately 58 percent of funds in Africa, and with other projects located across Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. The portfolio stretches along the entire value chain supporting public sector investments, private sector development, and increased capacity for small-scale producers’ organizations and smallholder farmers. The GAFSP portfolio covers 38 countries around the world, with $1.019 billion in grant financing from the Public Sector Window, $226 million from the Private Sector Window, and $13.2 million to the pilot Missing Middle Initiative. An estimated 12 million people will benefit from these investments in FSN.

Results achieved recently are further highlighted in the 2017 Annual Report of GAFSP: http://www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/GAFSP%20AR16_Final_sprds




http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/2eaedaa9#/2eaedaa9/1

http://www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/00817%20Nutrition_Final-LR1.pdf

http://www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/00817%20Nutrition_Final-LR1.pdf

Proceedings / 67

%281%29.pdfGAFSP’s inclusive/collective governance model is quite unique for an MSP that links funding to the implementation of global priorities and has managed to successfully bridge the ‘efficiency vs ownership’ trade off that can often be the case with MSPs.



Inclusiveness


Accountability




Reflexivity


Effectiveness


Efficiency







Proceedings / 68


Impact



See detailed discussions above


( ) More Equal

( ) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal


At the decision-making level, the GAFSP Steering Committee has a participatory and inclusive composition that, in practice, does not differentiate between “voting” and “non-voting” members, but takes decisions by consensus. The CSOs generally are the first to laud the relative equality between partners. At GAFSP, true participation is considered more advanced that in other MSPs. CSO engagement and interventions have led to changes in the Steering Committee’s proposed course of action.



GAFSP is currently engaged in a program evaluation exercise that is expected to identify strengths and weaknesses/challenges. The main area of strength is its inclusive and flexible way of operating, that has allowed a rich variety of recipient-led initiatives to receive the scale of funding they need to achieve real results on the ground. Those results are being captured and will produce excellent lessons with respect to firming and scaling up the results on the ground of individual investments, as well as the MSP that is GAFSP and how to further strengthen it and share its lessons. In addition, GAFSP’s inclusive approach allows for creation of a platform where multiple stakeholders can reach agreement on a variety of FSN topics, finding common ground across a range of sometimes competing or even opposing interests. Since GAFSP is a partnership, it allows its partners to extend their reach without seeking to supplant them.



Proceedings / 69

With respect to weakness/challenges: GAFSP’s major challenge is to ensure a “replenishment” of GAFSP resources as well as a scaling up of operational reach in order to further demonstrate that SDG2 can be achieved and how MSPs can be determinant in reaching the objectives of FSN. Some of GAFSP’s strengths are also challenges during major fundraising drives. The Program was built to operate at large scale, without however having a separate legal personality, being a standalone entity, or having formal replenishments. Being recipient-led and -driven, and operating through established SEs to leverage their ready presence and technical expertise, GAFSP has not sought a visible presence on the ground in the projects it has financed.


GAFSP has ensured optimum coordination and collaboration (in the spirit of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda-AAAA) with other initiatives and programs. This extends, for example, to the coordination with the CAADP process in Africa to ensure that investment opportunities have been duly prioritized at country and regional levels. This coordination would help minimize the threat of duplication or dilution of ODA or development funding and implementation in any country.

With respect to opportunities, in addition to results mentioned above the GAFSP is offering many opportunities through its advocacy, its resource mobilization efforts to attract more funding to FSN.


There is an ongoing Program evaluation exercise being done independently that the MSP will internalise. Prior to those results being made available, the Program would identify the following two: (i) strong and regular donor contributions, to allow for regular Public Sector Window allocations to better (a) meet the strong demand from eligible countries, (b) reach eligible countries with capacity constraints, and (c) reach vulnerable populations in countries that are currently not eligible for GAFSP financing so as to provide the needed extra support to globally achieving SDG2 (with a caveat that this latter objective would only be feasible with significantly increased volume of overall financing); and (ii) closer coordination on the ground between the Public and Private Sector Windows.

In the meantime, GAFSP has already identified and implemented various areas for improvement and adaptation. Recent areas of reform have included:

- Updating of the M&E system to further highlight the incremental results at MSP level and to more clearly align with the SDGs/Agenda 2030, with specific linkage to SDG2 indicators, including pioneering the rollout of FIES as an SDG2 indicator at the



Proceedings / 70

project level;

10. Launching of the “Missing Middle Initiative” to further promote the “crowding-in” of additional funding in Public Sector Window projects—a perceived chronic gap in FSN funding targeting the poor through supply-chain support;


With respect to cross-sectoral impact, GAFSP is producing results at the policy convergence and field implementation levels covering the following SDGs:

- SDG1: End Poverty- SDG2: Zero Hunger- SDG5: Gender Equality- SDG13: Climate Action- SDG17: Partnerships

GAFSP is presently engaged in a resource mobilization/fundraising effort for the Program as a whole. Also, lessons learned to date are feeding ongoing Steering Committee discussions about how to better capitalise on the catalytic potential of GAFSP resources at local level, e.g., the co-financing (private/public – including ODA, philanthropic, domestic and ‘beneficiary’ contributions) catalyzed by public sector investments and the financial leverage of funds directed through the Private Sector Window with respect to additional private finance.

The lessons from these direct interventions are being shared within regional and global forums (such as CFS) for two purposes: (i) sharing of lessons learned by GAFSP as an MSP and in specific operations in the field; and (ii) advocating for more resources to be mobilized/invested in FSN.

http://www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/GAFSP%20SDGs_Final-LR1.pdf


GAFSP’s mandate, organizational structure and operational processes already aim at targeting the poor, with special focus on gender, youth/jobs. The potential is to increase/scale up the coverage from the current 12 million people covered to make a larger impact on the approx. 800+ million in need of FSN support. As highlighted in other parts of this questionnaire, GAFSP, through its inclusive structure, ensures the engagement of “recipients” and CSOs in ensuring that the focus is maintained on the poor, the smallholders, and the most vulnerable members of the communities.



http://www.gafspfund.org/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/GAFSP%20SDGs_Final-LR1.pdf

Proceedings / 71


All target regions (both as “donors” or “recipients”) are represented, and the MSP strives to promote MSPs in its on-the-ground support.

The efforts that GAFSP is undertaking now in view of sustainability and scaling up of its efforts and results include:

- Delivering on the various partnerships and operational “pipeline” for improved FSN results;

- Conclusion of an independent GAFSP-wide program evaluation effort;- Explicit review/repositioning of the MSP to transition from the 2008 food price crisis

narrative and more directly respond to the SDGs/Agenda 2030 objectives including the projected continued reversal of progress on SDG2;

- Preparation and implementation of a fundraising strategy;- Further highlighting of the specific value addition of GAFSP in mobilizing additional

funding for FSN.

REFERENCES


Please see the various links and references above. They provide literature on this MSP in particular (GAFSP) as well as on the results achieved to date in operations that the MSP supports through additional financing. The GAFSP team will be happy to supplement additional references if requested.


The authors of the HLPE report may want to reflect the GAFSP experience as an MSP in the report under preparation.



Proceedings / 72

7. Katarina Eriksson, Tetra Laval Food for Development, SwedenContribution no. 33

1. Name of MSP: Dairy Hub and Dairy Academy Development # (for HLPE use only):








The project links smallholder dairy farmers to an industrial dairy processor, giving them a secure market for all milk they produce. Through Dairy Hubs, the farmers get access to inputs, services and training. Farmers deliver milk to village milk collection centres, morning and evening. The Dairy Academy trains extension officers and farm managers. Project objectives include increased productivity (milk yields), increased farmersincomes and improved milk quality.


www.tetrapak.com/ffdo (not project specific, several dairy hub partnerships are presented here)

4. Year of Origin / Creation: 2011 (MSP and co-funding by donor from 2014)





(…) National (Specify country……………………………………………………….………………………)

( X ) Local (Bangladesh)







http://www.tetrapak.com/ffdo

Proceedings / 73




PRAN Dairy, Bangladesh / private sector

Tetra Laval Group (Tetra Laval Food for Development, DeLaval) / private sector

UNIDO / UN organisation

Government of Bangladesh / public sector

Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) / public sector


The MSP was initiated by the private sector, Tetra Laval and PRAN. The two companies had worked together in building up the first Dairy Hub since 2011. PRAN is one of Bangladesh’s major dairy companies and a customer of Tetra Pak. The dairy needed more local milk to replace imported milk powder. The initial results were very positive and additional resources were needed to scale up and speed up the initiative. The MSP was formed in 2014 when Sida approved a partnership application from Tetra Laval, PRAN and UNIDO (implementer of the partnership project), including the approval/no objection from the Government of Bangladesh.

The partnership formally ends in April 2018, but the 5 dairy hubs developed so far will continue to operate on PRAN’s expense. PRAN’s investments in milk collection, transport and extension services have been paid back in increased milk volumes and improved milk quality. There are plans to expand further and new partnerships are sought for this.








Proceedings / 74


A project Steering Committee meets every 6 months. Daily project management is the responsibility of UNIDO (implementing organisation in the donor funded partnership) and in close collaboration with PRAN’s staff (all project extension staff are hired by PRAN, but costs shared).


PRAN Dairy: responsible for all necessary investments in milk collection, milk processing, transport etc. “Owns” the dairy hubs and hires all extension staff. To build up the first dairy hub, PRAN and Tetra Laval jointly engaged a milk production specialist for two years who lived in the project area and worked full time with training farmers, extension staff and building up the dairy hub operations.

Tetra Laval Food for Development (FfD): The Tetra Laval Group (Tetra Pak) is a supplier to PRAN. FfD developed the dairy hub model and contributes with technical assistance to build up and run the dairy hubs, as well as with training of extension staff and farmers.

DeLaval: a supplier of milk collection equipment to PRAN. DeLaval is not a formal partner in the project, but has contributed to farmer training.

UNIDO: implementer of donor funded project

Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida): Co-funds technical assistance (covers UNIDO experts and cost sharing of PRAN extension staff)

Government of Bangladesh: The Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, through its Department of Livestock Services (DLS), encouraged the participation of its extension service providers in the training of trainers’ activities to allow the spread of gained knowledge beyond the project area and to strengthen the institutional capacity in the field of dairy farming.


The smallholder farmers are not formal partners, they are beneficiaries of the support provided by the project. Farmers still have influence of which kind of support that is provided and meet in groups with project staff to discuss.

All farmers are welcome to register as suppliers, and they are free to sell milk to anyone they choose. The dairy is however committed to buy all milk delivered by farmers (provided it holds a minimum quality)



Proceedings / 75


The Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock’s Department of Livestock Services (DLS) is offered training that benefits their services to dairy farmers. The Dairy Hub model has also been introduced to other value chains under the responsibility of the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock (shrimps sector).


The public sector: The donor Sida contributes around 3 million USD (SEK 21 million) for technical assistance (mainly staff costs and UNIDO administration).

Private sector: PRAN and Tetra Laval contributions amount to around 7 mio USD (investments, staff, technical assistance)

II) OUTCOMES








Proceedings / 76


After 60 months the project has resulted in the following:

milk yields increased from 4.45-10.8 litres/cow/day (+143%) Average income per smallholder farmer (2006 farmers) increased from 100-244 USD/month

(+144%) daily milk collection in Dairy Hub 1 area increased from 2000 litres/day to 41,000 litres/day





√


√


√

4. Resource mobilisation and fund raising √


√


√

7. Monitoring and evaluation √8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 77

The dairy has built up a stable supply of locally produced milk to complement and gradually replace its imports of milk powder. The dairy value chain in the project areas is transformed from an informal market to a formal market. Farmers no longer have to sell their milk through middle men or directly to consumers.

III OVERALL ASSESSMENT


5


No farmer among the more than 10,000 farmers reached and impacted of this MSP has voluntarily left the project (a few have been expelled due to fraud). The MSP has meant a lot to local farmers who have improved their incomes and livelihoods. The impacts have exceeded the targets set by the partners (milk yields per cow, farmer income, milk quality). The dairy processor’s investments have been paid back in increased milk volumes collected in the project areas and in better milk quality. The partnership has also led to business opportunities for Tetra Laval companies (Tetra Pak and DeLaval).



Inclusiveness


All farmers are welcome.

Accountability


Farmers know they can sell all milk they produce. The project also gives them access to inputs, services and training



Project evaluated by Sida consultant. Data of project results collected all through project.

Reflexivity



Proceedings / 78


Effectiveness


Project targets have been met

Efficiency


Very efficient use of donor funds (compared to other donor funded dairy development projects). Viable investment for private sector.



Farmers could not have sourced this training and support by themselves

Impact


High impact



( ) More Equal

( X ) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal




Proceedings / 79

Tetra Laval and PRAN developed the Dairy Hub model as implemented in Bangladesh and other partners came in later to help scale up. This means that Tetra Laval and PRAN has had a strong position in the development and implementation of the partnership. Partners bought into the model and concept and joined in implementation and funding.



This MSP is a project and as such it has an end date. The dairy hubs will continue as a fully commercial activity, which was the ambition when the MSP started.


PRAN dairy is planning to continue its expansion and development of new dairy hubs. The project also has the potential to inspire other dairy or food processors to replicate the model.


The key to success in a dairy hub MSP is the commitment by the dairy processor, who will need to be long term in its approach and be able to carry initial investment costs.


The Dairy Hub model can be applied for other food value chains. It effectively links small producers to an industrial processor and establishes a win-win relationship between them.

In some cases the private sector can build up these kinds of projects without external help, but in many cases the processor lack the technical skills to develop agricultural production and need the technical



Proceedings / 80

assistance to do this. Also, if volumes initially are very low, the business case for substantial investments in staff and equipment might not be present, which also means that donor or government funds and resources could play a role initially.


The Dairy Hub model and this MSP effectively addresses the needs of small holder dairy farmers, a vulnerable group. In Bangladesh, these farmers lack knowledge of efficient milk production and do not have access to the necessary inputs at decent prices. With increased incomes they improve their diets, invest in their children’s education and invest in their farms.


Tetra Laval Food for Development has initiated dairy hub projects and partnerships in Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Senegal, Kenya, Zambia and Honduras. The key to success is a dedicated dairy processor with a long term view on building its milk supply chain.

REFERENCES


The report “SMALLHOLDER FARMERS AND BUSINESS” shows how pioneer companies and organizations have sustainably increased the income and livelihoods of millions of smallholder farmers around the world, by sourcing produce from them or selling products to them. The PRAN Dairy Hub project is one of the cases described.

http://hystra.com/smallholder



http://hystra.com/smallholder

Proceedings / 81


MSPs in food value chains must be based on a viable business model. Production must be demand driven so that farmers and processors can find a market for the foods they produce.

Investments should be made by private sector, even if loans and grants could help in initial phases.

8. IFAD, Italy Contribution no. 38

1. Name of MSP: Public-Private-Producer-Partnerships (4P's) # (for HLPE use only):


(x) Food production; food supply chain;






Public-Private-Producer-Partnerships (4P's) involve cooperation between a government, business agents and small-scale producers, who agree to work together to reach a common goal or carry out a specific task while jointly assuming risks and responsibilities, and sharing benefits, resources and competencies. The 4P concept. The main characteristics of a 4P (as opposed to PPPs) include the following:

(a) Private-sector involvement is planned early on so that it becomes part of project design and implementation, and partnership results are systematically monitored and evaluated as part of the project’s results framework.

(b) To the extent possible and relevant, the private-sector partner is selected through a competitive or rigorous selection process that ensures transparency and objectivity, and meets the project’s social, economic and environmental objectives. (c) Producers play an active role in the negotiations and partnership arrangements (both formal and informal), governance and monitoring.

(d) A 4P is a true partnership in which each partner has clear roles and responsibilities, and shares risks and benefits. Private-sector partners are expected to allocate matching financial resources.

(e) Linking with the private sector through a 4P ensures that interventions are sustained beyond the project



Proceedings / 82

lifetime because they follow business logic and all involved parties benefit. A 4P should be seen as an entry point to scaling up project results through private-sector investment.


https://www.ifad.org/what/partnership/overview






( x ) National ( x) Local (specify country: ……………………………………….…………………………………………)

(4Ps run across many IFAD-funded programmes at the national and local level including El Salvador, Senegal, Uganda, Mozambique and Vietnam. There are many examples of local 4Ps being scaled up)




Producer Groups

- Know-how and experience in farming under local conditions

- Production of commodities demanded by the private sector








https://www.ifad.org/what/partnership/overview

Proceedings / 83

- Often owners (formal or informal, and sometimes contested) of production assets such as land and water

- Can invest a substantial amount of labour and sometimes even capital – e.g. for agricultural production, infrastructure maintenance and watershed management

Main motivation: To profit from agriculture and related activities, improve their incomes and livelihoods as a result of more stable business relationships, expanded production and access to new markets, finance and production good practices and technologies

Public-sector agencies

- Access to markets, inputs, working capital, etc.

- Management capacity and coordination along the value chain

- Investment in processing facilities, warehouses, transportation, etc.

- Often provide market intelligence, technology and specialized technical assistance

- May co-invest in community-owned assets such as storage facilities, warehouses and processing units

Main motivation: To secure reliable sources of raw materials that meet their specifications regarding timeliness of delivery, quality and volume at the least possible cost; to open or expand into new markets; to rapidly accommodate to changes in consumer preferences; to diversify customers or suppliers; and to make profits.

Broker/facilitator (IFAD or third party)

- Established “honest broker” that understands all parties’ needs and concerns, builds trust and brings parties together (including small farmers, public-sector actors and private companies)

- Objectively assesses constraints and opportunities, and assists in establishing and negotiating 4P business models and related contractual arrangements

- Supports producer groups in becoming better organized and prepared for engagement in formal market- based transactions

- Supports 4P project implementation, monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and brings in international expertise when needed

IFAD’s specific role

Finances part of the public-sector investment through government loans and grants, and may also provide (through governments) seed funding for 4Ps (e.g. matching grants for 4P joint business cases involving producers and private companies)

- Engages with governments on enabling policy and regulatory frameworks, and the provision of public goods as an incentive to attract private-sector investment in rural areas

- Advises the private sector on investments that are more inclusive of small-scale producers.



Proceedings / 84

Main motivation: To build sustainable, pro-poor 4Ps that can evolve into mutually beneficial and inclusive business relationships. By creating synergies among all parties, IFAD seeks to reach development outcomes more efficiently. Development outcomes can be scaled up by bringing in private sector know-how and financing.


A 4P can be initiated by any partner, but more often by the public or private partners.

9. Degree of formalization: does the MSP result in an informal agreement, or is there a formal structure of decision-making?

(x) full legal entity: legal personality

(x) formalized agreement among partners, but no legal personality for the MSP

(x…) informal arrangement


Once a clear rationale for a 4P is defined and suitable partners are identified, the business case for the partnership needs to be developed and formalized. To this end, the type of business model chosen by the private partners (producers and private companies) is a critical element in ensuring efficient and profitable business for every party. The type of business model depends on the nature of: the product (perishable, bulk commodity, differentiated, etc.); partners (producers, buyers, processors, exporters, etc.); and end market.

Horizontal business models resting on mainly informal agreements: In such models, an IFAD-supported project facilitates a supply relationship between organized producers and one or more private buyers (e.g. traders, agro-processors, aggregators) at the local level. These business models often rely on local coordination mechanisms to build trust among the value chain actors rather than written contracts or agreements. For example, in Ghana’s Northern Rural Growth Programme (NRGP), the establishment of farmer-based organizations and the promotion of local value chain platforms (called district value chain committees) helped to bring together all actors in the maize value chain. It not only established market linkages for producers, but improved access to training, inputs and technology through a cashless credit system. This model requires well-organized producers (or networks such as regional federations or associations) with the capacity and bargaining power to engage with other value chain actors. Some good examples of IFAD projects in which farmers’ organizations are strong and able to interact with other value chain actors can be found in Guatemala, Nicaragua and Paraguay.



Proceedings / 85

Vertically integrated business models with formalized agreements: In these business models, the private company and farmers (or their organizations) enter into a formal (written) contract. Contracts may vary according to company standards, the country, the commodity and other factors, and can range from informal seasonal production contracts between a buyer and farmers to fully integrated out-grower schemes. Such schemes are similar to the Vegetable Oil Development Project (VODP) in Uganda, where a nucleus estate was first established by the processor to supplement its supply via direct contracting with local farmers. A similar arrangement is being negotiated by a factory and sugar cane producers in the Bagamoyo Sugar Infrastructure and Sustainable Community Development Programme in Tanzania.

Joint-venture model with investment in joint facilities: In the previous two business models, producers play only the role of suppliers of one or more private companies. This has implications for their power relationship with the private-sector actor and the sharing of benefits and risks within the 4P. To establish a basis for more equitable partnerships between producers and private companies, an alternative business model has been tested in some IFAD-funded projects. This model is based on the promotion of a joint venture between producers and a private investor. Its principle is that producers are not just suppliers but shareholders in the joint business and therefore have a say in decision-making. One such example is the IFAD-funded Smallholder Cash and Export Crops Development Project in Rwanda. In line with the Government’s privatization of the tea sector, the joint-venture model was promoted to manage two tea-leaf processing factories. The private investors own between 70 per cent and 85 per cent of the shares in the tea factories, while the Government has purchased the remaining portion on behalf of tea-producer cooperatives. The aim is to encourage farmers’ ownership within the 4P and give them an opportunity to benefit from the dividends.


In a 4P, each partner brings an essential feature or holds a specific responsibility; all partners share risks and benefits. 4Ps in IFAD-supported projects are usually brokered by IFAD design teams (including country programme managers), project implementation and management units, or external service providers (such as the Netherlands Development Organisation [SNV] in the ongoing 4P brokerage initiative). The types of 4P contributions are listed above (box no. 7), along with each party’s main motivations for engaging according to its comparative advantage.

A 4P arrangement ensures that smallholder producers are respected partners and not relegated to the receiving end of public-private partnerships (PPPs). There are important asymmetries in the balance of power that need to be acknowledged in 4Ps, since smallholders are typically not well equipped to negotiate



Proceedings / 86

with public and private actors. It is important to ensure the transparency, fairness and accountability of these arrangements, especially when it comes to recognizing local communities’ tenure rights (to land, water and forests), the role of women and environmental issues. The devil is often in the details of PPP deals when it comes to price-setting mechanisms, enforcement of contracts, regulatory issues, payment modalities, ownership and coordination. Introducing the 4Ps concept helps to identify and address these issues from the outset. It can also be employed to justify the use of public funds as an incentive for both the private sector and producers to make better deals in which everyone is genuinely committed to a long-term partnership.

The 4P negotiation process is often facilitated by IFAD, an IFAD-funded project or a third party hired by IFAD for this purpose (4P facilitator or broker). It should lead to a mutual understanding of all parties’ expectations, capacities and responsibilities, and build mutual trust among parties that are not used to working as partners (this not only includes producers and private companies, but also governments and the public sector).

The pace of public sector’s involvement needs to be monitored in order to avoid oversights, delays and lengthy negotiations, which can lead to frustration among private-sector counterparts. Since private are used to acting quickly in a highly dynamic business environment, it is also important to keep them engaged and sensitize them to the slow pace of public processes. To minimize tensions, expectations on both sides should be managed and all parties kept informed about timetables, plans and any foreseen delays. The process can be made more efficient by first agreeing on the fundamentals and working out the details at a later date.

The duration and complexity of these processes can vary greatly. Before finalizing the tripartite 4P agreement for VODP in Uganda, IFAD, the Government and the company Bidco Uganda Limited negotiated over several years. Additional negotiations were also needed with small producers, landowners that sold or leased the land, and other stakeholders. For contract-farming agreements, less time might be needed; however, ensuring true participation from smallholders usually requires time to understand what conditions they should accept.

In negotiations between producers and buyers, the objective is to facilitate a process that builds trust and provides all parties involved with access to information. In this way, it is possible to achieve mutual agreement on critical issues, such as: (i) a clear and transparent price-setting mechanism; (ii) the terms of payment; (iii) the product quantity and quality requirements (which could also be differentiated by price); (iv) the delivery schedule and collection arrangements; (v) a production pre-financing arrangement facilitated by the buyer; and (vi) technical advisory services to be provided by the buyer. These issues can be included in verbal or written contracts depending on the country, product and actors involved. While formalizing these agreements in writing bears a cost (e.g. that of legal advice), it usually increases compliance.




Proceedings / 87

There are two modalities for identifying and selecting 4P partners: (i) competitive selection; and (ii) purposeful selection. Both have their merits and disadvantages. The first is more transparent, ideally allowing broader outreach to potential partners (the project might not know all available or interested private entities) and is less vulnerable to “rent-seeking.” The second is faster, which makes it easier to build on existing relationships and avoid time-consuming and costly selection processes; however, this modality may be vulnerable to “rent-seeking.” It may also be the only available option: (i) in the project area (e.g. because there is a limited number of companies); (ii) in cases when a private partner has already been identified and pre-selected by the government; or (iii) when a 4P is initiated by a private company itself. To facilitate broad participation, it is recommended to either map the entire sector and proactively scout for companies, or broadly advertise any competitive calls.

Competitive process using business plans. The competitive process to identify viable 4Ps through business plans should entail a call for proposals for 4P business plans to interested private-sector companies and farmers’ organizations. The 4P business plans should then be reviewed, assessed and selected following a set of pre-established eligibility and selection criteria.

The process involves the following: (i) receipt and initial screening of simple business proposals against a set of eligibility criteria; (ii) development of eligible proposals into full-fledged business plans; and (iii) final selection of business plans based on the selection criteria. Often, IFAD-funded projects provide technical advice during the second step.

When preparing to select 4P partners and business plan proposals, it is critical to identify an institution with the most appropriate competencies to manage the selection process. It is challenging to assess business plans submitted by partners – especially the aspects related to financial viability, community engagement and compensation – since they tend to rest on a number of assumptions. One approach for assessing business plans is to rely on an independent board of technical experts; this method has been tested in some IFAD-funded projects with positive results. Alternatively, a specialized service provider could perform this function.

Competitive process using business plans. The competitive process to identify viable 4Ps through business plans should entail a call for proposals for 4P business plans to interested private-sector

There is an eligibility and selection criteria for 4P partners that includes:

- Proven know-how and technical expertise related to the selected product and services (key

requirement)

- Willingness to invest both human and financial resources in the 4P

- Formal buy-in and commitment of the small-scale producers involved in the 4P business plan, as evidenced



Proceedings / 88

by a formal agreement (e.g. contract)

- The company’s production practices and those of its smallholder suppliers are environmentally friendly and comply with social (labour, gender) standards

- The partner’s strategy is not simply focused on short-term profits but on long-term, viable business relationships with producers; it is an integral part of its business model rather than a CSR initiative

- Producers are willing to engage in stable and continuous commercial relationships with business partners, as opposed to opportunistically looking for the best buyer in each season

- Private sector’s proven experience and/or formal commitment to establishing business partnerships with small producers

- In the case of international companies, capacity to partner with local firms and agribusinesses

Ensuring inclusiveness and “fair” representation

Designing an effective and truly win-win partnership is a challenging process, which requires a careful analysis of all the elements that can make the partnership effective, successful and sustainable. To ensure this outcome, it is important to answer a series of guiding questions

1. What is the nature of the problem and why do we partner?2. What does the partnership seek to accomplish?3. Who are the partners?4. What are the incentives for each party?5. When will the partnership do what?6. How will the partnership be implemented?7. How will the partners communicate?8. What if something does not go as planned?

It is important that from the outset the following have been considered carefully before embarking on the 4P.

1) Defining a clear rationale for the 4P should be a priority from the outset. 2) Identification and selection of suitable 4P partners. 3) Development of a 4P business case. 4) Leveraging public and private funding5) Negotiation of roles and responsibilities6) Use the 4Ps governance mechanisms; conflict mitigation, rules for communication and risk

Management7) An M&E mechanism measuring success towards identified goals and business sustainability must

also be agreed upon and implemented



Proceedings / 89


The 4P business case should consider all financial requirements for making the partnership successful, including: public goods and services (such as transport, market infrastructure, training and capacity-building); semi-public assets (such as collective production or processing assets for small-scale producers); and the private working capital and assets of individual producers and private-sector partners. A main tenet of the 4P model is to use public funds provided by governments and IFAD to leverage financing and investments from the private agribusiness and financial sectors, and producers themselves. The aim is to ensure the long-term financial viability of the 4P.

4P business plans for developing agricultural value chains can be powerful tools with which to attract private- sector investments in smallholder production and market segments that would not be profitable without public support. Public and donor resources can provide incentives for the private sector to reach out to small-scale farmers as suppliers of raw materials or as “bottom of the pyramid” consumers. These funds can also be used through a competitive process to finance business plans jointly submitted by private companies and farmers’ organizations, in which both parties agree to invest and share risks and benefits.

The use of public resources is justified on the grounds that 4P investments aim to address market failures characterized by the high risks and transaction costs of working with small producers. Matching grants (or concessional loans) can be used to finance the start-up costs of these partnerships and to link business plans to production targets. However, once the start-up costs of 4Ps are covered, the partners (including producers, private-sector and public-sector actors) should sustain and scale up the partnership in the long term.

II) OUTCOMES



(x) “action-oriented”





Proceedings / 90



To make market systems for the poor, all stakeholders ranging from public to private need to be involved which can trigger a wider market system change, affecting how actors operate.







x


x


x



x


x


8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 91



Inclusiveness


x

Accountability


x



x

Reflexivity


x

Effectiveness


x

Efficiency


x



x



Proceedings / 92

Impact


x


The 4Ps model ranks highly for inclusiveness as this is the underlying principle of the MSP. The 4 P model is regularly subject to assessment by IFAD and with partnerships with SNV and IDS.


( x ) More Equal

( ) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal


The purpose of the 4P partnership model is to create a more equal partnership between parties, particularly for the inclusion of the producers in the value chain. It is designed to reduce asymmetries in the balance of power between partners, and as such, partners are 'more equal' when they enter into a 4P relationship.



The threat of the 4P is that in being inclusive it also involves more actors in the partnership which can make the process more complex than compared to an alternative model such as the Inclusive Business model which has less focus upon public sector involvement. Furthermore, in the early stages of the 4P model, producers need more capacity building and mentoring in order to make the partnerships function.

The partner selection process is significantly different in the 4P approach, with the involvement of the public sector early on giving the poorest people the opportunity to be partners, increasing its inclusivity.


4Ps provides the opportunity for producers to have voice in process that they would not normally be able to



Proceedings / 93

influence or engage with as equal partners.


Contextual factors need to be taken into account to enable the most effective 4P formulation to be applied to the context. These factors include;

- the development phase of the sector or value chain

- structure of the market supply chain

- geographical location

-types of producers and producer organisations that are included within the 4P model

Most of the 4P models have value chains that are in the early or inception stages of development and as such developing coordination between the actors is key to encourage stability and improve the flow of information.

Access to services, finance, knowledge services and capacity building, and influencing policy outcomes all contribute to building an enabling environment. The broker is instrumental in the process, and the building trust between partners cannot be rushed, and should be strengthened through the process.


The aim of the 4P is to leverage the public and private sector financing for smallholder inclusive-agribusiness.The public sector can use the 4Ps in their objective of pro-poor development. Public sector financial support is the catalyst in many of the 4Ps, providing capital support when banks of the private sector are not able/willing to invest. The 4Ps model brings the inefficiencies and weakness of current market system to the direct attention of the public sector, helping to improve public provision of services. Including the public sector in the 4p cases must be supported by rules and regulation, and public sector involvement can help to facilitate this, and improve dialogue with public sector workers. One of the core aims of the 4P model is to mobilise resources for FSN.


Rural development and value chain projects such as the 4Ps model have the potential to reduce poverty and increase smallholders income through creating a professionalised value chain that can lead to better market integration. In doing so smallholders are able to increase their income, proving access to better nutrition



Proceedings / 94

and improved food security.


To be successful a 4P should have

- an unmet market demand for the specific quality of the output, with an existing producer that does not yet meet these quality criteria.

- a producer with an entrepreneurial spirit and a for-profit attitude

- producer organisations that are able to act as enterprise, with clear accountability and transparency to its members

- a public sector that is willing to think like the private sector, and understand the operating environment,

- private sector that operate formally, ie has an auditable management system, and is willing to work with smallholders.

And finally a financial sector that is willing to invest in SMEs and agriculture.

REFERENCES


Brokering of Public-Private-Producer-Partnerships; Lessons Learned from the Partnering for Value Project, available from,

http://www.snv.org/public/cms/sites/default/files/explore/download/snv_4p_paper-pages.pdf

Brokering Development; Enabling Factors for Public-Private-Producer-Partnerships in Agricultural Value Chains, available from https://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/brokering-development-enabling-factors-for-public-private-producer-partnerships-in-agricultural-value-chains



https://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/brokering-development-enabling-factors-for-public-private-producer-partnerships-in-agricultural-value-chains

https://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/brokering-development-enabling-factors-for-public-private-producer-partnerships-in-agricultural-value-chains

http://www.snv.org/public/cms/sites/default/files/explore/download/snv_4p_paper-pages.pdf

Proceedings / 95

How to do notes; Public-Private-Producer-Partnerships in Agricultural Value Chains, https://www.ifad.org/documents/10180/998af683-200b-4f34-a5cd-fd7ffb999133

https://www.ifad.org/documents/10180/451226eb-1fc6-4474-b39d-f3cafed5164a


9. Oriane Barthélemy, GISA, FranceContribution no. 41

1. Name of MSP: GISA (Groupe interministeriel pour la securite alimentaire – Interministerial Group on Food security)





(x) Education, information, knowledge sharing;




GISA is a French multi‐stakeholder platform on food security created in 2008, following the soaring food prices leading to hunger riot. Based on a multidisciplinary and intersectoral approach of food security, GISA works on measures and policies to strengthen food security and nutrition in the Southern countries.



https://www.ifad.org/documents/10180/451226eb-1fc6-4474-b39d-f3cafed5164a

https://www.ifad.org/documents/10180/998af683-200b-4f34-a5cd-fd7ffb999133

Proceedings / 96

It has been assigned three main types of activities:

11. • A/ monitoring and prospective work on the food situation in developing countries;

12. • B/ the preparation of French positions for international fora;

13. • C/ preparation of French and European initiatives to deal with food insecurity (short, medium and long term).


https://www.gisa-france.fr/



(x) Global (Specify major areas/regions of presence: southern countries)






6. Number of main partners: ~20


GISA is co-chaired by the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and has participatory and inclusive governance. Several types of actors, of various disciplines, whose

24 For the answer to this question, please use the 7 “FAO regions”: Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Carribean, Near East, North America, Southwest Pacific, as described online: http://www.fao.org/unfao/govbodies/gsbhome/council/council-election/en/





https://www.gisa-france.fr/


Proceedings / 97

objective is to reinforce food security in the South countries, are involved:

o Ministries: Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Ministry of Economy and Finance, Ministry of Ecological and Solidarity Transition, Ministry of Higher Education, research and innovation, and the General Secretariat for European Affairs.

o The French development agency (AFD)

o Research institutions (CIRAD, INRA, IRD)

o NGOs: Action Against Hunger, Agronomists and Veterinarians Without Borders, CCFD-Terre Solidaire, CFSI, GRET, Oxfam France, Secours Catholique. They are mandated by the Agriculture and Food Commission of Coordination Sud, which is the national coordination of French NGOs of Solidarity, Emergency and Development.

o The agricultural profession is represented by AFDI (French farmers and international development);

o Foundations: FARM and IDDRI

Other actors can be solicited on specific thematic to participate to the discussions (for instance representatives of the private sector or of farmer organizations from the south were invited to the private sector working group, representatives of the Health ministry were invited to the nutrition working group, …).


GISA was initiated by M. Kouchner and Barnier (former ministers for foreign affairs and agriculture)




(x) informal arrangement


The GISA meets regularly in plenary sessions (approximately 4 times a year, but the frequency will be increased to once every 2 months from march 2018). Moreover, working groups are also set up by the GISA members on specific issues. Those WG are usually coordinated by a representative of the civil society and one of the ministry.

Regarding the positions and papers developed as “GISA”, only the actors officially involved (see the



Proceedings / 98

composition list) can participate to the process.


GISA is co-chaired by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Agriculture.

GISA is at least a platform of exchange of views between the stakeholders and depending on the forum, it is a place where positions are discussed, shared and sometimes developed together (“GISA” positions) – mainly on CFS issues.


- GISA members are chosen collectively

- Each member represents its institution

- No mandate is defined


The recommendations are prescriptive; each member is free to use the position paper for building its own position. Those positions papers can be presented during CFS session when relevant.

The publics strategies and priorities supported are listed at Q.14


GISA is not a donor, and institutions/organisations of the members do not get grant for their participation. But each member can mobilize its funding for FSN, in line with the recommendations of GISA and CFS among other.

II) OUTCOMES


(x)“policy-oriented”

(x) “action-oriented”



Proceedings / 99




Outcome area 1(policy design, policy recommendations…): GISA has produced many position




X


X


X



X


X


8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 100

papers in its first 5-6 years.

GISA has drafted the proposition of a global partnership for agriculture, food security and nutrition proposed on the 3 June 2008 by the French Republic to address the 2007-2008 food crisis. The Global Partnership for Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition has made great strides with the reform of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) who became an inclusive platform (pillar 1 of the Partnership), the creation of a High-Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) (corresponding to pillar 2), and the announcement in L’Aquila of budgetary pledges exceeding $20 billion in 3 years (contribution to pillar 3).

Since the CFS reform, the GISA has produced several positions papers linked to the thematic on the CFS agenda: food price volatility (2011), climate change and food security (2012), Social protection (2012), Biofuels (2013), Food loss and waste (2014), water and food security (2015), Livestock (2016). Those positions papers have been presented during CFS session when relevant.

France is engaged in the fight against malnutrition both at international and European levels, and through its nutrition actions. In 2016, a multi-sector roadmap on nutrition was developed to identify concrete areas of action to address the priority of nutrition set out in the act on France’s strategy for development and international solidarity. It was drafted by the specific working group of the GISA.

Outcome Area 5 and 6 (activities improving FSN or outcomes that directly contribute to FSN) :

GISA has been also much involved in VGGT and RAI negotiations (with dedicated position papers and regular exchanges between the GISA members during the negotiation).

General position papers have also been drafted on nutrition (linked to ICN), climate (linked to UNFCCC, following the Paris agreement) and SDG for instance.

Outcome area 7 (Monitoring and evaluation):

The members have agreed to conduct an evaluation that was led by IDDRI in 2015-2016. This evaluation led to a report with recommendations that have been discussed in 2017 so as to to redefine the objectives and ways of working of the group for the years to come, starting in 2018.


GISA benefits from a broad expertise, which helps to embrace different aspects of a single issue and to take into account the various constraints and interests of different stakeholders. This broad expertise helps to build recommendations based both on evidence (research institute) and on field reality (practitioners from NGOs, AFD…). GISA allows the definition of a common vision for FSN which is appropriated by all, and improves policy consistency regarding FSN. This appropriation and collective work facilitate France recommendations to be



Proceedings / 101

taken into consideration, notably during the CFS.






Inclusiveness


Accountability




Reflexivity


Effectiveness

(assessment of the achievement of MSP’s



Proceedings / 102

objectives)

Efficiency




Impact




( ) More Equal

( ) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal




Strengths: A forum for exchanging information and creating a dialogue on FSN issues. Better expertise where the role of the research sector is strengthens so that GISA continue to produce valuable position papers on a



Proceedings / 103

common vision useful in the different ad hoc forums.

It also plays a key role in building mutual understanding between actors and the exchange of information, sometimes in a rather informal way.

Limitations: weakness and threats

Over the last 10 years, several multilateral processes have been dealing with food security issues with almost no or very few links with the CFS. Three of them are of particular importance: the G8/G20, the trade negotiation under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) formulation process, which includes one SDG on “ending hunger, achieving food security and improved nutrition, and promoting sustainable agriculture”.

In this context an important challenge is to make the different platform interacting and exchanging views, and to develop appropriate mechanisms (interministerial coordination for instance) so as to ensure policy coherence whereas the GISA do not have the same way of interactions with the different platforms (for instance there is no GISA position to contribute to G7/G20 work.



An evaluation of GISA was done in 2015/2016, it has shown that the three objectives, mentioned above (Q.2) were coherent as a whole, but did not get the same attention. Objective A –monitoring and prospective work in developing countries- has received little attention so far.

Objective C –preparation of French initiatives- has been central only for a short time (2008-2010) and its importance is variously appreciated by GISA members.

Finally, Objective B- preparation of French positions- is the most present in the GISA discussions but it focuses mainly on an international forum, the CFS.

We are currently debating on how to better influence public priorities by working on themes addressed by international fora (G7, G20, UNCCD…) or by showcasing neglected themes, anticipated crisis.

The follow up of the evaluation should permit to redefine objectives and ways of working and will be followed by the definition of a new multiyear road map.

24. What is the potential of this MSP to influence public priorities across sectors and allocation of budget for



Proceedings / 104

improved FSN? What is its potential to mobilise further funds for improving food security and nutrition?



REFERENCES





Proceedings / 105

10. Emmanuel Boon, International Centre for Enterprise and Sustainable Development (ICED), Ghana

Contribution no. 43
























Proceedings / 106



(X) Global. Major areas/regions of presence: currently Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Africa. However, the 10YFP SFS Programme does have members and activities from all continents. Important additional information: Next to the global scope of the partnership, the 10YFP SFS Programme – through its so-called Core Initiatives - implements activities on the regional, national and sub-national level as well. Certain Core Initiatives of the Programme also promote activities across a number of different countries (e.g. Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, Indonesia, Kenya, South Africa, Netherlands). In addition, the 10YFP SFS Programme has more than 20 so-called Affiliated Projects and 4 Trust Fund projects, which are being implemented in countries including: Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Malaysia, Nigeria and Sweden, Serbia, Switzerland, Philippines and Thailand, Tanzania.

(Africa) Regional (Specify region27)

(Africa Union) Sub-regional (Specify sub-region28: East Africa, Central Africa, Southern Africa and West Africa)

(Ghana) National (Specify country:

(10) Local (specify country: Regions in Ghana)





- Federal Office for Agriculture, Switzerland (government agency)- Department of Trade and Industry, South Africa (government agency)- WWF (civil society organization)

















Proceedings / 107

- Hivos (civil society organization)













- UDYAMA




- ENEA








Private sector


- FoodDrinkEurope



Proceedings / 108

- Nestle

- Smaackmakers



The 10YFP SFS Programme was jointly developed by FAO and UNEP in the context of the Rio+20 Conference and the adoption of the UN 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production (10YFP), with the support of Switzerland and based on the work of the FAO/UNEP-led Agri-food Task Force on Sustainable Consumption and Production (2011-2015).










For more detailed information on the decision-making process and the respective roles and responsibilities of the different members and bodies, please refer to the 10YFP SFS Programme’s Terms of Reference.




Proceedings / 109



Decisions are taken by the Co-Leads and MAC (for their composition see 7. above), with each of them having one vote. There are no major power asymmetries within these bodies, however some Co-Leads and MAC members are more involved and devote more time than others. Programme Partners are not directly involved in strategic discussions and decision-making, however all three types of members have the possibility to participate in the Programme’s task forces, join forces in 10YFP SFS Programme core initiatives and/or affiliate relevant activities and projects to the 10YFP SFS Programme.



MAC members speak for their respective organizations, however the fact that they are elected by the Programme Partners establishes accountability towards their stakeholder cluster.



The 10YFP SFS Programme has 2 Co-Leads and 7 MAC members that are government agencies, which provide for a direct line of communication with those governments. In addition, the 10YFP SFS Programme can draw upon the 120+ designated National Focal Points of the 10YFP. So far, decisions/recommendations have been of a rather consultative nature. However, several of the 10YFP SFS Programme’s core initiatives are promoting normative work, such as the development of voluntary guidelines for sustainable diets.




Proceedings / 110



The 10YFP SFS Programme has a resource mobilization strategy that is based on a collaborative approach and has shown some successes, however fundraising remains a challenge and all core initiatives are in need of additional finance in order to ensure their implementation according to the work plan. In line with its resource mobilization strategy, the 10YFP SFS Programme members share information on funding opportunities through an online “resource mobilization platform”, and in addition the Co-Leads make Programme members aware of funding opportunities and encourage them to make coordinated applications to relevant calls for proposals.

In addition to the above, there is a small 10YFP Trust Fund, administered by the 10YFP Secretariat (hosted by UNEP) to which programme members can submit project proposals. Currently, there are three on-going Trust Funds projects being funded (aggregate amount 500.000 USD).

II) OUTCOMES








Proceedings / 111


Areas 1-3 correspond to the 4 objectives of the 10YFP SFS Programme (1: Raise awareness of the need to shift to more sustainable food systems and to apply a holistic, systems approach to addressing food security and nutrition; 2: Build capacity and enabling conditions for the identification, prioritization, development and uptake of sustainable practices across food systems and facilitate access to financial and technical assistance; Take stock of, categorize and disseminate – and if needed develop – accessible and actionable science-based and/or empirically-demonstrated information tools and methodologies to support governments, the private sector, farmers, consumers and other relevant stakeholders to contribute to more sustainable food systems; 4: Bring together initiatives and develop partnerships to build synergies and cooperation to leverage resources towards the mutual goal of promoting, enhancing and facilitating the shift towards more sustainable food systems) and are being pursued through the work of the Programme’s




X


X


X



X


X


8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 112

4 task forces (on 1: Awareness raising and communication; 2: Enabling environments and capacity building; 3: Information, knowledge and tools; and 4: Partnerships and synergies).







4





Inclusiveness


X

Accountability


X



X



Proceedings / 113

Reflexivity


X

Effectiveness


X

Efficiency


X



X

Impact


X X




( ) More Equal

(X) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal






Proceedings / 114

















Proceedings / 115

REFERENCES


For further references and links, in addition to those already included in this questionnaire, please refer to our general submission.


ICED shares the responses to this questionnaire to a very large extent and suggests that the Market Oriented Agricultural Programme (MOAP) being implemented in Ghana by German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the European Union (EU) from 2014 to 2019 be cited as an example of MSP. See the link below:

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/ad-2-ghana-2016_en_0.pdf

ICED completely agrees with the observation regarding the need to improve fundraising and the portfolio of the Trust Fund. The role of the private sector is crucial.

11. Jacopo Valentini, World Food Programme, ItalyContribution no. 55

1. Name of MSP: Zambia SUN Business Network # (for HLPE use only):








The SUN Business Network is one of the five (5) global stakeholder networks in the SUN Movement. It aims to harness the expertise, reach and market impact of the private sector to improve nutrition for consumers.



Proceedings / 116

Globally, the SUN Business Network is convened by the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) and WFP, and further supported by an advisory group comprised of senior business leaders.

The Zambia SUN Business Network is led by the National Food and Nutrition Commission (NFNC) and facilitated by UN WFP. The vision of Zambia SBN is to serve as the key coordinating platform that enables private sector to sustainably contribute to improving nutrition. SBN Zambia has three core objectives, namely: increasing the supply of nutritious food, driving demand for nutritious food and creating an enabling environment for improved nutrition, as detailed below.

1. Increase SUPPLY of nutritious foods: Provide guidance, training and tools to increase commercial engagement in nutrition; Conduct targeted research based on member needs including market information; Leverage knowledge and best practices from multinational companies; and Provide catalytic support to innovative companies that have potential to contribute to

improved nutrition.

14.

2. Drive DEMAND for nutritious foods: Implement broad-based marketing and social behaviour change and communications

(SBCC) campaign to promote healthy diets among consumers; Roll out of Good Food Logo to encourage improved consumer decision making

surrounding food choices; and Support dissemination of complementary SBCC messages through government service

delivery points and other platforms.3. Create a more ENABLING ENVIRONMENT for improved nutrition:

Support ongoing dialogue for strengthened policies and regulations that impact nutrition, including fortification;

Develop tools and information to improve transparency of processes of meeting regulatory requirements; and

Facilitate engagement between private sector and government to strategically maximize business contributions to nutrition.

These three focus priority areas are all underpinned by strong multi-stakeholder partnerships, a robust learning agenda, and a collective communications and advocacy effort.


SBN Global website: www.sunbusinessnetwork.org

SBN Zambia Facebook: www.facebook.com/sbnzambia



http://www.sunbusinessnetwork.org/

Proceedings / 117

4. Year of Origin / Creation: November 2014





(X) National (Specify country: Zambia



6. Number of main partners: 70+


Private Sector:

Food Processing - 33 Agriculture - 3 Health products - 3 Finance - 5

Non-Private Sector: 15

Academia – University of Zambia, Columbia Business School Pangea Advisors programme Civil Society – Zambia Civil Society-Scaling up Nutrition Alliance Government – National Food and Nutrition Commission(NFNC), MoH, Zambia Bureau of Standards

(ZABS), UN - WHO








Proceedings / 118

Donors – UKAID, Irish Aid, Gates Foundation Nutrition community - TechnoServe Zambia, GAIN Nordic


The private sector platform began as a joint effort by local partners in nutrition to make nutritious foods more available, affordable and acceptable to the local population through an initiative called the triple ‘A’ forum. This was mainly led by WFP Zambia and TechnoServe Zambia. It later evolved into the SUN Business Network (SBN) in the years after the Zambian government signed up to the SUN movement. The National Food and Nutrition Commission (NFNC), the agency charged with nutrition policy in Zambia worked together with WFP to jointly convene the program with the support of the Irish Aid. The platform was later funded by UKAid to implement a three (3) year strategy – 2015 to 2017 during which the platform became the key network in the country for engaging private sector in nutrition achieving a membership of 70 organizations of which 39 are companies. The SBN has just commenced implementation of the next three year strategy leading up to 2020 supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Amongst the key initiatives in the new strategy are implementing a certification mark scheme through the Zambia Bureau of Standards (ZABS) that will encourage companies to produce more nutritious foods and a SBCC campaign to improve consumer awareness of nutrition.


() full legal entity: legal personality




For the co-conveners, WFP and the NFNC, consultation on key decisions occurs on an on-going basis to ensure that activities remain within the key nutrition priorities. The SBN also holds quarterly network meetings where members and other stakeholders are invited to attend. During these meetings, updates around key activities, plans and programs are shared with members allowing for feedback. Additionally, an advisory board of at least 50% private sector representation is tasked with providing key input in setting the direction of the network meets twice a year.




Proceedings / 119

In Zambia, SBN is led by the National Food and Nutrition Commission (NFNC) and

facilitated by WFP, both form part of the governing committee and their role includes:

Guidance on major decisions; Accountability and oversight; and Quarterly meetings.

An advisory group composed of 50% private sector which hold meetings every six months. The group provides strategic guidance to the SBN and raise awareness on nutrition in the private sector.


SBN members apply to be members and have to fill in a membership form that spells out what is expected of them and the rules of engagement including not violating the code on breast milk substitutes.

The platform represents a broad range of stakeholders but primarily those in the private sector who are committed to contributing to improved nutrition.

Through the NFNC, the platform ensures that the focus remains on interventions that assist to improve malnutrition for the low-income communities


The channels of communication with government are through direct to through the National Food and Nutrition Commission (NFNC) who are co-conveners of the platform. A consultative approach is used to convey recommendations or arrive at key decisions or focus.

The priorities supported under this partnership are mainly around the promotion of availability and demand for nutritious foods and encouraging the an enabling environment


From 2015 – 2017, the platform was funded by a pooled fund from three donors (Irish Aid, Sweden and UKAid) and small contributions mostly in-kind by some private sector members



Proceedings / 120

Current activities are funded by the BMGF with additional support from private sector contributions

II) OUTCOMES










X


X


X




X


8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 121

Outcomes Areas achievements:

OA 1: Supported government (NFNC) in 2017 to develop policy tools for addressing NCDs in Zambia

OA 2: More than Ten (10) businesses in the network are run or headed by women

OA 3: Facilitated support for a local nutritious foods company from a global company to improve availability

OA 4: First SBN country network to mobilize resources from local donors

OA 6: One of the first country networks in Africa to implement a certification mark for nutritious foods




4


In just three (3) years, the SBN has succeeded in generating local interest in developing nutritious foods and becoming the go-to platform for any business that operates in food and nutrition sector in Zambia. It is one if not the most active SUN networks in the country.



Inclusiveness


X

Accountability


X – Clear accountability is assigned to the team at the secretariat SBN Manager

Transparency/Access to Information X – The quarterly



Proceedings / 122


meetings held for members allow for feedback. Further, summaries of activities are made publicly available

Reflexivity


X

Effectiveness


X

Efficiency


X – Activities are very focused and tied to key outcomes allowing for operational efficiency



X – SBN Zambia remains the only private sector network that conducts in-country resource mobilizations to fund initiative.

Impact


X




Proceedings / 123


( ) More Equal

( X ) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal


Business members are treated solely as members and not based on their size or prominence. This has created a culture where even small scale or medium businesses are eager to participate and add value to the network



Strengths: strong brand; agile team; good momentum; innovative approaches and interventions.

Weakness: low linkage to global SBN members; stable funding.


Opportunities: building consumer awareness; leverage company or private sector interest in nutrition; global interest/learning or best practice; support to other fledgling networks.

Threats: scepticism around collaborating with private sector; limitations of operating within a UN agency structure.


Increased interest from the government to develop an appropriate enabling environment for nutrition markets.


There is huge potential as has already been seen around with Zambian government now



Proceedings / 124

considering addressing the root causes of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) following policy development support provided to the local nutrition agency under MoH.


The biggest opportunity to address the needs of the most vulnerable is the key initiative around driving behavioural change towards healthier or more nutritious diets. This is a key initiative in the current strategy.


The Zambia SBN team has already provided support and input to several countries within the Southern Africa region as well as beyond including West Africa, East Africa and Asia to develop similar platforms. More than 6 countries in Africa have adapted the Zambia strategy to their own country contexts and set up their own SUN Business network. This has included remote support and even country support visits from the Zambia team

REFERENCES


https://www.ennonline.net/mediahub/sbnzambia

https://www.daily-mail.co.zm/promoting-good-nutrition-through-the-sun-movement/



https://www.daily-mail.co.zm/promoting-good-nutrition-through-the-sun-movement/

https://www.ennonline.net/mediahub/sbnzambia

Proceedings / 125



1. Name of MSP: IFRC-WFP Capacity Strengthening Initiative # (for HLPE use only):






(x) Other (specify): capacity strengthening


In 2017 WFP and IFRC launched a capacity strengthening initiative through which the organizations are jointly investing in the National Societies of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. This multi-stakeholder partnership aims to demonstrate how WFP and IFRC can join forces to build robust, sustainable National Societies, capable of delivering on their mandate and contributing to enhanced, local food security capacity. The initiative is being piloted in Burundi, Dominican Republic, Pakistan and Sudan, with additional pilots under development in Zimbabwe and the Pacific. The initiative operationalises a whole of society approach to zero hunger and shows the stakeholders’ commitment to invest more seriously in local and national first responders.


Relevant web resources:

https://medium.com/@pauline.gay/new-inclusive-partnership-with-the-red-cross-movement-



https://medium.com/@pauline.gay/new-inclusive-partnership-with-the-red-cross-movement-d71cc97b3d11

Proceedings / 126

d71cc97b3d11

https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000023094/download/


https://reliefweb.int/report/burundi/launch-first-activities-burundi-red-cross-capacity-strengthening-initiative



(X) Global (Specify major areas/regions of presence:………………..…………….……………………)



(X) National (Global initiative with initial implementation in Burundi, Dominican Republic, Sudan and Pakistan)





- Pakistan Red Crescent- Sudan Red Crescent- Burundi Red Cross- Dominican Red Cross- International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)














Proceedings / 127

- World Food Programme (WFP)

15.

With Partner National Societies: including the British Red Cross and ongoing conversations with the Finnish Red Cross and the Turkish Red Crescent.


The World Food Programme (WFP) and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) initiated the multi-stakeholder partnership after the organizations had signed up to the World Humanitarian Summit and Grand Bargain commitments on localisation. With the MSP being piloted in Burundi, the Dominican Republic, Pakistan and Sudan, the National Societies in the respective countries took on the leadership of the initiative with the support of Partner National Societies, WFP and IFRC country and regional representations. Local partnerships between National Societies, WFP and IFRC in Zimbabwe and the Pacific are now interested in joining this larger multi-stakeholder partnership.






Joint concept note outlining the initiative at a global level. Joint development of concept notes between all stakeholders at the country level. Partners within countries might sign MoUs at the national level to formalise their collaboration.

Global coordinators within WFP and IFRC HQ, who meet regularly. Internal working group within WFP with regular meetings including all sectors involved, as well as the country office and regional bureaus. Meeting between high-level representatives from the country, regional and HQ level as well as operational workshops including all partners are held regularly.

Decision-making is decentralised to the country-level with the National Societies taking the lead. The demand-driven approach to capacity strengthening builds on the joint identification of programmatic areas by all stakeholders at the country level and is informed by and in line with the National Societies needs and long-term strategy.

10. Governance structure: describe the roles, responsibilities and level of involvement of the different partners in the partnership. Describe, the case being, power asymmetries between partners. Which



Proceedings / 128

partner(s) lead the MSP?

National Societies lead the MSP together with the local representations of WFP, IFRC and Participating National Societies such as the British Red Cross. IFRC and WFP HQ play a coordinating role. The demand-driven approach to capacity strengthening builds on the joint identification of programmatic areas by all stakeholders at the country level and is informed by and in line with the National Societies needs and long-term strategy.


This MSP is part of the organizations’ commitment to provide greater support to local and national responders. Therefore, representation of local and national actors is at the heart of this MSP. Quality partnerships based on trust and equality are emphasised through the leadership of the national societies. This initiative is also the first time that the IFRC has worked with the United Nations on developing National Societies. The strong interest by the IFRC and to continue to do so, indicates the success of this inclusive partnership and the tangible outcomes of a “Whole of Society” approach.


N/A


WFP HQ has invested an initial USD 1.1 million in the initiative. The IFRC, WFP country offices and regional bureaus, as well as Partner National Societies and National Societies have contributed further complimentary human and financial resources. Additional funding opportunities is explored at the country and global level.

II) OUTCOMES




Proceedings / 129






Aligned with the commitments of the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016 and the Grand Bargain, this initiative seeks to support selected National Societies in Burundi, Dominican Republic, Sudan and Pakistan




X


X


X



X


X


8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 130

to become more robust, both as institutions and in programmatic priority areas.

About 25 participants from the Burundi Red Cross, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), other partners and WFP came together in Bujumbura, Burundi, in November 2017 for the first of a series of activities aimed at strengthening the capacity of the Burundi Red Cross. The introductory exchange of knowledge in Bujumbura in November 2017, launching activities in Burundi, focused on the fundamentals of nutrition sensitive cash-based transfers programming and initiated the learning process across the organisations. Discussions on key steps of cash-based transfers programming were supported by hands-on exercises which allowed participants to put into practice concepts and methodology.

In parallel to the initiative’s start in Burundi, launches have been conducted in the three other countries of the capacity strengthening project - Sudan, Pakistan and the Dominican Republic. At the same time as the close cooperation at country level bears fruit, WFP Headquarters and regional bureaux staff are working with their counterparts in the IFRC to support the four country initiatives through harmonised tools and programmatic approaches.


The initiative’s value lies in the mutual learning process for all stakeholders involved. With the leadership and coordination of National Societies, drawing on comparative advantages means each partner can play to their strengths and learn from the others. For instance, the British Red Cross, with its expertise in cash-based assistance, will join WFP and the IFRC to strengthen the Pakistan Red Crescent’s capacities in that area. The Pakistan Red Crescent Society on the other hand has great presence and access throughout the country and 1.8 million volunteers, which will further enrich this strategic partnership.

Quality partnerships based on trust and equality are at the heart of this collaboration. This initiative is the first time that the IFRC has worked with the United Nations on developing National Societies. The strong interest by the IFRC and to continue to do so, indicates the success of this inclusive partnership and the tangible outcomes of a “Whole of Society” approach. It also signifies the willingness and ability of the humanitarian system to work collaboratively to better serve people in need.



4


The initiative is a learning experience for all parties involved and pilots a new way of working between WFP, the IFRC, National Societies and Partner National Societies.



Proceedings / 131

The project is instrumental to carrying out Grand Bargain commitments to localize humanitarian preparedness and response. It is hoped that the lessons from these four countries will inform the broader engagement of the international humanitarian community with civil society partners, and that it will achieve sustainable results.

WFP, IFRC and Partner National Societies already work with National Societies as implementing partners in many countries. What is different with this initiative is that it is a less transactional, more collaborative and a mutually reinforcing partnership that not only benefits one particular actor but all participants, in particular the National Societies.



Inclusiveness


X

Accountability


X



X

Reflexivity


X

Effectiveness


X



Proceedings / 132

Efficiency


X



X

Impact


X



(X) More Equal

( ) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal


Decision-making is decentralised to the country-level with the National Societies taking the lead. The demand-driven approach to capacity strengthening builds on the joint identification of programmatic areas by all stakeholders at the country level and is informed by and in line with the National Societies needs and long-term strategy.



The MSP’s new approach to partnerships, its substantial initial funding and strong buy-in within National Societies, country teams and Headquarters’ level.



Proceedings / 133

At times, diminished country team capacity presents a challenge and the considerable change in mindset required to successfully and sustainably implement this new approach to partnerships is longer-term challenge.

Collaboratively, all MSP stakeholders work together to address the challenge of sustainable resource mobilisation opportunities and an overall coherent approach to capacity strengthening, and the monitoring and evaluation of its progress.


The MSP offers the opportunity to further expand beyond its current membership and countries, by offering a flexible, demand-driven and contextualised approach to partnerships and capacity strengthening. Additional humanitarian actors outside of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement could explore joining this MSP, replicating it, or learning from its best practices.


Sustainable, longer-term resource mobilisation opportunities, innovative ways to share lessons learnt across stakeholders, and a coherent methodological approach to monitoring and evaluating the initiative are currently being explored and will enable the MSP to better function.


It is hoped that this MSP’s approach to partnerships and capacity strengthening will be instrumental to carrying out Grand Bargain commitments to localize humanitarian preparedness and response. I hope the lessons from these four countries will inform a broader WFP engagement with civil society partners, and that we will achieve sustainable results.’


Local and national actors have a variety of advantages; from their permanent community presence, to a



Proceedings / 134

unique understanding of local risks, vulnerabilities and needs, as well as having trust, acceptance and access to affected people. Therefore, this partnership working to make the National Societies stronger and more sustainable organisations that help local communities lead and sustain their own fight against hunger, are vital to address food insecurity and malnutrition of those most marginalized at the community level.


The stakeholders involved actively strive to extrapolate lessons learnt from the MSP through case studies, workshops and regular close communication between focal points. Based on the MSP’s early lessons learnt, WFP has recently published a Guidance on Capacity Strengthening of Civil Society to support country offices increase their efforts to strengthen the capacity of civil society. Furthermore, members of the MSP have been sharing lessons across the humanitarian community, through the Grand Bargain localization workstream and associated research workshops. The initiative is based on a new, more collaborative approach to partnerships, and as such conducts and participates in stakeholder consultation at the national and local level. By sharing lessons and exploring the further capacity strengthening opportunities, the initiative facilitates other countries and stakeholders to use this MSP experience to organize similar partnerships.

REFERENCES


Please see links in section 3.





Proceedings / 135


1. Name of MSP: Smallholder Value chains (P4P) & Resilience Programme.









Through the Smallholder Value chains (P4P) & Resilience Programme, WFP and FAO joined their efforts to revive agricultural production and the commodity market with the aim of improving food security and smallholder farmers' livelihoods in support of peace and social cohesion. The strong WFP-FAO partnership in the DRC harnesses the comparative advantages of the two sister agencies, leveraging FAO’s expertise on quality inputs, agricultural production, and rural micro-finance with WFP’s knowledge and capacities to stabilize degraded landscapes and boost agricultural production and incomes. Specifically, the programme is aimed at:

Providing short-term food assistance to the most vulnerable population while rehabilitating productive assets at community level using the Food Assistance for Assets (FFAs) approach;

Strengthening beneficiaries’ livelihoods following the “Purchase for Progress (P4P)” approach (development of beneficiaries’ capacity to produce, store and market commodities to increase their income and enhance their self-reliance);

Supporting social cohesion, gender equality, peace and reconciliation.


N/A






Proceedings / 136



( X ) National (Specify country…………….………Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)……………)





This is a joint WFP-FAO programme; Implementing Partners:

o The Ministries of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and their technical departments (IPAPEL, IDR, DVDA, etc.),

o NGOs such as “Search for Common Ground (SFCG)”, ZEBREAU, Oxfam GB;o Farmer cooperative unions such as COOCENKI and LOFEPACO.

Donors: France, Belgium, Sweden, Canada, Germany.


WFP initiated the process in the DRC. “Purchase for Progress (P4P)” was a WFP pilot project. Although WFP worked with FAO during the pilot phase (2009-2015), the collaboration was not concrete and well elaborated enough to unleash the full potential of the initiative in terms of results. At the end of the pilot phase, WFP DRC initiated discussions with FAO DRC to develop a joint programme, based on our shared vision and the achievements and lessons learned during the pilot P4P.








Proceedings / 137

A joint concept note was then developed as starting point and used for project planning and to support joint resource mobilisation. It clearly defined the responsibilities of each agency based of their respective areas of expertise and comparative advantages. Multi-year funding was secured with Canada, Sweden and Germany for the programme implementation.

At WFP, a Trust Fund was created at country level for the management of the programme grants. After the WFP’s transition to a new framework as per the Integrated Roadmap (IRM) to align WFP’s interventions of the SDGs, the initiative was mainstreamed into WFP DRC’s Interim Country Strategic Plan (ICSP).

FAO also opened a new programme under its Country Portfolio in the DRC for the management of the programme grants.



( X ) formalized agreement among partners, but no legal personality for the MSP



There is a “National Coordination Unit (NCU)”, which is based in Kinshasa, involving both WFP and FAO P4P staff members. At field level, there are similar arrangements (Project Coordination Teams -- PCT) that include the project team from both WFP and FAO. The NCU and PCT have regular monthly meetings to discuss the implementation of the programme activities, donors and partners’ requests, emerging issues concerning the programme activities etc. Ad hoc meetings are also be organized on needs basis.

In term of decision-making, the NCU discusses any decision to be made during regular or ad hoc meeting and makes a suggestion to be presented to both Country Directors (CDs). The CDs can modify or approve the suggested decision. After approval (by both CDs), the NCU ensures its implementation and works with PCTs in this regard.

10. Governance structure: describe the roles, responsibilities and level of involvement of the different partners in the partnership. Describe, the case being, power asymetries between partners. Which partner(s)



Proceedings / 138

lead the MSP?

In the partnership, WFP acts as the “Lead Agency” and take the lead in organizing the programme activities, developing proposals to be submitted to donors, organizing meetings or consultations with the government and key partners etc. In general, WFP as the “Lead agency” does all the preparatory works in close consultation with FAO. But, whenever a decision needs to be made, the process described at point 9 above is followed.

For the implementation of the programme activities, there is a clear division of responsibilities between the two agencies based on the mandate and comparative advantage of each agency:

Community mobilisation into Farmer Organisations (FOs) and for the support of peace and social cohesion involves both WFP and FAO. Generally, WFP helps establish the FOs and FAO works on the legal aspect of the formed organizations. Both agencies work on peacebuilding mechanisms at community level.

Agricultural production and processing is under the leadership of FAO; Post-harvest handling and market access is under the leadership of WFP; Rural micro-finance is under the leadership of FAO; Gender equality and support for income generating activities are under the leadership of WFP.

In terms of agreement with donors, WFP being the “Lead Agency” plays the role of “Administrative Agent”. The two agencies signed an agreement designating WFP as the “Administrative Agent (AA)”.

The AA takes the lead in negotiations and signed any financial agreement with donors in the name of the two agencies;

The AA (WFP) sends FAO its allocation of the grant using the pass-through modality; FAO submits its narrative and financial reports to WFP in accordance with the agreement signed

with the donor; WFP uses the financial and narrative reports of the two agencies to prepare a consolidated

narrative and financial reports to be submitted to the donor.


Whenever possible, the two agencies are represented in any meeting or discussion. If the meeting involves senior officials, the Country Directors of the two agencies (or their Deputies in case of absence/unavailability) will attend. Alternatively, the P4P Country Coordinator at WFP and the P4P



Proceedings / 139

Programme Officer at FAO will lead the process. WFP remains the “Lead agency” in all the discussions.

When speaking, one shall always speak for the two agencies as per our internal arrangement. Efforts to balance the intervention in a way that cover both WFP and FAO interests is actively encouraged.

For a fair representation of the most affected people, the WFP developed “Three-Pronged Approach (3PAs)” was adopted by the two agencies.

The design, planning and implementation of the programme activities in any community are informed by the 3PAs, engaging the government and other partners at the national, provincial and local levels to ensure ownership and sustainability of the results. This consultative and participatory approach consists of three processes at different levels:

At the provincial level, the Integrated Context Analysis (ICA) looks at historical trends of food security, natural shocks, and land degradation to identify the most vulnerable territories that resilience initiatives shall target;

At the territorial level, the Seasonal Livelihood Programming (SLP) brings together communities, the provincial government and partners to design livelihood-support interventions through seasonal and gender lenses;

At the community level, Community-based Participatory Planning (CBPP) identifies the root causes of vulnerability, ensuring that communities have a strong voice in setting priorities and that the interventions are tailored to their needs.


For communication with the government(s), meetings are organized in which both agencies are represented. The meeting may be followed by an official letter if any action is required from the government. Generally, the recommendations to the government(s) are consultative. All the necessary efforts to reach consensus on any aspect are ensured. At provincial and territorial levels, the strategies/priorities are focused on the development of the capacity of governmental institutions to enable them to provide necessary services to beneficiaries. WFP and FAO work closely with them in this regard. This is required to ensure ownership and sustainability of the programme.

12. Finance: How and by whom the MSP is funded? Who underwrites the partnership? Add relevant data about the budget, and budget share of each category of partners (public, private, civil society). Is the budget



Proceedings / 140

sufficient for work plan implementation? What are the financial tools and mechanisms used by the MSP?

The donors are: Sweden, Canada, France and Germany. The grant agreements are generally signed by WFP in the name of the MSP (see N°10 above). The current total budget is 63 million USD of which 40.5 million (64.29%) are allocated to WFP and 22.5 million (35.71%) to FAO.

The financial arrangement is a pass-through arrangement as explained in item N°10. Once WFP receives the funds from the donors it uses this modality to send FAO its portion, as agreed in the project/programme document. Each agency then manages the funds as per its administrative and financial rules and procedures.

II) OUTCOMES



( X.) “action-oriented”





Proceedings / 141


1. Support to smallholder agriculture remains at the core of government discussions and programmes for agricultural and rural development;

2. Women and marginalized groups, such as the Pygmies have improved access to productive assets and increased their capacity for self-reliance;

3. Farmer Organisations and Cooperatives have improved capacity to provide services to their members;

4. Enough resources are secured for the implementation of the project for the next five years;5. Beneficiary smallholder farmers have adopted sustainable agricultural practices;6. Participating smallholder farmers and their organisations have:




X


X


X



X


X


8. Other (Specify: __Strengthening peace and social cohesion_______)

X


Proceedings / 142

a. Improved their food production in quantity and quality, post-harvest handling and access to markets and increased their income;

b. Diversified and improved their livelihoods.7. Monitoring and Evaluation activities carried out to document achievements and lessons learned;8. Peace and social cohesion is taking root in beneficiary communities.


Joint efforts for resource mobilisation is effective. Donors are generally interested to see UN agencies working together in a more coherent manner. Operationally, the two agencies share the same premises in the field and the joint implementation helps reduce implementation costs. Complementarity and increased synergy in the interventions of the two agencies is assured; which leads to better results on the ground and increased impacts. When discussion with government and other partners, the fact that WFP and FAO are together and speaking with one voice is also helping in terms of advocacy.



4.5


The partnership between WFP and FAO in the DRC is stronger than ever. Through the P4P/Resilience programme, the two agencies are truly working to deliver as one entity. Of course, nothing is perfect in this world and therefore chose raking below the highest level. I think 4.5 out of 5 is a realistic ranking.



Inclusiveness


X

Accountability


X

Transparency/Access to Information X



Proceedings / 143


Reflexivity


X

Effectiveness


X

Efficiency


X



X

Impact


X


None.


( X ) More Equal

( ) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal




Proceedings / 144

There an even treatment between the two sister agencies. No agency is more influential or impactful than the other in this partnership.



Strengths:

Speaking with one voice at all time, Consistency in the message we deliver, Effectiveness in terms of results on the ground, Transparency and accountability.

Weakness challenging the MSP:

DRC being one of the most challenging context the UN has to operate in, there are numerous challenges for the implementation of our planned activities (security, governance, poor infrastructure, etc.);

Weakness of governmental institutions in leading/overseeing field activities.


There is no threat as such that the MSP could cause. Yet, given the DRC context, security concerns and the resulting frequent population movements may hinder the durability of the project results.

In term of opportunity, the donor fatigue for the delivery of humanitarian assistance give room for P4P/Resilience type of projects/programmes, which address the root causes of food insecurity and the development of beneficiaries’ capacity for self-reliance while delivering much needed humanitarian food assistance.




Proceedings / 145

The MSP is already functioning very well. However, the strengthening of the capacity of partner governmental institutions (Inspectorate of Agriculture, Fishery and animal husbandry, Inspectorate for rural development, etc.) would improve the MSP’s effort to deliver results for the beneficiaries.


The potential of the MSP to influence public priorities across sectors and the allocation of resources for FSN is moderate. The MSP works with other partners, such as the World Bank, the African Development Bank, bilateral donors and other UN agencies to influence governmental policy and public priorities. There are coordination mechanisms at country level for agriculture and rural development (GIBADER and GT9) in which the MSP plays a key role. Yet, the DRC Government generally allocates less than 2% of its budget to agriculture and rural development and the allocated budget is mainly aimed at covering staff salaries. This is why we consider the potential as medium.

However, the potential to mobilise further resources for food security and nutrition is high. In fact, during the last two years (2016-2017), USD63 million was already mobilized. We believe that the MSP has a high potential for resource mobilisation for FSN.


The MSP’s potential to address the specific needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups most affected by food insecurity and malnutrition is very high. The MSP’s impact on gender equality and women empowerment in the areas where the programme is implemented is widely recognized in the DRC. Through this programme, WFP and FAO deliver targeted assistance to women groups and indigenous population such as the Pygmies who have been marginalized for decades. Thanks to this programme, they are having better access to productive assets, changing nutritional habits and strengthening their livelihoods and capacity for self-reliance.


Other regions/countries can learn from the WFP-FAO experience/best practice and build upon this experience of joint undertaking in the DRC. The necessary conditions include the resolve of the two agencies to work together, a clear definition of the responsibilities and roles of each agency in the



Proceedings / 146

partnership and the set-up of a team that will push forward the initiative.

REFERENCES


The P4P/Resilience programme in the DRC produced a best practice document for knowledge sharing. This document can be shared at request.


None.

14. Anuradha Gupta Prithvi, Innovations-10YFP-SFS program partner organization, India

Contribution no. 44






Proceedings / 147






















Proceedings / 148



(X) Global. Major areas/regions of presence: currently Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Africa. However, the 10YFP SFS Programme does have members and activities from all continents. Important additional information: Next to the global scope of the partnership, the 10YFP SFS Programme – through its so-called Core Initiatives - implements activities on the regional, national and sub-national level as well. Certain Core Initiatives of the Programme also promote activities across a number of different countries (e.g. Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, Indonesia, Kenya, South Africa, Netherlands). In addition, the 10YFP SFS Programme has more than 20 so-called Affiliated Projects and 4 Trust Fund projects, which are being implemented in countries including: Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Malaysia, Nigeria and Sweden, Serbia, Switzerland, Philippines and Thailand, Tanzania.

(…) Regional (Specify region39)


(…) National (Specify country:

(...) Local (specify country: ……………………………………….…………………………………………)





- Federal Office for Agriculture, Switzerland (government agency)- Department of Trade and Industry, South Africa (government agency)

















Proceedings / 149

- WWF (civil society organization)- Hivos (civil society organization)













- UDYAMA




- ENEA








Private sector


- FoodDrinkEurope



Proceedings / 150

- Nestle

- Smaackmakers



The 10YFP SFS Programme was jointly developed by FAO and UNEP in the context of the Rio+20 Conference and the adoption of the UN 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production (10YFP), with the support of Switzerland and based on the work of the FAO/UNEP-led Agri-food Task Force on Sustainable Consumption and Production (2011-2015).










For more detailed information on the decision-making process and the respective roles and



Proceedings / 151

responsibilities of the different members and bodies, please refer to the 10YFP SFS Programme’s Terms of Reference.



Decisions are taken by the Co-Leads and MAC (for their composition see 7. above), with each of them having one vote. There are no major power asymmetries within these bodies, however some Co-Leads and MAC members are more involved and devote more time than others. Programme Partners are not directly involved in strategic discussions and decision-making, however all three types of members have the possibility to participate in the Programme’s task forces, join forces in 10YFP SFS Programme core initiatives and/or affiliate relevant activities and projects to the 10YFP SFS Programme.



MAC members speak for their respective organization, however the fact that they are elected by the Programme Partners establishes accountability towards their stakeholder cluster.


What are the channels of communication between the MSP and the government(s)? Are the decisions/recommendations of the MSP to the government(s) are prescriptive or consultative?





Proceedings / 152

What public strategies/priorities this partnership supported at different scales?

The 10YFP SFS Programme has 2 Co-Leads and 7 MAC members that are government agencies, which provides for a direct line of communication with those governments. In addition, the 10YFP SFS Programme can draw upon the 120+ designated National Focal Points of the 10YFP. So far, decisions/recommendations have been of a rather consultative nature. However, several of the 10YFP SFS Programme’s core initiatives are promoting normative work, such as the development of voluntary guidelines for sustainable diets.



The 10YFP SFS Programme has a resource mobilization strategy that is based on a collaborative approach and has shown some successes, however fundraising remains a challenge and all core initiatives are in need of additional finance in order to ensure their implementation according to the work plan. In line with its resource mobilization strategy, the 10YFP SFS Programme members share information on funding opportunities through an online “resource mobilization platform”, and in addition the Co-Leads make Programme members aware of funding opportunities and encourage them to make coordinated applications to relevant calls for proposals.

In addition to the above, there is a small 10YFP Trust Fund, administered by the 10YFP Secretariat (hosted by UNEP) to which programme members can submit project proposals. Currently there are three ongoing Trust Funds projects being funded (aggregate amount 500.000 USD).12. Finance: How and by whom the MSP is funded? Who underwrites the partnership? Add relevant data about the budget, and budget share of each category of partners (public, private, civil society). Is the budget sufficient for work plan implementation? What are the financial tools and mechanisms used by the MSP?

II) OUTCOMES







Proceedings / 153



Areas 1-3 correspond to the 4 objectives of the 10YFP SFS Programme (1: Raise awareness of the need to shift to more sustainable food systems and to apply a holistic, systems approach to addressing food security and nutrition; 2: Build capacity and enabling conditions for the identification, prioritization, development and uptake of sustainable practices across food systems and facilitate access to financial and technical assistance; Take stock of, categorize and disseminate – and if needed develop – accessible and actionable science-based and/or empirically-demonstrated information tools and methodologies to support governments, the private sector, farmers, consumers and other relevant stakeholders to contribute to more sustainable food systems; 4: Bring together initiatives and develop partnerships to build synergies and




X


X


X



X


X


8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 154

cooperation to leverage resources towards the mutual goal of promoting, enhancing and facilitating the shift towards more sustainable food systems) and are being pursued through the work of the Programme’s 4 task forces (on 1: Awareness raising and communication; 2: Enabling environments and capacity building; 3: Information, knowledge and tools; and 4: Partnerships and synergies).






4




Low Medium High

Criteria / AssessmentLow Medium High

Inclusiveness


X

Accountability


X



Proceedings / 155



X

Reflexivity


X

Effectiveness


X

Efficiency


X



X

Impact


X




( ) More Equal

(X) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal



Proceedings / 156


















Proceedings / 157



16. REFERENCES



15. Solomon Assefa, ICARDAContribution no. 58



Proceedings / 158

1. Name of MSP: SARD-SC Project # (for HLPE use only):

2. Brief description of mandate / activities / objectives:

The AfDB-funded SARD-SC project is a research, science and technology development project targeted at cassava, maize, wheat and wheat value chains. These are four of the six commodities that African Heads of States have, via the Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP), defined as strategic crops for Africa. The overall objective of the “Multinational – CGIAR: Support to Agricultural Research-for-Development on Strategic Commodities in Africa” (SARD-SC) was to enhance food and nutrition security and contribute to poverty reduction in Bank’s low income RMCs. Its specific objective was to enhance the productivity and income of four CAADP’s priority value chains (cassava, maize, wheat, and wheat) on a sustainable basis. The project had four components: (i) Agricultural Technologies and Innovations Generation; (ii) Agricultural Technologies and Innovations Dissemination; (iii) Capacity Building; and (iv) Project Management.

ICARDA was the implementing agency of the wheat component of SARD-SC project in partnership with the 12 Sub Saharan African countries (Eritrea , Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe) with a total allocated budget of USD 15.5 million over the period of six years (2012-2017).

The SARD-SC wheat value chain adopted the IP (MSP) approach, in which all the stakeholders in both public and private sectors along the wheat value chain involved in the generation, adaptation, dissemination, and use of all types of technologies, information and knowledge relevant to wheat production, processing and marketing with the main goals of creating opportunities for enhancing the wheat productivity and income through expanding domestic production and achieving a transformative impact in project target countries. Of the 12 interventions countries, the three hub countries (Ethiopia, Sudan, Ethiopia) provided an avenue for testing the development of innovation platforms and participatory approaches therein, for knowledge generation and dissemination, as well as avenues for scaling this approach both nationally within country and across countries of intervention.

Since 2013, the project proven technologies have been widely scaled up and promoted in farmers’ fields at Project-established 36 Innovation Platforms ((6 IPs in each of the three “hub countries” and two IPs in each of the nine “partner countries"). The IP approach served as an effective tool for multi-stakeholder partnership and provided an excellent forum for bringing together all relevant value chain actors and for stimulating interactions, co-learning, exchanging experiences and dialogue among stakeholders that led to participatory diagnosis of challenges; joint exploration of opportunities and devising of sustainable solutions for promoting wheat production, processing and marketing along the wheat value chain in the target countries.


http://www.sard-sc-wheat.icarda.org

http://www.iita.org/sard-sc



Proceedings / 159




( ) Regional (Specify region42:…Africa/SSA……………………….….……………………………..)










Proceedings / 160

I) STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION



- Farmers, farmers organization, researchers, extension agents, input providers/agro dealers,, service providers seed producers, financial institutions, millers/agro-processors, NGOs, and policy makers


- The MSP was initiated by research (ICARDA and NARS) and extension facilitators

The first step in setting a functional IP in the target site was started by conducting a wheat value chain analysis from production to consumption and identified the potential partners. The analysis integrated a detailed information such as the required inputs for each major stage of the value chain including the technical skills, personnel and material inputs; the financial requirement; the general and specific demand of the commodity, and the gaps in its supply to inform the market

While determining the potential partners for an IP, assessing contribution and potential benefits of such partner was a major consideration. IPs with clearly defined potential benefits have greater potential for sustainability because the interests of participating partners are sustained.

The first stakeholders meeting was arranged by the IP facilitators through organizing IP training by bringing together all relevant stakeholders in one forum in jointly identifying major limitations affecting local wheat production and marketing;, exploring opportunities, devising sustainable solutions for generation of innovation and impact benefiting all participating value chain actors. Thereafter, the stakeholders agreed to put in place their own IP management and governance structures at the operational and strategic levels; developed a participatory business plan with targets and buy-in, task sharing among stakeholders and signing of the MoU (who does what), for implementing the agreed upon business plan.

The jointly developed business plan also integrated a regular M&E and other specific event timelines, including farmers' field days for promoting best practices, policy dialog, and annual performance review and planning forum for assessing past achievements and lessons learnt that should be used as inputs in the planning phase of activities for the next cycle.




Proceedings / 161

All along the process, the research (ICARDA and NARS) and extension facilitators played active and constructive role in smoothly facilitating the establishment and operationalizing of the IP successfully.

9. Governance structure: does the MSP result of an informal agreement, or is there a formal structure of decision-making? Describe the decision-making process (including frequency of meetings of the governing bodies…)

The IP governance structure was result of the jointly developed and willingly signed MoU by all participating stakeholders. The IP management focal person was elected by the stakeholders annually for implementing the jointly agreed upon business plan. Representatives of the IP participating stakeholders served as the governing body of the IP. The IP stakeholders' meeting was formally held once in a month and used as a decision-making forum. The implementation of the signed MoU and decisions made by the governing body were regularly followed up by the IP management team in close cooperation and full support provided by the IP based research and extension facilitators.


IP Participating Stakeholders

Roles and task sharing within the IP

IP management focal person - Managing the IP activities

Researchers, - Providing proven technologies with initial seed sources,

- providing hands-on training to farmers and stakeholders

- participating as research facilitator and provide hands-on training to farmers and stakeholders

Farmers

Farmers organization

- Adopting of proven technologies and production packages and clustering farmlands within the IP groups

- Facilitating timely provisions of inputs (seed, fertilizers, chemicals..) to farmers

- Aggregating wheat grains for off-takers

Extension officers, - providing extension services and training to farmers



Proceedings / 162

- Participating as extension facilitator,

inputs providers/agro dealers - Providing (seed, fertilizers, chemicals..) to farmers in sufficient quantity, quality and timely

Service providers - Providing machineries (farm operations, and harvest post harvest) through rental services

Seed producers Multiplying and supplying certified seed to farmers in sufficient quantity, quality and timely

Financial institutions - Providing loan to farmers for adopting production, harvest and post harvest technologies

NGOs - Providing extension support and capacity building of farmers and stakeholders along the value chain

Millers/Agro-processors - Engaging timely purchase of wheat grains produced by farmers at competitive market price

policy makers - Creating favourable policy environment and incentives that promotes wheat production, processing and marketing

10. Representation and legitimacy: How and by whom are the members chosen? Do they speak only for themselves or represent a broader category of stakeholders? How long is their mandate? How does the MSP ensure inclusiveness and “fair” representation of the most affected, including ?

The members of IP were first chosen by the IP facilitators based on the rapid stakeholder's analysis. All the identified stakeholders in the IP site were then invited to participate in the innovation system training organized by ICARDA in partnership with FARA and NARS in order to create a convening forum for stakeholders to interact and jointly diagnosing challenges, exploring opportunities, devising sustainable solutions, implementing solutions and evaluating the cycle for generation of innovation and impact benefiting all participating value chain actors.

During the meeting, farmers were represented by farmers organization, whereas each of the other stakeholders was represented by one delegate. Each of the stakeholders represented its organization and was responsible to meet his obligation as per the signed MoU and approved annual business plan. The IP/MSP was highly inclusive since any new interested stakeholder who had a role to contribute to the IP was allowed to join the IP any time. According to the ToR of IP/MSP governance, the mandate of IP member was for a period of one year and membership was renewed annually.

11. Representation and legitimacy: What are the channels of communication between the MSP and the government(s)? Are the decisions/recommendations of the MSP to the government(s) are prescriptive or consultative? What public strategies/priorities this partnership supported at different scales?

As the government policy makers were members of the IP established both at the operational and strategic



Proceedings / 163

levels, communication channel with the government was formally through the regular IP stakeholders' meetings that washandled monthly. Their presence in the IP/MSP indeed gave legitimacy to the operations of the platform and easily facilitated the necessary governmental support. Participation of policy makers in the activities of the platform ensured that they discovered first-hand usefulness of infrastructures and a clearer insight to issues that require policy formulation.

12. How and by whom the MSP is funded? Who underwrite the partnership? Add relevant data about the budget, and budget share of each category of partners (public, private, civil society). Is the budget sufficient for work plan implementation?

The budget required for implementing the planned activities was fully covered by individual participating stakeholders according to the balanced task sharing and jointly approved business plan. For instance, farmers covered costs for land preparation and purchasing of different inputs (such as seeds, fertilizers chemicals..) from their own sources or through a loan arrangement made from financial institutions; input providers provided the required inputs timely with the right quantity and quality; millers/processors timely purchased wheat grains produced by farmers through farmers organization at the price jointly agreed by the two parties. At the initial phase of IP establishment, the budget required for facilitating the IP management and governance, and for field days was covered by the project. In the latter years, farmers through their farmers' organization contributed funds as a share (percentage) from the sale of wheat grains and used for covering expenses related to the monthly and stakeholders' meetings. In addition, millers and input providers contributed funds for organizing joint promotional field days and policy dialog forums. All funds contributed by the stakeholders for supporting IP activities were managed by the IP management focal person.

II) OUTCOMES AND IMPACT




Proceedings / 164


Nigeria:

i. The development and release of heat tolerant wheat varieties with yields 5 to 8 t/ha is indeed a breakthrough achievement of the project that has opened up new opportunities to grow wheat competitively in vast non-traditional hotter and dryer agro-ecologies of Nigeria.

ii. Wheat area in Nigeria increased by 100%, from 50,000 ha in 2012 to 100,000 in 2016; wheat production increased by 257%, from 70,000 tons in 2012 to 250,000 tons in 2016; and wheat productivity increased by 78%, from 1.4 t/ha in 2012 to 2.5 t/ha in 2016.

iii. The house hold income of IP participating wheat farmers increased by 46-105% compared to non-participating farmers

iv. Wheat has been included as a priority in the Nigerian Government's Agricultural Transformation Agenda




X


X


X



x


X


8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 165

v. Government created a market for domestic wheat – with minimum price guarantees for farmers to promote domestic production

vi. Impact assessment showed that direct beneficiary farmers gained 56-110% more income over non-participant farmers,

vii. The finding on Household Food Insecurity Access Score (HFIAS) revealed that 63.5% of the beneficiary population in the IP intervention sites found to be food secured as against 36.5% population in the non- IP intervention sites

viii. Through the integration of gender into the SARD-SC Wheat Project in Nigeria, women beneficiaries participating in the IPs intervention sites increased by 31% from the base year (2012)

ix. Through the ATA program, the Government launched a nation- wide scaling up program to expand the wheat area– from 70,000ha in 2015 ha to 340,000 ha in 2019.

Sudan:

i. Wheat areas in Sudan increased by 23%, from 185,000 ha in 2012 to over 230,000 in 2016; the national wheat production increased by 133%, from 324,000 tons in 2012 to 787,400 tons in 2016; and the national average wheat productivity increased by almost 100%, from 1.7 t/ha in 2012 to 3.39 t/ha in 2016

ii. The household incomes of IP participating farmers Increased by 55-60% compared to non-beneficiary farmers. As a result over the past four years, the wheat importation in Sudan has reduced from 78% in 2013 to 64%.in 2016

iii. Government officially adopted the IP approach as its national agricultural technology extension program for wheat and other major food security crops

iv. Government launched a national target to boost domestic production through expanding wheat area – from the existing 230,000 ha to 500,000 ha in 2019

v. The finding on Household Food Insecurity Access Score (HFIAS) revealed that 63% of the beneficiary population in the IP intervention sites found to be food secured as against 41% population in the non- IP intervention sites

vi. Through the integration of gender into the SARD-SC Wheat Project in Sudan, women beneficiaries participating in the IPs intervention sites increased by 64% from the base year (2012)

Ethiopia

i. In Ethiopia, the national wheat production increased by 45%, from 2.92 million tons in 2012 to 4.23 million tons in 2016; the wheat area in Ethiopia increased by 16%, from 1.43 million ha in 2012 to 1.66 million ha in 2016;and the national average wheat productivity increased by 21%, from 2.1 t/ha in 2012 to 2.54 t/ha in 2016.

ii. the household income of IP participating farmers Increased by 55% over the non-beneficiary



Proceedings / 166

wheat farmers

iii. The finding on Household Food Insecurity Access Score (HFIAS) revealed that 51% of the beneficiary population in the IP intervention sites found to be food secured as against 39% population in the non- IP intervention sites

iv. Through the integration of gender into the SARD-SC Wheat Project in Ethiopia, women beneficiaries participating in the IPs intervention sites increased by 40% from the base year (2012)

14. What are the main organizational and collective benefits gained from setting-up this MSP?

From the MSP, all stakeholders are winners and benefitting from the partnership in a sustainable way. The IP/MSP gave adequate room for joint partnership between the public and the private sector practitioners to achieve the much desired effectiveness and synergy from the two sectors of the economy

IPs fostered stakeholders the systemic ‘capacity to innovate’ to (i) continuously identify and prioritise problems and opportunities in the dynamic environment that they are in, (2) take risk and experiment with sociotechnical options and assess the trade-off from these options, (3) mobilise resources and form support coalitions around the promising options, and (4) link with others to share information and knowledge in support of change processes and (5) collaborate and coordinate with others with the aim of achieving concerted and collective action



No. 5


- IP enabled all stakeholders along the value chain to come together, interact one another in jointly identifying their challenges, exploring opportunities, devising sustainable solutions, implementing solutions and evaluating the cycle with clear sense of ownership and buy-in.

- All IP participating stakeholders have benefitted from the partnership and achieved their organizational goals

- IP Stakeholders built their systemic capacity for more innovation, partnership, and generating impact and collective benefits

- Stakeholders brought a paradigm shift and understood the MSP as real, sustainable and win-win solution



Inclusiveness

(the intention to include everyone affected by decisions, especially those

X



Proceedings / 167

who are routinely ignored)

Accountability


X



X

Reflexivity


X

Effectiveness


X

Efficiency


X



X

Impact


X




Proceedings / 168


( ) More Equal

( X ) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal


- The power relations among the participants are indeed equal. The reasons are 1) stakeholders are free to join or leave the MSP at any time, 2) stakeholders put in place the MSP/IP governance and management structures, and jointly develop agreed upon business plan through participatory process, 3) all stakeholders are well represented in the MSP, have equal membership rights, and are participating and benefitting from the platform sustainably.



Strengthen

- The IP/MSP approach has been proven effective in terms of bringing all relevant value chain actors together in one forum in jointly identifying major limitations affecting local wheat production, processing and marketing; exploring opportunities and devising sustainable solutions for generation of innovation and impact benefiting all participating stakeholders

- The IP approach enabled smallholder wheat farmers to access technology, inputs, loan and linked to output market

- A number of project target countries have formulated new policy framework and adopted the IP/MSP approach at the national level as an effective and successful technology dissemination and transfer method and initiated a nation-wide scaling up program for achieving a rapid and transformative impact in the Sub-Saharan Africa

- IP/MSP approach fostered stakeholders for building new skills and competence that stimulated interactions, co-learning, exchanging experiences, dialogue and the systemic ‘capacity to innovate’. These in turn led to a paradigm shift among stakeholders, where the MSP is regarded as real, sustainable and win-win solution

- The IP/MSP provided adequate room for joint partnership between the public and the private sectors to release the much desired effectiveness and synergy from the two sectors for achieving the commonly desired goals

Challenges

- The weak competence of IP facilitators in multi-stakeholder processes and value chain approaches during the first years



Proceedings / 169

- Funding the IP at the initial implementation phase and ensuring sustainability 22. Could you identify projected threats and/or opportunities that the MSP would cause/offer, (included for those stakeholders that are not included in the MSP)?

Opportunity

- Availability of high yielding, heat tolerant and market competitive proven technologies

Threat

- Unfavourable policy environment that is less predictable and sustainable


- Government commitment to scale up domestic wheat production through adopting and promoting the IP approach across the nation so that there will be a reliable and sustainable supply of wheat from domestic production

- Favourable policy incentives for encouraging domestic wheat production and active participation of private sector engaged in wheat production, processing and marketing along the value chain


- If countries are institutionalizing the IP/MSP approach at the operational and strategic levels across the nations, the IP will have a strong influence to guide public priorities and allocation of budget for improved FSN since policy makers are part of the platform and promote policy dialog and influence at all levels.

Since stakeholders are beneficiaries from the platform, there will be a great opportunity for stakeholders to generate more income and continue to reinvest in the agricultural sector which will in turn bring a rapid agricultural development for improving food and nutritional security and poverty reduction across the SSA countries and beyond.


The IP/MSP approach creates excellent opportunities within the IP site to address the specific needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups by organizing and engaging them in various innovative and income generating businesses through building their entrepreneurship skill and focused hands on-training in specific areas of wheat production, processing and marketing along the wheat value chain.

Based on the SARD-SC wheat experience, the project successfully engaged a total of 175 marginalized and vulnerable groups, including youth and women groups on a number of job creating businesses within the IP



Proceedings / 170

site. These groups were effectively organized, trained, and engaged as entrepreneurs on various innovative and income-generating schemes. These among others included engaging marginalized and vulnerable groups in areas of 1) community based seed production and marketing; 2) certified seed production and marketing; 3) agricultural service delivery in wheat production (input distribution, field chemical spraying, harvesting and threshing services); 4) maintenance of different agricultural farm implements, harvest and post-harvest machineries; and 5) value addition and marketing of various wheat based products including packaging, labelling, branding and marketing of products.


Yes, it is possible to extrapolate/adapt/scale-up this MSP experience to other regions/countries

Some of the necessary conditions for adapting and promoting this MSP experience to other regions/countries among others, include:

1. The availability of proven and market competitive technology on the commodity in question

2. The institution who will be championing to adapt and promote the MSP approach

3. The presence of a winning MSP facilitating team that is well trained and conversant on the MSP processes and value chain approaches.

The team members should be knowledgeable, enthusiastic, have vision, team players and know the commodity in question very well with soft skills

The team should also involve in training the trainers to scale up the MSP approach in the target regions/countries.



Proceedings / 171

REFERENCES


Tolessa D., S. Assefa, G. Wudineh, M. Rehima, L. Wasihun and F. Wondimu 2017. Dissemination of Improved Technologies Based on Innovation Platform Approach for Sustainable Wheat Production in Ethiopia. International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research Volume 6, Issue 1, ISSN (Online) 2319-1473

Mamo T., W. Getahun, A. Tesfaye1, A. Chebil, T. Solomon, A. Aw-Hassan, T. Debele and S. Assefa 2017. Analysis of wheat commercialization in Ethiopia: The case of SARD-SC wheat project innovation platform sites. .AJAR, Vol. 12(10), pp. 841-849.

Assefa S.,, M. El- Mourid, H. Ketata, T. Wuletaw, O. Abdulaziz Niane, Z. Bishaw, A. Aw-Hassan, A. Swelam, A. Chebil, I. U. Abubakar, T. Debele, I. Tahir, C. Akem, , E. Ali, M.Ali, O.G. Olabanji, I. Ghebretatios, F. Mengistu,J G. Mureithi, L. Lebesa, B. Dembele, B. Neghra , A. Ichaou, H. A. Mansor, M. Mwale, D. Kutywayo, A. Noble, K.Shideed, M. Baum, H. Braun, B. Abeyo, T. Bernard, O. Yameago 2017. A wheat vision for Africa: SARD-SC wheat chievements, Lessons and Perspectives. Paper presented at the International Wheat Conference Program of the SARD-SC Project, 27 February – 02 March 2017,Abuja, Nigeria

Izzat T., H. Mustafa, A. Idris, A. Elhashimi, M. Hassan, F. E. Abdalla, M. Kurmut, S. Eltayeb, S.

Meheesi and S. Assefa 2017. Innovation Platforms in Sudan: Experiences and Successes in

Scaling up of Improved Wheat Technologies for Enhancing Food and Nutritional Security. Paper

presented at the International Wheat Conference Program of the SARD-SC Project, 27 February

– 02 March 2017,Abuja, Nigeria

Abubakar, I. U., Z. Turaki, A. Sharifai, H. Kura, Y. Hussaini, G. Olabanji and S. Assefa 2017. SARD-SC Wheat Project Agricultural Innovation Platform: Experiences, Achievements and Lessons in Nigeria Hub. Paper presented at the International Wheat Conference Program of the SARD-SC Project, 27 February – 02 March 2017,Abuja, Nigeria




Proceedings / 172

16. Habib Halila, ICARDAContribution no. 59

1. Name of MSP: Enhancing Food Security in Arab Countries’ # (for HLPE use only):


The ‘Enhancing Food Security in Arab Countries’ initiative, led by ICARDA, is aiming at enhancing food security in Arab countries through improving the production of wheat as a major staple commodity.

Initiated in 2011, the project promotes proven improved production technologies – including improved varieties; sustainable agronomic practices and more efficient use of water resources, through improved irrigation and water management systems.

The project has the following main activities: Disseminating and scaling-up of readily available, tested and validated technologies, using effective

extension models Adaptive research under farmer conditions to fine-tune new technologies Capacity strengthening for various stakeholders involved in the initiative. Effective scaling-up approaches and assessing the adoption and impact of disseminated technologies

that could lead to enhanced wheat production


www.ICARDA.org




( ) Regional (Specify region45:Near East and Africa







http://www.ICARDA.org/

Proceedings / 173








Proceedings / 174


All partners are public.


International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)

9. Governance structure: does the MSP result of an informal agreement, or is there a formal structure of decision-making? Describe the decision-making process (including frequency of meetings of the governing bodies…).

The project has the following formal structure::



Algeria (phase I only) Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique

Egypt Agriculture Research Center (ARC)

Morocco Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRAM)

Iraq Office for Agricultural Research (OAR)

Jordan National Center for Agricultural Research and Extension (NCARE)

Palestine National Agricultural Research Center (NARC)

Sudan Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC)

Syria General Commission for Scientific Agricultural Research (GCSAR)

Tunisia Institut National des Grandes Cultures (INGC)

Institution pour la Recherche et l'Enseignement Superieur Agricoles (IRESA)

Yemen Agricultural Research and Extension Authority (AREA)

ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas


Proceedings / 175

A project Technical Committee (TC): The TC is chaired by the project manager and composed of the project national coordinators in each country, as well as scientists from ICARDA. The TC meets annually to review the project progress and finalise the activities for the coming season/year.

A project Steering Committee (SC): The SC is the highest governing body of the project and is chaired by ICARDA management. It includes the Heads of the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) in the countries involved, senior-level representatives of ICARDA, the donors’ representatives and the national coordinators (as observers). The SC meets at the end of each agricultural season to review the progress made by the project, monitor project implementation, approve annual work plans and budget, take decision on relevant matters and resolve major issues facing the project.

National Technical Committees (NTC): Each country has established a NTC which responsibility is to design the national work plans and implement the activities. The activities are then proposed to the TC and subsequently to the SC.

Collaborative agreements. ICARDA co-sign with every partners institute a collaborative agreement highlighting the specific activities implemented in each country with their budget, deliverables and reporting on results

Field visits by ICARDA’s Project Manager and scientists to monitor the field implementation of the project and provide technical backstopping

Progress and final reports (both technical and financial) to donors on the performance of project implementation

External reviews at the end of the project implementation by an external review team


ICARDA is leading the project and provides technical and scientific backstopping to national partners. The latter are implementing the project activities on the ground. Responsibilities are defined in Memorandum of Agreements established annually between ICARDA and the countries involved in the project.

All partners in the project have equal decision-making power through their representations in the project technical and steering committees. NARS partners have the full ownership of the project and they decide on the annual wok plan and budgets of the project based on the project original design proposal and the results of the previous season. They are also responsible for the scaling up and dissemination of the project activities beyond the project sites where the field interventions are implemented.

In addition, they decide on their capacity development needs and priorities within the thematic focus of the project. The project manager in return includes their priorities in the project annual work plans and budget for implementation.



Proceedings / 176

10. Representation and legitimacy: How and by whom are the members chosen? Do they speak only for themselves or represent a broader category of stakeholders? How long is their mandate? How does the MSP ensure inclusiveness and “fair” representation of the most affected??

The national members of the TC and SC are officially nominated by their respective Ministries of Agriculture. ICARDA members are designated by the Centre Management and the donors nominate their own representative/focal persons. NARS and other partners’ representatives speak on behalf and represent their respective institutions and governments. They have the authority and the decision making power to decide on behalf of their institutions and countries all matters related to the project implementation, monitoring, governance, finance, external reviews and evaluation.


The formal communication channels with partners and donors are handled by ICARDA as the project coordination body of the project. Formal communications with partners are addressed to the Minsters and/or the Heads of NARSs. Communications related to the project day to day implementation is done directed with the national coordinators.

As the project thematic areas are originated from the priorities and needs of participating countries, the project results and processes are mainstreamed in the country’s strategies and initiatives. This is a key element for the scaling up and dissemination to take place. For example, through mainstreaming of the raised bed package developed and promoted by the food security project with the national wheat campaign of Egypt, the government invested hugely in demonstrating and disseminating the technology in 22 governorates in the country. Similar experiences happened in Sudan, Tunisia and Jordan where other national investment initiatives played a key role in scaling up the project results to other provinces in the country. That was only possible through the effective communication the project and its national teams have had with policy makers in their respective countries.

12. How and by whom the MSP is funded? Who underwrites the partnership? Add relevant data about the budget, and budget share of each category of partners (public, private, civil society). Is the budget sufficient for work plan implementation?

The project is funded by the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development - AFESD (phase I and II), the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development- KFAED (phase I and II), the Islamic Development Bank- IsDB (phase I ) and the OPEC Fund for International Development- OFID (phase I and II) and Bill and Melinda



Proceedings / 177

Gates Foundation (phase II). The budget for phase II is about 5.5 million dollars for four years and ten partners.




Comprehensive studies are being conducted on adoption and impacts of improved technology on wheat










8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 178

production. Results are expected towards middle of 2018

On capacity building the project has provided training and knowledge-sharing opportunities to over 42,000 participants during phase I and nearly a similar number during phase II - two-thirds of them farmers. Through its ‘Young Agricultural Scientist Program’ component the project has also provided training for a total of 54 young scientists during the two phases to strengthen their knowledge., expertise and research ability across various areas related to wheat production systems - including the breeding of field crops, biotechnology, plant protection and water and soil management. In addition an advanced degree training program permitted to six scientists to be enrolled in MSc and PhD degree programs




4.5


The project has proven to be an excellent model in transferring to farmers improved production technologies developed by National Research Systems and which remained on the shelves and /or .where not efficiently communicated to the end users. Moreover the project provided excellent opportunities for capacity building of the project stakeholders (more than 80,000 participants benefited from various types of training activities).

Should policy issues, to support uptake and adoption of the promoted technologies, have had been included in a comprehensive way the project would have had been ranked 5.



Inclusiveness


Accountability



Proceedings / 179




Reflexivity


Effectiveness


Efficiency




Impact




( ) More Equal

( ) Equal

( ) Less Equal



Proceedings / 180

( ) Un-equal




Strength: Accumulated experience in dealing with various stakeholders particularly small holding farmers

Weakness: Insufficient human resources in most of the countries involved in the project


Threats: Political unrest in some countries involved in the project



The project model can be an inspiration to develop the production of other crops and expand in areas. The pre-condition to this is a political will of the countries and clear vision for a short, medium and long term sustainable strategies for the development of agricultural production in general and cereals in particular.


Increase the productivity of wheat as a major food crop particularly that the Arab region has one of the highest consumption rates/capita of wheat in the world.




Proceedings / 181

See point 24

.

REFERENCES

27. The HLPE is interested by any article, mainly scientific references but also practical experiences on MSPs you would like to share (scholarly articles, reports, reviews, analysis, etc.):


17. Abid Hussain, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council , Pakistan

Contribution no. 61


1. Name of MSP:

Pakistan Water Dialogue- Diffusion and Adoption through Partnership and Action of the Best Watershed Rehabilitation and Irrigation Practices and Technologies to Help Rural Farmers (2nd phase)48



The MSP is funded by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and is being implemented by partners from NARS in different parts across the country and is being lead and coordinated by International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) with a goal to build effective partnerships to promote and implement sustainable technologies and practices to improve capturing, storing and water usage for agriculture and eventually to reduce loss of water and soil in Pakistan by:

Demonstrating and disseminating water saving practices and technologies for field and horticultural crop production

48 First Phase (2011-16) project entitled “”Watershed Rehabilitation and Irrigation Improvement in Pakistan: Demonstrating and Disseminating the Best Practices and Technologies to Help Rural Farmers”



Proceedings / 182

Design and implementing actions to foster sustained diffusion and adoption of selected practices and technologies

To monitor diffusion and adoption of selected practices and technologies to target adopter groups and make changes in approach as needed to improve effectiveness.


https://mel.cgiar.org/projects/pakistanwaterdialogue

http://www.icarda.org/

4. Year of Origin / Creation: 1st Phase 2011 2nd Phase 2017



( ) Regional (Specify region49:…Asia, …………..)

(…) Sub-regional (Specify sub-region50: Demonstrations only in Pakistan, some training and field exposures for farmers and agriculturists from Afghanistan was included …….)

( √ ) National (Specify country: Pakistan ….……………………………………….………………………)





1. United States Department of Agriculture USDA2. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)3. Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Islamabad (5 institutes of PARC, Climate Change, Alternate

Energy and Water Resources Institute CAWERI, Social Sciences Research Institute (SSRI)-NARC, Islamabad, SSRI, Tarnab-Peshawar, SSRI Tandojam-Sindh, SSRI, Quetta-Baloshistan)

4. Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR), Islamabad (Regional Offices, Lahore,








Proceedings / 183

Peshawar, Tandojam, Quetta)5. University of Agriculture, Faisalabad (2 departments, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and

Technology, Water Management Research Centre (WMRC), Department of Resource Economics)6. Barni Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), Chakwal7. Soil and Water Conservation Research Institute (SAWCRI), Chakwal8. Agricultural Extension Department Sindh9. South Asian Conservation Agriculture Network (SACAN) Foundation Lahore 10. Institute of Water Resources Engineering & Management (IWREM), Mehran University of

Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro


The proposal dialogue was initiated by the MNFSR and other national technical partners with the USDA. ICARDA was involved for coordinating and providing technical support as well as help in streamlining the finances from USDA. Thereafter, technical partners submitted/presented their plan of work to ICARDA in year 2010. Work plans of technical partners were focused on water issues of the country and potential practices/technologies already available with the technical partners to resolve these issues. USDA and ICARDA endorsed work plans of technical partners in year 2010 and formal partnership started in year 2011. The demonstration and dissemination activities to promote water saving practices/technologies were started at farmers’’ fields in KP, Punjab, and Sind. In the 2nd

Phase activities were extended to Balochistan as well. The potential stakeholders were also invited from all other parts of the country including FATA and GB as well as from Afghanistan to visit the demonstration sites for their representative ecologies. In the 2nd Phase other stakeholders especially farmers organization and local NGOs in addition to local government and line departments are involved by the national technical partners for upscaling and out scaling of the project activities. The private sector is also linked with the local service providers trained under the project


USDA and ICARDA are main technical and decision making bodies. ICARDA being the implementing agency have formal agreement with all technical partners located all over the country. Planning and review meetings are organised on quarterly as well as annual basis for devising implementation activities of the MSP. In these planning and review meeting decisions are made to scale up the selected technologies. The decisions regarding implementation of the project technical activities are made through participatory process with considerable review by all the technical experts as well as input from socioeconomic teams for their compatibility and suitability with the farm and farmers conditions and preferences. The financial aspects are governed by the prevailing government/institutional rules and regiulations.

9-A. Governance structure: describe the roles, responsibilities and level of involvement of the different partners in the partnership. Describe, the case being, power asymetries between partners. Which partner(s)



Proceedings / 184

lead the MSP?

The MSP is led by USDA and ICARDA. Technical partners are responsible for practical implementation at the farm level and dissemination of selected water saving practices/ technologies through establishing demonstration sites, arranging farmer meetings/field days and printing of brochures/leaflets. They are also responsible for organizing professionals’ trainings as well as identification and capacity building of Agricultural Service Providers (ASPs). Socioeconomic partners are responsible for coordinating and integrating activities of the provincial public and private sector partners. These institutes monitor the diffusion and adoption process of the selected practices and technologies to target adopter groups. Through this monitoring mechanism these institutes suggest changes in approach of the technical partners to improve effectiveness of demonstration, dissemination and adoption processes. Involvement of other stakeholders, private sector, NGOs and local departments in up-taking the dissemination activities are also being done by national technical partners.

10. Representation and legitimacy: How and by whom are the members chosen? Do they speak only for themselves or represent a broader category of stakeholders? How long is their mandate? How does the MSP ensure inclusiveness and “fair” representation of the most affected, including ?

MSP has federal as well as provincial representation and contain multidisciplinary expertise. The members have been chosen based on their capacity and experiences in development as well as promotion of different water saving practices/technologies. Under the MSP expertise from both federal and provincial levels come together to solve smallholders farmers water/irrigation related issues. Overtime looking at the project stage other partners and stakeholders were engaged and activities were expanded according to the level of technological change. The project activities has moved from demonstration and dissemination to adoption and diffusion while partnerships have expanded from government to NGOs, private sector


Under the MSP different technologies were demonstrated at a public sector as well as farmers model farms. Officials of Ministry of Sciences and Technology and Ministry of National Food Security and Research visited the model farm. The effective demonstrations helped to convince the policy makers and public sector schemes have been initiated for promotion of these technologies in similar areas in the country. The findings of the MSP are also shared with different stakeholders including relevant government officials/ executives invited in Annual General Meetings. Similarly, the policy recommendations are disseminated through publishing research reports and articles. A Public Sector Development Project (PSDP) project for wider adoption of these technologies at national level is also being developed.

12. How and by whom the MSP is funded? Who underwrites the partnership? Add relevant data about the



Proceedings / 185

budget, and budget share of each category of partners (public, private, civil society). Is the budget sufficient for work plan implementation?

The MSP is funded by USDA through ICARDA. The partnerships with local technical and socioeconomic partners is finalized by ICARDA-Pakistan office after review of work plans submitted. The budget is decided based on the activities and area coverage of the technical partners. Total budget of the MSP is USD 1219262.83. Most of the partners are public sector institutes with sufficient allocation of budget. SACAN Foundation Lahore is the only private sector entity with budget allocation of USD 52000.




Proceedings / 186




MSP demonstrated and disseminated various water saving technologies. Government get convinced by these and launched thirty thousand subsidy schemes for promotion of selected practices/ technologies. Awareness has been created in the farmers throughout the country in general and at the project sites in particular.

2. Increased participation/inclusiveness: priority given to women as well as to marginalized and



1. Policy design, policy implementation, laws, advocacy and awareness √


√


√

4. Resource mobilisation and fund raising √


√


√

7. Monitoring and evaluation √

8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 187

vulnerable groups.

Few of the technologies advocated through the MSP are women oriented like roof top rain water harvesting for kitchen gardening, and drip irrigation for vegetable cultivation in open fields as well as in tunnels. Similarly, other technologies are tailored towards marginalized and vulnerable groups through subsidy schemes.


Through MSP various trainings have been imparted to 2700 professionals/ Agricultural Services Providers to promote water saving practices/technologies.


The existing resources and skilled manpower of the partner technical institutes are mobilzed for implementation of the country. All salaries of the scientists and technical experst as well as lab and equipment have been extended by the national partners. Most of the in-kind contribution have come from the national technical partners while the cost of the field activities has been paid by the USDA. Some additional equipments relevant with project activities are provided by the project as well.


Under the MSP, activities of technical partners are focused on promotion of water conserving/ saving practices and technologies. Resource saving, whatershed rehibilittaion and alternate energy resources were promoted which have indirect implications on environment and preservation of biodiversity.


Increased adoption of water saving techniques by the farmers throughout the country, partnerships formed by the technical institutes with service providers and entrepreneurs, and increased availability of inputs related to water conservations techniques are directly contributing towards FSN. The improvement in layout and design of different water effecient technologies also helped to reduce the cost of adoption of these technologies.



Proceedings / 188


ICARDA-Pakistan and Social Sciences Research Institutes (SSRIs) undertake regular monitoring of the project activities. Performance of technical partners is also monitored in progress review meetings held quarterly and annually.


A multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach with participatory and action research and development has been implemented. Integration and coordination among different research, education and development departments as well as linkages with other stakeholders including framers, NGOs, and private sector have been strengthened.

Government get convinced about the potential of practices/technologies for water saving and its efficient utilization in crop production. Now these technologies are being demonstrated and disseminated for wider adopted by the communities. More are less 2700 Agricultural Service Providers (ASPs) and professional have been trained.

17. III) OVERALL ASSESSMENT


4 (Four)


Partnership among the technical partners was ideal. Moreover, targets of capacity building of private ASPs and professionals have been achieved. The technologies promoted through MSP are being adopted by small holders at selected sited throughout the country.



Inclusiveness


√

Accountability


√



Proceedings / 189



√

Reflexivity


√

Effectiveness


√

Efficiency


√



√

Impact


√

18. Any comments on the above ratings: (None)


( ) More Equal

( √ ) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal




The MSP achieved its objective of dissemination and demonstration of selected water saving technologies.



Proceedings / 190

It has also got overwhelming attention and support of the public sector. Improper use of knowledge transfer mechanisms by technical partners and other agencies to disseminate relevant information in uneducated resource poor farming communities is threat in the success of MSP. Thus, few modifications are required in its approach to target most vulnerable resource poor farmers.


MSP is offering a successful model to be adopted by the public sector for promotion of water saving technologies in the country.


Progress of the MSP is quite up to the mark. Now there is need to develop a mega entity/ project for up-scaling the adoption of these technologies on wider scale.


The MSP has already influenced the public sector priorities, provincial governments have also started to support adoption of water saving techniques through subsidy schemes.


The MSP has considerable potential to address needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups. There is need to reach these sections of the community in a targeted way by keeping in view their financial and other sociocultural conditions.


The MSP offers a good model to be followed in other regional countries. Sufficient human capacity and



Proceedings / 191

adequate funding are prerequisites for the success of the model in other regions.

REFERENCES


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256057081_Impact_Assessment_of_Kitchen_Gardening_-_Training_Under_Watershed_Programme

https://pk.usembassy.gov/u-s-department-of-agriculture-pakistani-experts-and-icarda-collaborate-to-help-farmers-use-water-more-efficiently/

https://www.icarda.org/blog/rolling-out-new-irrigation-technologies-pakistan

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316351989_Assessment_of_the_Professional_Training_Course_under_Watershed_Project_at_Fatehjang_Field_Station_Punjab_Pakistan

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273521682_SHIFT_FROM_SITE_DEVELOPMENT_TO_SKILL_DEVELOPMENT_A_CASE_STUDY_OF_WATER_HARVESTING_THROUGH_MICRO_CATCHMENTS

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262336881_Characterization_and_Water_Productivity_of_Irrigated_Farms_At_Project_Site_Fateh_Jang_A_Case_Study

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273761244_LIVELIHOOD_ASSETS_AND_POVERTY_NEXUS_A_CASE_STUDY_FROM_RAINFED_POTHWAR_AREA_OF_PAKISTAN

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235673243_POTENTIAL_FOR_INVESTMENT_IN_INDIGENOUS_TECHNOLOGIES_A_CASE_OF_LOW_COST_SOIL_AND_WATER_CONSERVATION_STRUCTURES_IN_RAINFED_POTHWAR_PAKISTAN

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318225558_An_econometric_analysis_of_bed-furrow_irrigation_for_cultivated_wheat_in_irrigated_areas_of_Punjab_Pakistan

28. Any other observation. (None)




















https://www.icarda.org/blog/rolling-out-new-irrigation-technologies-pakistan






Proceedings / 192


Contribution no. 61


1. Name of MSP:

Improving Soil Fertility and Soil Health in Pakistan through Demonstration and Dissemination of the best practices for farmers



The MSP is funded by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) with a goal to enhance soil organic matter and health in villages from Pakistan through implementation and discovering of several techniques. Socioeconomic Component of Soil Fertility and Soil Health Project was implemented by Social Sciences Research Institute (SSRI), National Agricultural Research Centre(NARC), Islamabad with leading role and with provincials SSRIs throughout the country, by collaborating with federal and provincial technical partners.by:

Demonstrating and disseminating Soil Fertility and Soil Health practices and technologies for improving soil health.

Coordinating and integrating socioeconomic activities with the provincial public and private sector partners

To monitor demonstration and dissemination activities of technical partners of selected practices and technologies to make changes in approach as needed to improve effectiveness.




Proceedings / 193

https://mel.cgiar.org/projects/pakistanhttp://www.icarda.org/






( √ ) National (Specify country: Pakistan ….……………………………………….………………………)





11. USDA12. ICARDA13. PARC, Islamabad Technical partners(ABEI, LRRI), Socioeconomic component(SSRI-NARC, Islamabad,

Tarnab-Peshawar, Tandojam-Sindh, Quetta-Baloshistan)14. University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 15. Barani Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), Chakwal16. Soil and Water Conservation Research Institute (SAWCRI), Chakwal17. Soil Fertility Research Institute, Lahore 18. National Centre for engineering and Geography(NCGE), Peshawar19. Agricultural Extension Department, Sindh20. Agricultural Research Institute(ARI) Quetta21. South Asian Conservation Agriculture Network (SACAN), Lahore









https://mel.cgiar.org/projects/pakistan

Proceedings / 194

To improve soil fertility and health is reaping significant benefits for the productivity and sustainability of smallholder farming systems in Pakistan USDA / ICARDA established the MSP to identify soil fertility and soil health issues and to promote and implement sustainable technologies and practices.


USDA and ICARDA are main decision making bodies. These department/centre consult national socioeconomic and technical partners for devising implementation activities of the MSP. USDA and ICARDA have frequent consultations through meetings, telephonic conversations and Skype meetings etc. ICARDA convenes meetings of the implementing partners on quarterly as well as annual basis.


The MSP is led by USDA and ICARDA as a funding and implementing agencies. In this MSP technical partners are responsible for dissemination of selected soil fertility and soil health practices/ technologies through establishing demonstration sites, arranging farmer meetings/field days, organizing professionals’ trainings, identifying and capacity building of Agricultural Service Providers (ASPs), and printing of brochures/leaflets. Socioeconomic partners are responsible for coordinating and integrating activities of the provincial public and private sector partners, and monitoring demonstration and dissemination activities of selected practices and technologies to target adoptions make changes in approach as needed to improve effectiveness.

10. Representation and legitimacy: How and by whom are the members chosen? Do they speak only for themselves or represent a broader category of stakeholders? How long is their mandate? How does the MSP ensure inclusiveness and “fair” representation of the most affected, including?

The selection of project partners is based on their expertise in different soil fertility practices/technologies. The expertise of technologies at federal and provincial level come together and contribute to achieve the objective of the project. To ensure small farmers’ inclusiveness the MSP activities are focused on issues of small holders. Women inclusiveness were also focussed in the project.




Proceedings / 195

The findings of the MSP are shared with different stakeholders including relevant government officials/ executives invited in Annual General Meetings. Similarly, the policy recommendations are disseminated through publishing research reports and articles.


The MSP is funded by USDA through ICARDA. Gop underwrites the partnership through a formal agreement. The partnerships with local technical and socioeconomic partners is finalized by ICARDA-Pakistan office.





Proceedings / 196



Assessment of farmers’ field days and professional trainings through participatory evaluation. Large number of farmers attended the field days.


The main organizational and collective benefits gained from setting-up this MSP lies in the wide scale collaboration between federal and provincial Institutes and exchange their experience and expertise in the



1. Policy design, policy implementation, laws, advocacy and awareness √


√

3. Capacity building, among the MSP partners, and beyond √


5. Activities related to facilitating improved FSN outcomes (e.g. environmental stewardship towards biodiversity/ soil

√


√

7. Monitoring and evaluation √

8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 197

MSP



3


Overall assessment revealed that MSP that fall in 4. Inclusiveness is medium. Focus was on inclusiveness of small farmers was not fully achieved. Accountability is high in term of monitoring and evaluation context.



Inclusiveness


√

Accountability


√



√

Reflexivity


√

Effectiveness


√



Proceedings / 198

Efficiency


√



√

Impact


√


Nil


( ) More Equal

( ) Equal

( √ ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal




The current strengths of the MSP is the process and demonstration sites developed for the promoted under soil fertility project. The weaknesses and challenges are the sustainability of the project interventions and up-scaling practices/technologies.



Proceedings / 199


Low adoptions by the farmers due to lack of resources. Need subsidy to promote the technologies


Flow of funds and ownership by the government can enable the MSP to better function in the future. Government extension system should promote the practices which disseminated by the MSP and farmer adopted by the farmers. Backward and forward linkages of technology value chain


Now the MSP has second phase of the project which focus on adoption and diffusion of the practices/ technologies. In the second phase more partners were included from government non-government side. By doing so MSP have reasonable potential to influence public priorities across sectors and allocation of budget for improved practices/ technologies promoted under the MSP.


Improved practices/ technologies promoted under the MSP to improve the soil fertility full fill the need of the small holder having food insecurity and malnutrition.


These practices/ technologies promoted through this MSP can be replicated/ adopted in other area/regions .



Proceedings / 200

REFERENCES



Nil


Contribution no. 61


1. Name of MSP: Balochistan Agriculture Project (FAO of the UN) # (for HLPE use only):


Balochistan Agriculture Project was implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations through a cooperative agreement signed between the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and FAO.

The project aimed to make a significant contribution to poverty alleviation and the reduction of economic inequalities in Balochistan Province of Pakistan through sustainable agriculture development. In particular it emphasized on:

Improved enabling environment for the development of provincial agricultural policies and legal and regulatory frameworks, market-led and community-driven investments, strategies and processes, and women's empowerment in agricultural development – including the “community organisation” sub-



Proceedings / 201

component of the original USABBA Project. Increased crop and livestock productivity and value of agricultural products produced, through

improved technological innovation and management practices and improved community-based irrigation development and water management practices in project-assisted villages and their value chains - “crop and livestock production”

Following components were added to the project sphere of operations during course of its implementation (extension):

18.

Establish Small local agri-business enterprises and market linkages strengthened for target poor communities to increase sales of their surplus produce and improve competitiveness and sustainability of their value chains – including the “marketing capacity building”.

The Project contributed to the Government of “Pakistan’s: New Framework for Economic Growth” and “National Zero Hunger Action Plan” by, amongst others, increasing agricultural productivity and reforming agriculture and rural markets.


www.fao.org/pakistan/programmes-and-projects

4. Year of Origin / Creation: The project start date was January 2005






() Local (specify country: ……Pakistan, Balochistan (8 Districts)








http://www.fao.org/pakistan/programmes-and-projects

Proceedings / 202



GOB - Government of Balochistan (Agriculture and livestock department)

GOP – Federal Ministry of Food Security & Research

USAID – United States Agency for International Development

MSI – Management System International

ICARDA - International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas

MEDA - Mennonite Economic Development Associates

WESS - Water Environment and Sanitation Society

BRSP – Balochistan Rural Support Program

NRSP – National Rural Support Program


FAO took the lead role in organizing the MSP, USAID contributed USD 25 million, in total, for carrying out the initiative over the period of 12 years (2005 to 2016) in three phases.

At the early stage of the project (2005 to 2007 – pilot phase in 3 districts) ICARDA served as the sub-contractor for running the Applied Research component of the project.

MEDA and WESS worked together on the value chain development on Embellished Garments (Women Specific activity)

Project hired BRSP as a sub-contractor to hire local staff on mobilizing the communities through the participatory development approach.

NRSP trained field staff in community mobilization skills

MSI carried out the evaluation of project (twice) under the direct supervision of USAID


Under an agreement with USAID, the Project has a Federal Steering Committee, which was tasked to meet twice a year. The Steering Committee had representation from the provincial line departments e.g. Planning & Development Department Agriculture & Cooperatives Department, Forest & Wildlife Department and Livestock & Diary Development Department. A Representative from MEDA (sub-contractor), USAID and Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Food Security & Research), PARC/NARC were on the decision-making




Proceedings / 203

forum. The workplan, budget and progress of the project were reviewed each year on this high level decision-making forum. So, the MSP was built into the formal project governance structure.


The GoB/GoP played the lead role, however, USAID as donor and FAO as implementing partner had equal stake in the decision-making process. Whereas some of the other partners were either sub-contractors to the project or USAID hence were guided through the decisions made by the main stakeholders (GoP/GoB, USAID and FAO).

10. Representation and legitimacy: How and by whom are the members chosen? Do they speak only for themselves or represent a broader category of stakeholders? How long is their mandate? How does the MSP ensure inclusiveness and “fair” representation of the most affected, including?

The membership to the Steering Committee were decided through a consensus by the three major stakeholders in the project. The stakeholders were not only representatives of their own organizations, but they represented the people of Balochistan (farmers), academia, public and private sector. The Steering Committee was for the total lifespan of the project. Depending upon the scope of work, new members were added to the committee.


As indicated, the sole decision-making body was the Steering Committee and that worked as a sole communication mechanism between all parties engaged in the process. However, the stakeholders received quarterly updates on the progress through reports, de-briefings etc. The decisions which fall under the project operations were prescriptive, but others were that of a consultative nature e.g. development of Provincial Agriculture Policy & Strategy.


FAO was the lead partner in assessing the needs of the project in terms of yearly activity planning and budget requirement for all such initiatives. There were no specific budget share allocated for each category (public, private, civil society) , in fact, it was mandated through the yearly workplans which was approved each year in consultation with all partners in the process.



Proceedings / 204




Improved economic status of focused populationsImproved economic performance of focus enterprisesImproved skill development and job placementIncreased use of modern technology and management









7. Monitoring and evaluation 8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 205

practicesStrengthened private sector and civil society engagement in policy-making


This initiative helped the Government of Balochistan in developing a community driven, market led system which resulted in formation of more than 70 “Farmer Marketing Collectives” and 8 “Mutual Marketing Organizations” (cooperatives), which are self-propelling and carrying out business independent of outside support. The initiative was successful in mobilizing millions of US dollars from the local communities as a cost-contribution through the project interventions.



4


Development projects cannot operate in isolation of national or local government institutions. However difficult the challenges might be, projects must engage with government agencies, engage private sector and build the capacity of the local farmers enabling them to utilize modern technology in their daily farm operations.

Working with government institutions that operate with limited budgets or limited qualified personnel presents particular challenges but provides legitimacy and a framework for anchoring the changes that are needed for sustainability. Ensuring that government agencies become good partners facilitates implementation and permits transitional change to continue. Mechanisms to help achieve this include joint exercises, capacity building, and collaboration.

Balochistan, a province with fragile security environment was less attractive to the private sector and the project had to create demand for the private sector by encouraging and investing in the input supplies. This opened a window of opportunity for the producer to have access to the high-quality inputs supplies but on the other end it generated a lot of interest from the private companies to invest in the province (North Balochistan). This resulted in a stabilized economy (in the selected areas) and provide business-cum-job opportunities to all engaged in the process.



Inclusiveness




Proceedings / 206

Accountability




Reflexivity


Effectiveness


Efficiency




Impact




( ) More Equal

( ) Equal



Proceedings / 207

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal




Strengths: substantial own contribution (cost sharing) of beneficiaries; contributing to sustainability of project;

Weaknesses: market distortion by donors and government; input subsidies and grants (non level playing field)


Opportunities: further market and agri business development and quality controlled production for modern markets


More secure working environment (law and order); better infra structure, enabling-environment (laws and legal frameworks), public private partnerships etc.


Substantial; as partners have proven by mobilizing Australian funds for similar programmes in 6 more Districts in Balochistan and new partnerships have emerged out of this intervention. The Balochistan Nutrition Project for Mother & Children, FAO & UNHCR & Islamic Relief have shown keen interest in investing on the “Homestead Gardening” as a conduit to deal with the nutritional related issues, provide economic opportunities for the mother eliminating child labor in the farms.



Proceedings / 208


Substantial


Lessons learned are extensively documented, analysed and disseminated through the partners as well as USAID.

Project experiences are used in other programmes in Pakistan and in Balochistan

REFERENCES


List of publications (mostly non scientific) available on request


20. Andrew Magadlela, ARC, South AfricaContribution no. 62


1. Name of MSP: ARC Animal Production # (for HLPE use only):








Proceedings / 209



Project summary

South Africa’s beef industry is segregated into three ‘economies’: i) a commercial sector with well-developed value chains, industry infrastructure and production systems equal to most developed countries; ii) an ‘emerging farmer’ sector comprising smallholder farmers who own or lease land and are commercially-oriented but lack the training, infrastructure and production systems available to the commercial sector; and iii) a third ‘communal farmer’ sector, where farmers do not own or lease land but graze their cattle on communally-owned land and operate mainly as subsistence farmers.

In 2016, there were 13.6 million cattle in South Africa, with 42% (5.7 million animals) owned by emerging and communal farmers. Emerging and communal farmers market less than 10% of their animals each year, compared to 25% in the commercial sector, showing the enormous potential for improvement. Development of the emerging and communal farm sectors is a high priority for the South African Government.

Annual per capita beef consumption in South Africa is 16.7 kg and is projected to increase by a further 20% by 2023. To meet this growing demand, South Africa is a net importer of beef and live animals to supply grain-fed beef to supermarkets and weaner cattle for feedlots. Although some emerging farmers supply weaners to the feedlots, many have strong social and cultural preferences for keeping older animals.

Research in the current ACIAR project (LPS/2005/128, which will be referred to in this proposal as ‘Stage 1’) shows there is a new, but largely untapped and increasing opportunity for farmers to supply beef into a new free-range beef market being developed by Woolworths supermarkets and targeting the growing middle-higher income consumers. While demand for free-range beef is very high, South Africa’s beef production is dominated by high-input, grain-finished beef from young animals (<18 months). South Africa’s beef carcass classification system strongly discounts beef from older animals, so Woolworths is operating independently to provide rewarding financial incentives for farmers who can grow and finish their cattle to free-range market specifications by 3 years of age. If smallholder farmers can meet the specifications of this new free-range market, it provides strong opportunities to improve the profitability of their herds whilst also accommodating their preferences for selling cattle off pasture and at older ages. In partnership with Woolworths and their nominated processors, Cradock Abattoir and Cavalier Meats, Stage 1 has demonstrated that a relatively small number of emerging farmers have been able to successfully supply cattle for the new free-range markets, achieving significant price premiums for carcasses complying with specifications. To achieve a consistent year-round supply of compliant carcasses to sustain the market though, several major constraints still need to be addressed. Overcoming those constraints is the major focus of this proposal (Stage 2) for a 4-year extension of the current project.

Aim and Objectives



Proceedings / 210

The overall goal of Stage 2 of the project is to improve the profitability of emerging and smallholder cattle farmers by developing cost-effective and environmentally-sustainable beef value chains that supply cattle to meet the specifications of high-value, free-range beef markets. This will be achieved by undertaking research to address the following objectives:

Objective 1: To improve on-farm animal health, nutrition, management and breeding systems to enable smallholder farmers to cost-effectively deliver a year-round supply of Full Proposal high-value, free-range beef, whilst simultaneously improving their natural resource base. This involves training farmers in best-practice herd management, developing new farm management systems, undertaking on-farm participative action research to evaluate alternative systems and analysing project data to identify the factors with greatest impact on cow reproductive performance to improve cattle supple for the free-range brand.

Objective 2: To improve the profitability of all sectors of the project’s beef value chains through increased adoption of proven interventions by farmers and implementation of practices that create efficiencies and effectiveness across the entire value chains. This involves analysing the project’s Behaviour Change, Value Chain and Women’s Empowerment surveys to identify areas of improvement and design and evaluate customised strategies designed to increase adoption and overcome inequities.

Objective 3: To develop scaling out strategies and guidelines that enable application of the project’s results to other value chains. This involves a retrospective analysis of the project’s decision making processes to develop guidelines and recommendations for others wanting to link smallholder farmers to value chains in future.

3. Website (official website of the MSP and, or, relevant web sources): No website currently






( X ) National (Specify country): South Africa…………………………………….………………………)








Proceedings / 211


6. Number of main partners: Government, private sector civil society

6


South African Agricultural Research Council (public sector)

South African Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (public sector)

South African National Agricultural Marketing Council (public sector)

University of Stellenbosch (public sector)

University of North West (public sector)

Cavalier Meats (private sector)

Cradock Abattoir (private sector)

Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (public sector)

University of New England (public sector)

University of Queenstown (private sector)

8. Which partner(s) initiated the MSP? South African Agricultural Research Council and University of New England

How the MSP may have evolved?

Initially, the project focused on establishing a number of beef value chains across the country with a number of private retailers involved in the project. After two years into the project it was decided that the project should focus on few value chains and ensure that their fully supported. Currently, the project is focusing on two value chains. Furthermore, other stakeholders such as provincial departments of agriculture are more involved than it was the case in the beginning.






Proceedings / 212




The partnership has a formal Steering Committee which meet at least once per year. In addition, the project has project management meetings which are held at least once a month using teleconferencing. The project managers are responsible to decision making regarding operational issues.


On the South African side, the partnership is led by the Agricultural Research Council, while the University of New England coordinates project activities on the Australian side. The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries is the official representative of the government.


The members of the Steering Committee were nominated the key stakeholders with the view of inclusiveness. In fact, the Steering Committee is comprised on Industry and Scientific sub-committee to ensure fair representation of different interests. The members of eh steering committee speak on behalf of broader stakeholders and they serve in the committee through the entire project life cycle.


The National Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) and its provincial structure are part of the partnership. There is a separate formal agreement between DAFF, the Agricultural Research Council (AR) and the National Agricultural Marketing Council (NAMC), since DAFF is responsible for administering and disbursing funding from the Australian Center of Agricultural Research.

12. Finance: How and by whom the MSP is funded? Who underwrites the partnership? Add relevant data about the budget, and budget share of each category of partners (public, private, civil society). Is the budget



Proceedings / 213

sufficient for work plan implementation? What are the financial tools and mechanisms used by the MSP?

The partnership is co-finance by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (direct costs), ARC (in-kind contribution) and NAMC (in-kind contribution). A summary of the funding is given in the Table below (in Australian dollars)

II) OUTCOMES








Proceedings / 214


The overall planned outcome is that: ‘By December 2021, at least 2,000 emerging and communal farm businesses will be cost-effectively, and in an environmentally sustainable way, supplying cattle on a year-round basis to Cradock Abattoir and Cavalier Meats and achieving at least 70% compliance with Woolworths’ high-value, free-range market specifications’. Achieving the overall outcome will simultaneously improve the profitability and productivity of smallholder farmer businesses through higher prices for cattle meeting free-range specifications and improved on-farm production systems that increase animal performance and supply of cattle. The natural resource base will be maintained or improved through use of environmentally sustainable production systems. Business capacity of smallholder farmers and the capacity, knowledge and skills of the project’s extension officers will be significantly enhanced by training provided by the project. The two commercial beef value chains will benefit from an improved supply of cattle meeting free-range market specifications. Scientific impact will be achieved through wider research




X


X


X

4. Resource mobilisation and fundraising X


X


X


8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 215

use of new knowledge, practices, processes and technologies particularly relating to adoption and scale out and improved reproductive technologies that will have application in South Africa, Australia and other countries globally. With a growing but under-supplied free-range market, the opportunities to scale out the project’s results to other value chains in South Africa and other African countries is considerable.


The collective benefits are on the leveraging of expertise, financial and goodwill of the partners.


15. Please rank your overall assessment of the MSP, ranking from 1 to 5 (with 1 being lowest to 5 highest) 4

16. Explain your above ranking. The partnership has enabled partners to appreciate the importance of bridging the communication gap between research organisations and farmers. The active participation of farmers enables direct linkages between different partners and depart from the notion of linear communication, which uses extension as mere conduit. The involvement of the all actors in the beef value chain has provided an appropriate platform for sustainable commercialisation of smallholder farming.



Inclusiveness


X

Accountability


X



X



Proceedings / 216

Reflexivity


X

Effectiveness


X

Efficiency


X



X

Impact


X


None


( ) More Equal

( ) Equal

( X ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal


More representation from farmer organisation would assist in improving the power relations in the partnership.



Proceedings / 217



The strong network of value chain actors established through the project represent the strength in this project.

The production segment of the project involving smallholder farmers represents a weakness in the project in that the management capacity still requires major attention.


Threats include sustainability of the project when funding comes since strong networks takes time to establish.

An opportunity exist to extend the project to communal production system once the value chains have been established with few and more organised smallholder farmers in private land.


The major constraint to the project is availability of resources to allow for more intensive engagement with the farmers. Financial support to farmers through appropriate financing instruments would be key to allow farmers to transition from weaner production to finishing off the veld.


The partnership has potential to mobile funding from other important actors such as the South African Department of Rural Development and Land Reform which is currently driving the land reform project in South Africa.




Proceedings / 218

The project aims to facilitate access to high value beef markets by smallholder farmers some of whom produce from marginal areas. Availability of markets for such farmers is important as they play a critical role in rural economy. Vibrant smallholder sector that meaningful participates in the market provides opportunity for l employment in rural areas.


The model being developed in this project whereby value chains are established to allow participation by smallholder farmers would be useful for other countries and regions given that the resources limitation among this farming communities are similar. Currently, large proportion of food globally is produce by this farmer groups.

REFERENCES


Griffith GR and Burrow HM (2015) The value of research: using the Impact Tool to evaluate realised and anticipated benefits of the Cooperative Research Centre for Beef Genetic Technologies. Perspective on Animal Biosciences Series - Animal Production Science, 55: 133-144.

Scholtz MM and Bester J (2010) Off-take and production statistics in the different South African cattle sectors: Results of a structured survey. Applied Animal Husbandry and Rural Development 3: 19- 23.

Strydom PE, Frylinck L, van der Westhuizen J and Burrow HM (2008). Growth performance, feed efficiency and carcass and meat quality of tropically adapted breed types from different farming systems in South Africa. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48: 599-607.



Proceedings / 219


None



1. Name of MSP: WATER EFFICIENT MAIZE FOR AFRICA (WEMA) # (for HLPE use only):



(X) Natural resource management;


(X) Resource mobilization;

(X) Other (specify): Research and Development


The Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project is an international public-private partnership including the Agricultural Research Council (ARC). The aim of the project is to develop drought-tolerant and insect protected maize varieties through advanced breeding and biotechnology. These varieties are then made available to smallholder farmers (royalty free). The goal of the WEMA project is to improve food security, seed security, poverty alleviation, job creation and all of this leads to improved livelihoods.



Proceedings / 220


https://wema.aatf-africa.org/about-wema-project




( X) Regional (Specify region61:………………………Africa…………….….……………………………..)





6. Number of main partners: Nine


Monsanto - Private

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) - NGO

African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) – NGO

Agricultural Research Council (ARC) - Public

Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation (KALRO) - Public

National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO) - Public

Mozambique Institute of Agricultural Research (IIAM) - Public








https://wema.aatf-africa.org/about-wema-project

Proceedings / 221

Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH) - Public

Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) – Public


African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), Monsanto and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation


(X) full legal entity: legal personality




The WEMA project partners meet twice in a year for Planning and Review meetings, with monthly teleconferences on progress made between partners from the different countries. These include updates specific to product development, regulatory efforts, deployment, legal & licensing, and communications & outreach done.


AATF is the Grantee and project administrator with a project manager that works directly with the partners. All other partners are sub-grantees of AATF. Monsanto as the private partner that donated GM technologies, advanced breeding tools and germplasm to the project. CIMMYT contributed advanced breeding tools, germplasm, maize breeding and training of the NARS. The NARS contributed unique germplasm from their specific countries, own breeding expertise, obtained the necessary permits for conducting regulated trials, farmer mobilisation and deployment. The Executive Advisory Board (EAB) provides oversight. The Operational Committee (OPSCOM) is responsible for the day to day running of the MSP, including monitoring and evaluation. Activities are carried out by in-country teams that report to the global MSP teams with similar mandates. Product development team (PDT) responsible for maize breeding,



Proceedings / 222

field trials, variety release and registration. Product deployment team (DEPT) responsible for seed deployment to smallholder farmers, on-farm demos and interactions with local seed companies. Legal and Licensing team (LLT) responsible for research agreements and licensing registered varieties to local seed companies. Communications and outreach team (CT) responsible for gaining public project support, training and communicating the project to the general public. Regulatory team (RT) responsible for securing the necessary permits required to conduct regulated trials with GM traits in each of the partner countries.


The members of the different project teams are chosen by their respective organisations and they speak for their organisations as well as the whole MSP within their mandate areas.


Each partner has a project coordinator and executive advisory board member who are in senior management and regularly communicate with relevant government departments.


WEMA Phase 1 (2008 - 2012) was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), and the Howard G Buffett Foundation (HGBF)

WEMA Phase 2 (2013 - 2017) was funded by BMGF, HGBF and USAID

ATTF is the major grantee and other partners are sub-grantees of AATF.

The budgets were sufficient for all activities related to product development, product deployment, communications and outreach activities, etc.



Proceedings / 223

II) OUTCOMES




() Other (specify): This project aims at bringing both policy and action functionality to play as many of the partner countries had to work towards the deregulation of the GM event specific to the project as well as to their own parliamentary regulations when it comes to biotechnology. The project is action orientated since the project sets its goals towards developing drought tolerant maize specifically for smallholder farmers in Africa and therefore much of the work after product development is aimed at deploying a product that was previously only made available to large-scale maize farmers.




Proceedings / 224



Improving the biotechnology frameworks within each of the partner countries that is more conducive for new research and technology for improving the lives of smallholder farmers in Africa.


15. Please rank your overall assessment of the MSP, ranking from 1 to 5 (with 1 being lowest to 5 highest) 5




X


X


X



X


X


8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 225


The project partnership saw both public and private sectors working toward a common goal- releasing both conventional as well as transgenic drought tolerant maize for smallholder farmers in Africa. The project since inception has seen a wider acceptance toward new technology specifically biotechnology.



Inclusiveness


X

Accountability


X



X

Reflexivity


X

Effectiveness


X

Efficiency


X

Resource mobilisation X



Proceedings / 226


Impact


X


WEMA is currently viewed as a model international public-private partnership by the partnership as well as other organisations.


( ) More Equal

( X ) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal


The WEMA partnership allows for an open platform where research findings and successes are shared amongst partners. Critical assessment is conducted regularly to ensure all milestones are reached or on track in order to ensure that all countries are able to deliver a product with the project conclusion.



Strengths- Expertise from multifunctional backgrounds, significant funding, public-private partnership,

Weakness- Communications among partners can be improved


Threat-Anti-GM sentiments are on the rise in Africa.

Opportunity- Seed development/ establishment systems to deploy the final research product among all partner countries can be seen as an opportunity.



Proceedings / 227


Transparency between public and private partnership is essential to ensure that project is on track and sustainable at the end of its life.


It has the potential to increase acceptance of GM technologies and reduce the impacts of drought and insect pests, as well as increase deployment of improved technologies to smallholder farmers in Africa.


This project is unique in the sense that it is specifically looking at deploying drought tolerant maize for smallholder farmers in Africa. Therefore the impact is definitely high.


Countries can use the WEMA experience to establish their own biosafety framework so that they have access to biotechnology crops in their own countries.

REFERENCES


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321253620_Water_Efficient_Maize_for_Africa_A_Public-Private_Partnership_in_Technology_Transfer_to_Smallholder_Farmers_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa

Proceedings / 228

321253620_Water_Efficient_Maize_for_Africa_A_Public-Private_Partnership_in_Technology_Transfer_to_Smallholder_Farmers_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312770741_The_Water_Efficient_Maize_for_Africa_Project_as_an_Example_of_a_Public-Private_Partnership


International public-private partnerships are in a much better position to mobilise significant funding from the major funders than individual research organisations.

Africa needs solutions that are food and nutrition security specific where the needs of the farmer as a producer are addressed in order to improve productivity.



1. Name of MSP: PABRA # (for HLPE use only):



(x) Natural resource management;

(x) Education, information, knowledge sharing;

(x) Resource mobilization;



PABRA works in partnership with farmers, rural communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),








Proceedings / 229

traders and other private sector organizations to improve each aspect of the bean value chain, from production to market, using a market-led approach.


http://www.pabra-africa.org/

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/80211

https://ciat.cgiar.org/

4. Year of Origin / Creation:

Established by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in 1996


( X ) Global (Specify major areas/regions of presence: CIAT_HQ, Colombia)

( X ) Regional (Specify region64: ECABREN: Burundi, DR Congo (East), DR Congo (West), Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania (North), Uganda

SABRN: Angola, Botswana, DR Congo (South), Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania (South), Zambia, Zimbambwe

WECABREN: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central Africa Republic, Congo Brazaville, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo

…………………………………………….….……………………………..)










https://ciat.cgiar.org/

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/80211

http://www.pabra-africa.org/

Proceedings / 230




Angola: Instituto de Investigação Agronómica (IIA)Burkina Faso: Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA)Burundi: L’institut des Sciences Agronomiques de Burundi (ISABU)Cameroon: Institut de la Recherche Agricole pour le Developement (IRAD)Congo Brazzaville: Centre de Recherches Agronomiques de Loudima (CRAL)Central African Republic: Institut Centrafricain de Recherche Agriconomique (ICRA)DR Congo: L’institut national pour l’etude et la recherche agronomiques (INERA) & L’institut national pour l’etude et la recherche agronomiques (INERA – KIPOPO)Ethiopia: Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR)Ghana: Crops Research Institute (CRI)Guinea: Institut de Recherche Agrinomique de la Guinee (IRAG)Kenya: Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI)Lesotho: Department of Agricultural Research (DAR)Madagascar: Centre national de la recherche appliquee au developpement rural (FOFIFA)Malawi: Department of Agricultural Research Services (DARS) Mali: Institut d’economie Rurale (IER) Mauritius: Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute (MSIRI)Mozambique: Institute of Agricultural Research of Mozambique (IIAM)Rwanda: Rwanda Agricultural Board (RAB)Senegal: Instutul Senegalgis de Recherches Aagricoles (ISRA)Sierra Leone: Sierra Leone Agricultural Research Institute (SLARI)South Africa: Agricultural Research Council (ARC)South Sudan: Agricultural Research Corporation (ARCSS)Sudan: Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC)Swaziland: Malkerns Research Station (MRS)Tanzania: Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) & Agricultural Research Institute (ARI)Togo: Institut Togolais de Recherche Agronomique (ITRA)Uganda: National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO)Zimbabwe: Division of Crops Research Department of Research and Specialist Services (DR&SS)Zambia: Zambia Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI)

Sub-regional organisations:




http://www.zari.gov.zm/%E2%80%8E

http://http/www.drss.gov.zw/

http://www.nacrri.go.ug/

http://www.itra.tg/

http://www.ariuyole.go.tz/

http://www.arcsudan.sd/

http://www.arc.agric.za/

http://www.slari.gov.sl/

http://www.isra.sn/

http://www.rab.gov.rw/

http://www.iiam.gov.mz/

http://www.msiri.mu/

http://www.sdnp.org.mw/darts/research/chitedze/chite.htm

http://www.fofifa.mg/

http://www.kari.org/%E2%80%8E

http://http/www.irag-guinee.org

http://www.cropsresearch.org/

http://www.eiar.gov.et/

http://www.inera-drc.org/

http://www.inera-drc.org/

http://www.cameroun.ird.fr/nos-partenaires/cameroun/irad

http://isabu-bi.org/

Proceedings / 231

West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF/WECARD)Association for strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA)Centre for Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development for Southern Africa (CCARDESA)Forum for Agricultural Research in Agriculture (FARA)

Universities:

Ethiopia: Haramaya UniversityKenya: Moi UniversityMalawi: University of MalawiTanzania: Sokoine University of AgricultureUganda: Makerere UniversityZambia: University of Zambia

Non-Governmental Organisations:

Malawi: Action Aid ; CARE International; CONCERN Universal; PLAN International; World Vision International;Catholic Relief Services; Harvest helpTanzania: African Highland Initiative; Farm Africa; Himo Environmental Management; Sanya – Area Development Programme; World VisionUganda: Community Enterprises Development OrganizationZambia: Foundation for Wild life & Habitat Conservation; International Development Enterprises; Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre Organisation for people’s Active Participation in Development;Self Help Africa; World Vision ZambiaZimbabwe: Healthy Harvest

Private companies (Agro-inputs and Produce dealers):

Malawi: Demeter Seed Limited;Tanzania: Faida Market LinkUganda: East African Basic Foods limited; Aponye LimitedZambia: Indegenous Seed Company; Kamano Seed Company; Pamllo Seeds & Agro Products Company Ltd; Stewards Globe Limited; FreshPkt; Farmers LinkZimbabwe: Agriculture Rural Development Authority Seeds Limited; Agricura Limited; National Tested Seeds Limited;Pannar Seed company; Pioneer Hi-Bred Zimbabwe; Pristine Seed company;Progene Seed Company; Sandbrite Seeds Limited; Seed-Co; Windmill Farming Solutions; Zimbabwe Fertilizer Company



http://www.zfc.co.zw/

http://www.windmill.co.zw/

http://www.windmill.co.zw/

http://www.seedco.co.zw/

http://http/www.progeneseeds.co.zw/

http://www.pioneer.com/

http://www.seedquest.com/yellowpages/africa/southafrica/p/pannar/zimbabwe.htm

http://www.aponye.com/

http://www.faidamarketlink.or.tz/

http://www.farmersworld.net/index.php?iframe=demeter

http://http/www.wvi.org/zambia

http://www.selfhelpafrica.org/ie/?gclid=CjkKEQjwqsCcBRDt7_Gts5a91YYBEiQAm-wYEZ-Lmp_WRm0cs4C6NVpQtzG5EqJFnsfKK05TJCeslR7w_wcB

http://kasisiagriculture.com/

http://www.fwhc.net/

http://www.wvi.org/tanzania

http://www.farmafrica.org/

http://www.worldagroforestry.org/programmes/african-highlands/sites.html

http://www.harvesthelp.org.uk/

http://crs.org/countries/malawi

http://www.wvi.org/malawi

http://www.wvi.org/malawi

https://plan-international.org/where-we-work/africa/malawi/

https://www.concern.net/category/country/malawi

http://www.care-international.org/where-we-work/malawi.aspx

http://www.actionaid.org/malawi

http://www.unza.zm/

http://mak.ac.ug/

http://www.suanet.ac.tz/

http://www.unima.mw/

http://www.mu.ac.ke/

http://www.haramaya.edu.et/

http://www.fara-africa.org/

http://www.ccardesa.org/

http://www.asareca.org/

http://www.coraf.org/

Proceedings / 232


CIAT






Steering Committees of the respective networks (SABRN, ECABREN, WECABREN) meet annually to discuss activities in participating countries. PABRA Steering committee meets annually after the network SC meetings


CIAT The core donors provide essential funds to facilitate PABRA’s core operations. They include: the

Department of Foreign Affairs Trade and Development of Canada (DFATD) [formerly the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)], Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID). DFATD and SDC also provide programme support that cuts across PABRAs thematic areas and regional networks.

In addition, ECABREN receives support from ASARECA through a competitive grant scheme and similar support is envisaged for SABRN through CCARDESA and WECABREN through



Proceedings / 233

CORAF/WECARD.


Steering committee members are chosen from each partner country by the network coordinator that represent all partners and bean activities from their respective countries. SC members can propose new members if they no longer want to serve as SC member. The Steering committee members aim at representing gender equality



The funding goes directly to facilitate the operations of the alliance, its three regional bean research networks, and research and development projects within PABRA.

National government investment

The national governments of PABRA’s member countries make substantial investments in their national bean programmes, and thus, make a considerable contribution to PABRA’s bean research, which is shared across the network. In many of these countries, the amount of government funding has grown exponentially over the years with the success of PABRA.

Core Development Partners

Our core donors provide essential funds to facilitate PABRA’s core operations. They include: the Department of Foreign Affairs Trade and Development of Canada (DFATD) [formerly the Canadian



Proceedings / 234

International Development Agency (CIDA)], Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID). DFATD and SDC also provide programme support that cuts across PABRAs thematic areas and regional networks.

In addition, ECABREN receives support from ASARECA through a competitive grant scheme and similar support is envisaged for SABRN through CCARDESA and WECABREN through CORAF/WECARD.

Project-related support

PABRA also receives project specific support from some of our development partners, which is related to thematic areas, such as breeding or market development, or targets one or more countries or specific regions. Donors supporting specific components of PABRAs work include: The Department for International Development (DFID) of UK, the Rockefeller Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), the Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), KirkHouse Trust, European Commission through International Fund for Agricultural Development (EC-IFAD), Ford Foundation, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and through various CGIAR Research Programs such as Grain Legumes, Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), and Policy, Institutions and Markets.

Supplementary funding

PABRA also receives in-kind contributions from our many partners including NGOs, universities and the private sector towards the development of bean innovation systems across PABRA’s 29 member countries.

II) OUTCOMES








Proceedings / 235



The Promise of Beans

The humble common bean has great potential to improve the health, food security and incomes of the most marginalised communities in Africa, not to mention making a significant contribution to national economies. As a result, beans are becoming an ever more important crop.

The growing importance of beans




X


X


X



X


X


8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 236

The common bean is rapidly evolving from a subsistence to a market-oriented cash crop.

It is the most important, widely grown and consumed grain legume in Eastern, Central and Southern Africa, where about 6.3 million hectares of land is used to grow beans every year. Per capita bean consumption in Eastern Africa is the highest in the world – in western Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi people eat their body weight in beans every year (around 50 – 60 kg). And beans are quickly gaining importance in countries such as Cameroon and Guinea in Central and West Africa.

Expanding bean markets

Bean sales exceed US$500 million annually and have an export value of about US$110 million (FAOSTAT, 2010).

The growth of specialised niche bean markets (such as snap beans and navy beans for canning, for both domestic and foreign markets) has contributed greatly to this, along with rapidly expanding urban populations, which drive bean trade. Bean products are now served in popular high-end hotels and restaurants, offering smallholder farmers more lucrative and sustainable markets for their products.

Farming versatility

When it comes to farming, beans are a highly attractive and versatile crop. Early maturing, higher yielding and hardier varieties can provide farmers with bumper harvests up to three times a year, guaranteeing productivity and household food security throughout the year. In addition they enhance soil fertility; can be planted with other crops such as maize, cassava and banana; after harvesting they can be stored for a long time without deteriorating; and they are easily converted to cash to meet urgent household needs.

Greater food security

On a continent where populations are growing rapidly, increasing farm productivity and attaining food security are agricultural priorities.

Improved bean varieties, particularly climbing beans, offer great potential for increasing yields. So, where bean farming households in rural areas retain around 50 per cent of beans for domestic consumption (except for snap bean of which more than 95% is sold), greater yields helps put more food on plates. Not to mention, increased sales and higher household income.

Healthier people

Beans are not only a superior source of protein, they are also one of the best sources of iron and zinc; two of the most common nutritional deficiencies affecting more than 2 billion people in the world. So it stands to reason that beans play an important role in combating malnutrition, particularly micronutrient-rich



Proceedings / 237

varieties, in combination with other food crops.






Inclusiveness


X

Accountability


X



X

Reflexivity


X

Effectiveness


X

Efficiency


X



Proceedings / 238




X

Impact


X



( ) More Equal

( X ) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal







Proceedings / 239


Increased funding



Impact assessment of PABRA

Adoption of climbing bean varieties substantially increased over the past 15 years, occupying about 43 percent of the national area planted to beans.

Overall adoption of improved varieties in Rwanda and Uganda increased by about 20% between 2004 and 2011.

In Uganda, improved bean varieties released since 1998 were cultivated on about 125,000 ha in 2012.

In Ethiopia, improved bean varieties released between 2002 and 2012 were cultivated on about 142,715.2 ha by 2012.

Adopters of these improved varieties in Rwanda have experienced 53% yield gains, while productivity in Uganda has increased by about 60%.

In Rwanda, 16% more households would have been food insecure without the improved bean varieties; in Uganda 2% more households would have been food insecure.

In Zambia, studies observed gender biases in bean production that favor men against women, with pronounced variations across provinces, supporting the conclusion that additional interventions are needed.

For more information, read our impact assessment reports below:

Diffusion and Impact of Improved Varieties in Africa (DIIVA) Project July 2014

Impact of Bean Research in Rwanda and Uganda Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) December 2014

Farm level adoption and spacial diffusion of improved common bean varieties in Southern Highlands of Tanzania (technical survey report, 2014)

Assessing access and adoption of common bean improved varieties in Zambia (technical survey report,



Proceedings / 240

2015) – to follow

Farm level impacts of improved bean varieties and agronomic technologies in Rwanda, Kalyebara et al, 2008. Report highlights


REFERENCES


http://www.pabra-africa.org/resources/

http://www.pabra-africa.org/blogs/




http://www.pabra-africa.org/blogs/

http://www.pabra-africa.org/resources/

Proceedings / 241

23. SUN Movement Secretariat Contribution no. 64


1. Name of MSP: Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement # (for HLPE use only):






(…) Other (specify): Nutrition


What is the SUN Movement?

The Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement, launched in 2010, inspired a new way of working collaboratively to end malnutrition. The SUN Movement is led by Governments who voluntarily engaged in the Movement. Today there are 60 SUN countries and 3 States of India who develop national multi-sectoral plans to improve nutrition and implement them with the contributions of multiple stakeholders.

The Movement’s vision is to, by 2030, ensure a world free from malnutrition in all its forms. Led by governments and supported by organisations and individuals – collective action will ensure every child, adolescent, mother and family can realise their right to food and nutrition, reach their full potential and shape sustainable and prosperous societies.

The SUN Movement is driven by a dedicated set of change agents. The main actors are: SUN Member countries, led by governments, are the core of the SUN Movement,

leading national efforts with a wealth of experience, insight and capacity. All the stakeholders in the Movement are changing their behaviours and committing to achieving common nutrition results behind government led plans. Every SUN country appoints a SUN Government Focal Point.

SUN Networks: Civil society, donors, businesses and UN agencies are organised into Networks, both at global and national levels. At the global level, each of the Networks has a global Steering Committee and a Secretariat which work to support the establishment and functioning of Networks at country level. They provide support and technical assistance, ensure timely exchange of information, and monitor and evaluate achievements.



Proceedings / 242

The SUN Movement Coordinator leads and strengthens collaboration between stakeholders and advocates for improving nutrition at country, regional and global levels

The SUN Movement’s Lead Group, consists of prominent leaders and change makers who have pledged to position nutrition at the highest levels and provide the inspiration, action and direction on a global scale. They are figureheads for nutrition and carry out strategic advocacy to ensure it grows in recognition as a maker and marker of sustainable development.

The SUN Movement Executive Committee, oversees and supports the implementation of the SUN Movement Strategy and Roadmap and strengthens accountability within the Movement.

The SUN Movement Secretariat (SMS), provides support to its members’ work and facilitates Movement-wide sharing and learning opportunities. The SMS enables access to technical assistance and support aligned with the SUN Movement’s principles and the SDG’s.

SUN member countries and their supporters are working towards the World Health Assembly targets on maternal, infant, and young child nutrition by 2025, in addition to relevant targets for preventing and controlling non-communicable diseases.

The SUN Movement Strategy and Roadmap (2016-2020), endorsed by the SUN Lead Group in 2016, has helped illuminate the importance of nutrition as a universal agenda – and one which is integral to achieving the promise of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Nutrition is a maker and marker of development. The SUN Movement strategy is aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The SDGs are incorporated in the Movement’s theory of change, and the concept of ‘leaving no one behind’ is reflected in the Movement’s strategy.

How does the SUN Movement work? The SUN Movement’s unique value is its emphasis on building an enabling social, economic and political environment, which is fit to ensure that children everywhere reach their full potential. This is done through four strategic objectives:

1. Expand and sustain an enabling political environment 2. Prioritise and institutionalise effective actions that contribute to good nutrition 3. Implement effective actions aligned with Common Results 4. Effectively use, and significantly increase, financial resources for nutrition

To realise the vision of a world without hunger and malnutrition, the SUN Movement Principles of Engagement guide actors as they work in a multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder space to effectively working together to end malnutrition, in all its forms. These principles ensure that the Movement is flexible while maintaining a common purpose and mutual accountability.

Is the SUN Movement an MSP?



http://scalingupnutrition.org/about-sun/the-vision-and-principles-of-sun/

http://scalingupnutrition.org/about-sun/the-vision-and-principles-of-sun/

http://scalingupnutrition.org/about-sun/the-sun-movement-strategy/

http://scalingupnutrition.org/about-sun/the-sun-movement-strategy/

Proceedings / 243

The Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement can be considered as a Movement of multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs). Out of the 60 SUN member countries, 50 do now have an active multi-stakeholder platform at the national level. In 35 countries, these platforms also work at the sub-national level, supporting local actions and implementation across sectors such as women-s empowerment, youth, agriculture, WASH, health, education, social protection and national development.

The SUN Movement Annual Progress Report 2017 contains a wealth of information on the different aspects of the national MSPs. The details provided in this questionnaire are mostly contained in the report. Of particular interest are the following chapters:

- Information on formalization of MSPs, decentralization, multiple sectors and stakeholders, and challenges (page 26-32)

- Annex 2 (page 148-152): the table offers detailed information on different aspects of MSPs in all SUN countries, such as partners, decentralization, etc.

- SUN Country Profiles (page 84-142)

Further to the 2017 Progress Report, the SUN Movement Secretariat recommends the following reading for a more comprehensive and profound understanding of the SUN Movement: SUN Movement Strategy and Roadmap (2016-2020) SUN Brochure

SUN Movement Progress Reports 2012-2017

Independent Comprehensive Evaluation of the SUN Movement (ICE)

Movement-wide response to ICE


www.scalingupnutrition.org











http://www.scalingupnutrition.org/

http://docs.scalingupnutrition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/150331-Synthesis-of-responses-to-ICE-FINAL.pdf

http://scalingupnutrition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/SUN_ICE_FullReport-All(1-5-15).pdf

http://scalingupnutrition.org/progress-impact/sun-movement-annual-progress-report/

http://docs.scalingupnutrition.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/20171018_SUN-Brochure-ENG_60.pdf

http://docs.scalingupnutrition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SR_20160901_ENG_web_pages.pdf

http://docs.scalingupnutrition.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/SUN_Main_Report_ENG_2017_WEB2.pdf

Proceedings / 244

( x ) National (Specify country:…60 countries and 3 Indian States (full list on website………..……)



6. Number of main partners: varies depending on country


National multi-stakeholder platforms in SUN countries are led by Governments, bringing together different sectors of Government and other stakeholders relevant for nutrition, including civil society, business, UN organizations and donors.

The SUN approach is explained on slides 11-14:

file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Desktop/160913-PowerPoint-Template-2016.pdf


The SUN Government Focal Points convene the multi-stakeholder platforms at national level.





Countries that are members of SUN have opted for a wide range of levels of formalization of their MSPs, although increasingly the trend is towards formalization. Only recently, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Myanmar and Kyrgyzstan have formalized their MSPs, adding to dozens that were already formal.





Proceedings / 245


The purpose of each MSP varies, as does therefore its role in decision-making. While some MSPs take operational decisions such as expenditure allocation or programme design, others are of a more consultative nature, focusing on the dissemination of information, capacity building.


Governance structure at global level see under point 2.

Governance structure at national MSPs: led by Governments; roles, responsibilities and level of involvement of stakeholder groups need to be looked at on a case by case basis, as they vary from country to country.


SUN MSPs at national level: in addition to the government representatives, selected members of the four SUN country Networks (civil society, business, donors, United Nations) are often part of the MSP. These represent the members of their respective network at country level. For example, the SUN Civil Society Alliance in a SUN country represents the member organizations of the SUN Civil Society Network in that country. MSPs may be more inclusive, inviting for example noted academics and scientists, or religious leaders.

The specific organizations from each network that sit on the MSP are selected in very different ways.


In SUN countries, the government is leading the multi-stakeholder platform for nutrition. The role of the MSP varies from country to country, so the communications between members.




Proceedings / 246

Funding and finance aspects require a case by case study of the national MSPs

II) OUTCOMES

13. What is the main function of the MSP? Is it mainly: It varies from one SUN country to the other, but generally all the following aspects are relevant.

(x…)“policy-oriented”

(x….) “action-oriented”

(x…) Other (specify): Coordination; knowledge sharing


Contributions of MSPs in SUN countries need to be looked at on a country-by-country basis.



Proceedings / 247





Ranking of national multi-stakeholder platform varies from county to country











8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 248


Again, this needs to be looked at on a country-by-country basis.


Inclusiveness


Accountability




Reflexivity


Effectiveness


Efficiency

(comparison between the use of resources with the potential benefits the MSP can generate, including intangible



Proceedings / 249

benefits)



Impact




( ) More Equal

( ) Equal

( ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal


To be looked at on a country-by-country basis



For this section of the questionnaire, please refer to 2017 SUN Progress Report, page 28-32

Some of the challenges MSPs in SUN countries have been facing include: operationalising coordination structures, frequency of stakeholder gathering, lack of a workplan to rally behind, low participation rate, coordination challenges due to ongoing conflicts/war,




http://docs.scalingupnutrition.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/SUN_Main_Report_ENG_2017_WEB2.pdf

Proceedings / 250





REFERENCES



Thanks for the opportunity to comment.



Proceedings / 251

24. Petronella Chaminuka, Agricultural Research Council (ARC), South Africa

Contribution no. 65


1. Name of MSP:Orange Fleshed Sweet Potato Project # (for HLPE use only):


(X…) Food production; food supply chain;






• Project rationale: Sweet potato is a

– traditional / food security crop + cash crop

– orange-fleshed, rich in provitamin A, address vitamin A deficiency

• Project objectives: Maintain and strengthen vine nurseries; create a demand for vines by establishing/maintaining producers; sustainable enterprises

• Project activities

- Monitoring of vine growers and supply fresh vines from disease-tested origin

- Farmer assessment, training in cultivation of sweet potato/nutrition education and distribution of vines

- Monitoring production, harvesting and marketing advice

- Supported by active sweet potato breeding programme


www.arc.agric.za





http://www.arc.agric.za/

Proceedings / 252




(x ) National (Specify country - South Africa)…………………………………….………………………)





Public-Private

Agricultural Research Council (ARC)

Public sector

Department of Rural Development (DRDLR)

Private sector

A number of small-scale commercial sweet potato nurseries and producer enterprises e.g.

Exilite CC

Buang Makabe Trading Enterprises

Green Farm Piggery & Fresh Produce (GFP&F)

Nongila Trading and Projects

Nombhele Gardens and Cultural Village Coop

Several sweet potato producers in 5 provinces of South Africa








Proceedings / 253


ARC initiated the MSP

ARC sought funding from the DRDLR for technology transfer and in that way the mentioned private sector participants came on board




(X…) informal arrangement


Currently there are Quarterly meetings of the ARC and DRDLR, while the ARC on monthly basis communicate to private sector partners


The ARC leads the partnership. Being the source of disease-tested planting material of sweet potato as well as the training body to advise growers and producers. The DRDLR provides funding and takes part in implementation. The vine growers supply vines of good quality to producers in 5 provinces. This leads to the production of considerable volumes of orange-fleshed sweet potato which are mostly sold locally and thereby addressing food security and malnutrition. There is also a Sweet potato vine growers Association which ensure uniform price structure among vine growers.



Proceedings / 254


The membership mainly focus on the sweet potato vine growers. They are to a certain extent representative of the farmers that buy vines from them


Consultative

The scheme prioritises supporting subsistence farmers


Currently funded by the Department of Rural Development. However, the Sweet potato vine growers are sustainable enterprises and able to continue functioning.

II) OUTCOMES



(X.) “action-oriented”





Proceedings / 255



The main benefit is public-private partnership bringing change in the area of food and nutrition security



3





X


x


X



X


X


8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 256

The MSP has strengths and weaknesses indicated in section 21. Thus there are areas for improvement and strengthening of the efforts



Inclusiveness


x

Accountability


x



x

Reflexivity


x

Effectiveness


x

Efficiency


x


(raising of financial resources, and other

x



Proceedings / 257

enabling resources to improve FSN)

Impact


x


While this partnership is considered a success story, there is room for improvement


( ) More Equal

( ) Equal

( x ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal


The project is generally dictated by the funding. However, the interest of the private sector partners are very important and their opinions and concerns are considered.



The biggest challenge is the end of the current funding term. Thus new partners have to be approached

The biggest strength is that sustainable vine growers enterprises were established. Furthermore there is much scope to expand the program to more provinces of the country and also for increasing production by current partners.


It is important to involve other public sector role players e.g. sales of the orange-fleshed sweet potatoes to the National School Nutrition Program (Department of Education) and Community Nutrition Centres (Department of Social Development) to scale out the impact of food security and malnutrition alleviation.



Proceedings / 258


It is critical that government departments liaise better with each other. More NGO’s and health organisations and preferably also international donors should become involved.


There is large potential for the mentioned points. Food and Nutrition Security is high on the priorities of South Africa and there is a specific strategy developed to address it.


The project focus on rural areas which reaches the most vulnerable by making available nutritious food in the rural areas


Other countries/regions can follow a similar approach, even with funding from international donor organisations as is the case in several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. South Africa is taking part is the Sweet potato for Profit and Health Initiative coordinated by the International Potato Center.

REFERENCES


Scientific publications in peer reviewed journals:

LAURIE, S.M. & FABER, M. 2008. Integrated community-based growth monitoring and vegetable



Proceedings / 259

gardens focusing on crops rich in beta-carotene – project evaluation in a rural community in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 88:2093-2101.

LAURIE, S.M. & VAN HEERDEN, S.M. 2012. Consumer acceptability of four products made from beta-carotene-rich sweet potato. African Journal of Food Science 6(4):96-103.

LAURIE, S.M., VAN JAARSVELD, P.J., FABER, M., PHILPOTT, M.F. & LABUSCHAGNE, M.T. (2012). Trans-β-carotene, selected mineral content and potential nutritional contribution of 12 sweetpotato varieties. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 27:151-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2012.05.005 (ISI 2.1)

LAURIE, S.M., BOOYSE, M., LABUSCHAGNE, M.T., GREYLING, M.M., 2015. Multi-environment performance of new orange-fleshed sweetpotato varieties in South Africa. Crop Science 55(4): 1585-1595. (Jul/Aug)

LAURIE S.M., FABER M., ADEBOLA P., BELETE A., 2015. Biofortification of sweet potato for food and nutrition security in South Africa. Food Research International 76: 962-970. (Sep)

LAURIE, S.M, MYEZA, P. N., MULABISANA, M. J., MABASA, K.G., THOMPSON, A., GREYLING, R., CLOETE, M. AND ADEBOLA, P.O. 2016. In-vitro propagation and disease testing as a means of producing healthy planting materials to support root and tuber crops production in South Africa. Acta Hort 1113: 225-232 (Apr) ISHS 2016. DOI 0.17660/ActaHortic.2016.1113.34 XXIX IHC – Proc. Int. Symp. on Micropropagation and In Vitro Techniques Eds.: M. Lambardi and S. Hamill.

LAURIE S.M., NHLABATSI N.N., NGOBENI H.M., AND TJALE S.S. 2017. The Effect of In-Field Rain Water Harvesting On Orange-Fleshed Sweet Potato Biomass and Yield. Journal of Agricultural Science 9(10):1-9 https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v9n10p1 (Sep)

LAURIE, S.M., FABER, M., AND CLAASEN, N. 2018. Incorporating orange-fleshed sweet potato into the food system as a strategy for improved nutrition: the context of South Africa. Food Research International 104: 77-85. doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.09.016 (Jan)

Proceedings:

FABER M., LAURIE S.M. & VAN JAARSVELD P., 2008. Proceedings: Orange-fleshed sweetpotato symposium, Pretoria, 3 October 2007. ISBN 978-1-920014-45-4, MRC/ARC. http://www.arc.agric.za/uploads/images/0_OFSP_symposium_proceedings.pdf



https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.09.016

https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v9n10p1

Proceedings / 260

Chapters in books

FABER, M & LAURIE SM, 2010. A home-gardening approach developed in South Africa to address vitamin A deficiency. In: Thompson B, Amoroso L (eds). Food Based Approaches (FBAs) for Combating Micronutrient Deficiencies. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and CABI bookshop. Pg. 163-182. ISBN-13: 978 92 5 106546 4. www.fao.org/docrep/013/am027e/am027e00.pdf

FABER M, LAURIE SM, VAN JAARSVELD PJ, 2014. Critical issues to consider in the selection of crops in a food-based approach to improve vitamin A status – based on a South African experience. In: Thompson B, Amoroso L (eds). Improving diets and nutrition. Food-based approaches. CABI and FAO, pp 45 – 57. dx.doi.org/10.1079/9781780642994.0045

Manuals

FABER M, LAURIE S, BALL A & ANDRADE M (2013). A crop-based approach to address vitamin A deficiency in South Africa. Medical Research Council, Cape Town / ARC-Roodeplaat, Pretoria, South Africa


25. Petronella Chaminuka, Agricultural Research Council (ARC), South Africa

Contribution no. 65


1. Name of MSP: # (for HLPE use only):



Proceedings / 261


(Y) Food production; food supply chain;

(Y) Natural resource management;

(Y) Education, information, knowledge sharing;




Compose the best available historical, actual and forecasted weather and climate data and make it easily accessible for each food producer, weather services, added value provider and other potential clients in South Africa, at an affordable price.

a) To reach 150,000 small-scale farmers with agricultural information based on weather & climate conditions.

b) To develop data collection (remote sensing, radar, ground observations & crowd-sourcing farmer info); digital delta platform; and ‘Apps’ to deliver such info to clients (small-scale farmers, commercial farmers, African National Meteorological Services).


http://www.hydronet.com/

4. Year of Origin / Creation: project 2015-2019




(Y) Sub-regional (Specify sub-region74: SADC…………….)

(Y ) National (Specify country South Africa








http://www.hydronet.com/

Proceedings / 262




Proceedings / 263


7. Composition of the MSP: list of main partners: names and/or categories (i.e.: public sector, private sector, civil society, others75) :

Private: eLEAF; HydroLogic; HydroLogic (Research); MWM (Mobile Water Management); Weather Impact; WineJob.

Public sector: South Africa Agricultural Research Council (ARC); South African Weather Services (SAWS); WDODelta (Waterschap Drenthe Overijssel Delta); KNMI (Royal Netherlands Meteorological Insitute, Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut).


HydroLogic & SAWS


(Y) full legal entity: legal personality

(Y) formalized agreement among partners, but no legal personality for the MSP



a) Annual meeting of consortium members,b) Operational decisions by Project manager & Working Group (3 members of major partners).c) Annual report to funding body Netherlands Space Office (NSO).


Project managed by ARC.

Project manager & Working Group (3 members of major partners: SAWS, ARC & HydroLogic) are leading, planning and monitoring the project activities.

Organogram has project manager & operational technical manager then 6 focus group leaders who are responsible for various sections of the Work Packages as stated in the original proposal.

Each Partner has specific assigned tasks, in each Focus Group with deliverables assigned with time lines and dates linked to budget items.




Proceedings / 264


a) I do not know as I was not part of the project at inception.

b) Partners only speak for themselves, but do engage other stakeholders. But ARC does interact with many small-scale farmers and extension workers, so does ‘represent’ them in some way.

c) mandate for length of project.

d) not considered right now.


i) Via the national and provincial and district and municipality departments of Agricultureii) Consultativeiii) Good cooperation with district and municipal level extension staff.


a) Funded by Netherlands Space Office (NSO) on a 40:60% share agreement with each partner (except SAWS 50:50).

b) From The Netherlands Government aid moneys.

c) Public = 55.7% & Private = 44.3%

d) budget is insufficient to achieve all the actions as it was not carefully estimated at proposal level.

e) use HydoLogic and Arc accounting systems.

II) OUTCOMES



(Y) “action-oriented”




Proceedings / 265



a) To impact 125,000 small-scale farmersb) To improve production c) To reduce inputs harmful to environment


Each partner contributes from their own expertise and experience and information.

It would not be possible for a single partner to do it alone.




X


X


X



X


X


8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 266



4


It is a good partnership, but different partners have different ‘company culture’ and different perspective, making some negotiations necessary.



Inclusiveness


Good but not everyone can, nor needs to understand all aspects.

Accountability


Good except for 1 private partner



Excellent and has given opportunities for different organisations

Reflexivity


Good – have had to make a “recovery plan” & reassess the aims and deliverables.

Effectiveness


High, already achieved many of objectives.

Efficiency


Not always easy, as different tasks



Proceedings / 267


need different expertise and protocol in different organisations



Fair – need extra personnel with different expertise

Impact


Currently, not experiencing full impact, but by end of project should achieve aims



( ) More Equal

( ) Equal

( Y ) Less Equal

( ) Un-equal


Sometimes the overseas partners have more influence than the local (national) partners.



Strengths: diverse team and good working relationship

Weakness: delayed outcomes, so need extra inputs to achieve goals.




Proceedings / 268

Threats: delay means that others have developed Mobile Apps ahead of R4A.

Opportunities: data is available for whole of SADC region, so can be expanded to other countries. Developed in a module fashion, so can add other languages and advisories.


Better balance between seniority of personnel in different organisations.

Better planning with people of experience across all sectors to be served.


a) low to influence policy

b) high to attract other funds and be operational around Africa


Good high potential as many have simple mobile phones and this can work on a USSD under GRPN not needing 3G or 4G network and smart phone. But for those using advanced technology it will also give capacity building and additional information.

Also “Crowd-sourcing” facility to collect data from farmers in many localities.


Can be expanded to other regions.

Need funds and project.

HydroNET platform already used in other regions like South East Asia, as channel for data and manipulation and generation of advisories.

REFERENCES

27. The HLPE is interested by any article, mainly scientific references but also practical experiences on MSPs



Proceedings / 269

you would like to share (scholarly articles, reports, reviews, analysis, etc):


Good to keep in contact and obtain feedback from others please:

[email protected]

26. Frank Mechielsen, Hivos, NetherlandsContribution no. 28

1. Name of MSP: Uganda Food Change Lab # (for HLPE use only):

2. Thematic domain of activity: (X) Food production; food supply chain; (X) Education, information, knowledge sharing;

Brief description of mandate / activities / objectives:The Uganda Food Change Lab is a multi-stakeholder partnership with local actors from Fort Portal town and Kabarole district, national policy makers and Ugandan civil society. The Lab focuses on the achievement of sustainable diets and a productive local food system for the citizens in Kabarole district. It does so by supporting concrete interventions on the ground and by advocating for a more conducive policy environment and laws that make the region’s food system more inclusive, sustainable, diverse, healthy and affordable to all.Fort Portal is a small town in western Uganda, slated to grow tenfold by 2040, from 50,000 to 500,000 inhabitants. The district of Kabarole contributes large amounts of the food that moves to Uganda’s cities and neighbouring countries, but despite its agricultural wealth, Western Uganda has a higher incidence of child stunting than the national average, at 44 per cent, and research done by the Lab has shown that only 40 per cent of rural householders around Fort Portal are achieving an acceptable level of food consumption. The Lab’s activities center around concrete activities, awareness raising and local advocacy (with occasional links to national policy issues), to achieve the following objectives:

- Secure access to sustainable diets for the urban poor, by working together with informal streetfood vendors and the Fort Portal municipality. The anticipated rapid growth of the town of Fort Portal will include large numbers of working poor, along with other low-income residents, including students. The food system is adapting, with the appearance and rapid growth of informal street vending. Being part of the Food Change Lab MSP, vendors and city law enforcement are moving from a situation of conflict to one of coexistence, with the municipality providing safe and hygienic space for food selling and vendors working to provide nutritious and safe food to low-income consumers.



mailto:[email protected]

Proceedings / 270

- Ensure that (national) policy planning instruments plan for ‘the food system’ as such. Evidence to date from Fort Portal city and Kabarole district are showing warning signs of an area pushing for growth without a joined up plan for a ‘virtuous circle’ of rural-urban local economic development. National plans for urbanisation (Uganda’s leading policy planning document Vision 2040) focus on hard infrastructure (especially roads) and a growing formal economy, but all around the developing world we can see that with the expansion of urban centres comes a growth of the informal economy, including the food system. The Lab advocates with local and national actors for making plans for soft infrastructure and building ‘virtuous circles’ of development that factor in an urban food system of the working poor, add value through processing, and promote a more regenerative model of agriculture.

- Raise awareness on sustainable diets among urban and rural households, by engaging in citizen-driven research, by organising community events and cooking demonstrations and by broadcasting talk-shows and mini drama-series on food on local radio. The Lab’s convening party, Kabarole Resource and Research Centre (KRC) and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) introduced the concept of ‘food diaries’ in 2015, when they supported 200 rural women in nine sub counties in the district to keep a record of each of their household’s meals over the course of seven days, and to report the origins of that food. Diary-takers discussed their process of awareness in focus group discussions and on a local radio station. In 2017, food diaries have been undertaken by urban citizens, again linked to public discussions. Lab stakeholders are also organising regular ‘orugali food festivals’ (a local tradition in which families sit together around a meal served on a flat traditional tray known as ‘Orugali’) to spread awareness about healthy food.

- Forge new connections, innovations and knowledge to capitalise on the region’s agriculture through local value adding and food processing. The district of Kabarole contributes large amounts of the food that moves to Uganda’s cities and neighbouring countries. Despite this large and growing trade in food, the irony is that the population of Kabarole is food insecure. Raw produce is being exported and processed foods are being imported – missing opportunity for local value addition. And more is lost in the process. The 100 trucks of matooke bunches that leave the area to reach Kampala every day deplete 1.5 million kg of potassium and 0.5 million kg of magnesium from the rural soils, annually. Larger losses of nutrients from Kabarole’s soils are caused by leaching and erosion due to poor soil management. Kabarole is exporting the fertility of its soils along with food. The Food Change Lab is engaging policy makers at district and municipal level to review the existing policies such as the district ordinance to ensure rural households implement better integrated farming practices to improve soil fertility and manage agriculture waste for compost manure. The Lab, in collaboration with private sector, is in the process of mobilizing the farmers to establish agro-cottages that can add value to different agricultural products such as banana, so as to retain the organic matter back into the farm lands.


- Website KRC http://krcuganda.org

- Website Food Change Labs: https://hivos.org/activity/food-and-energy-change-labs - (publication) “Uganda Food Change Lab: Planning for the food system of Kabarole district”, by Busiinge C. Amooti, Bill Vorley and Felia Boerwinkel. Hivos, IIED and KRC, September 2016. http://www.foodchangelab.org/assets/2016/09/food-lab-pub.pdf - Sustainable Value chains for sustainable food systems, a workshop of FAO/UNEP Programme on



http://www.foodchangelab.org/assets/2016/09/food-lab-pub.pdf

https://hivos.org/activity/food-and-energy-change-labs

http://krcuganda.org/

Proceedings / 271

Sustainable Food Systems, FAO Rome 2016. Food Innovation labs, from farm to fork page 79-86. http://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/en/c/522288/ - (blog) “People’s Food Summit participants committed to change Ugandan food systems”, April 2016. http://www.foodchangelab.org/peoples-food-summit-participants-committed-to-change-ugandan-food-systems/ .- (blog) “Kabarole District in Uganda moves to boost food production and improve nutrition”, December 2017, https://www.hivos.org/news/kabarole-district-uganda-moves-boost-food-production-and-improve-nutrition .


5. Scale/Level of operation (choose one option):( ) National (Uganda)( X ) Local (Uganda, Kabarole district)



7. Composition of the MSP: list of main partners: names and/or categories (i.e.: public sector, private sector, civil society, others76) Convening / founding party: Kabarole Research and Resource Center (herafter: KRC)Main local partners:

- Coalition of the Willing (hereafter: the CoW) Agahikaine; a MSP originating from the Lab’s first large event, the People’s Summit on Food in April 2016. Agahikaine tracks commitments made during that Summit by local stakeholders and engages in awareness raising activities on sustainable diets. The CoW is being supported by KRC, with the longer term objective of becoming an independent legal entity. The platform consists of 20 committed members that meet regularly on voluntary basis, representing a range of sectors: producer organisations, farmers, local leaders, streetfood vendors, CBOs and civil society organisations, nutritionists, chefs, health workers, (music) artists and local media.

- Streetfood vendors association- Municipal council of Fort Portal

Other partners- Kabarole District Council- Kabarole District Nutrition Coordination Committee- Uganda Multi-Sectoral Food Security and Nutrition Project- Religious leaders - Media, e.g. KRC Radio - Food Rights Alliance (linking local practices to national policy engagements)- Hivos (linking to national lobby)




https://www.hivos.org/news/kabarole-district-uganda-moves-boost-food-production-and-improve-nutrition

https://www.hivos.org/news/kabarole-district-uganda-moves-boost-food-production-and-improve-nutrition

http://www.foodchangelab.org/peoples-food-summit-participants-committed-to-change-ugandan-food-systems/

http://www.foodchangelab.org/peoples-food-summit-participants-committed-to-change-ugandan-food-systems/

http://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/en/c/522288/

Proceedings / 272

- The International Institute for Environment and Development (hereafter: IIED) (partnering and support in KRC research efforts)

8. Which partner(s) initiated the MSP? How the MSP may have evolved? Hivos, IIED and KRC initiated the Uganda Food Change Lab in 2015. From its set-up, the MSP has been run by KRC, that involved a range of actors around the convening question / issue: planning for the future of Kabarole / Fort Portal’s food system. At the Lab’s first big public event, the People’s Summit on Food in Apri l 2016, a new MSP emerged with key representatives from different sectors: the Coalition of the Willing (CoW). The CoW consists of a group local individuals from varying sectors, carrying a common concern and ambition of positively changing the food system of Fort Portal and its hinterland. The Lab now works on two levels. ‘On the ground’ in Fort Portal and Kabarole district, KRC is supporting the CoW in implementing behavioural change activities such as nutritional talk shows on KRC FM, mobilizing urban and rural households to promote healthy eating (especially indigenous food varieties) and mobilizing informal street food vendors to constitute their leadership and acquire legitimacy for better negotiations with the municipality. On a second level, KRC translates feedback from the CoW and findings from its own research into advocacy messages on local and national level. So far, they have succeeded in convincing the National Planning Authority in Kampala to explicitly plan for food systems; they have successfully mediated between streetfood vendors and municipality, that are now cooperating to make the city’s informal food system more healthy and safe; have successfully advocated to amend a district ordinance on production and environment (stemming from 2006) with the aim of increasing local production of commercial food products; and are engaging in discussion with the nation’s Parliamentary Forum on Nutrition to enact a bylaw to ensure that the 1935 Public Health act outlawing street food vending is amended to reflect the new realities of emerging food system.In 2018, the Food Change Lab will invest more efforts to support a range of prototypes; concrete ideas for interventions to spur local processing.

9. Degree of formalization: does the MSP result of an informal agreement, or is there a formal structure of decision-making? (…) full legal entity: legal personality(X) formalized agreement among partners, but no legal personality for the MSP(X) informal arrangement

Funding relationship between Hivos and KRC is formalised. The MSP itself is an informal arrangement between KRC, the CoW and local partners.

Describe the decision-making process (including frequency of meetings of the governing bodies…)Hivos rewards funding to KRC after receiving a detailed project plan outlining activities for the coming funding cycle (usually up to 2 years). With this funding, KRC runs its advocacy programme and supports the local CoW, by means of forging connections and providing small seed funding for activities. The Cow has a loose leadership structure, convening its members to collect plan, reflect, make decisions and execute



Proceedings / 273

activities. They meet on a quarterly basis, together with KRC, for review and planning. They act on the basis of an activity and advocacy plan with a clear timeframe. All Foodlab actors (KRC, the CoW, local and national government, Hivos and IIED) all meet annually, during recurring People’s Food Summit events. At these events, experiences and results are shared and new commitments are made and recorded by different sectors.


Funding party: Hivos. Role: fund management and supporting and linking to national-level advocacyFounding / convening partner: KRC. Role and responsibility: advocacy on local, district and national level; support of local CoW, organisation of annual Food Summits, executing of researchMain local partner: Coalition of the Willing (CoW). Role and responsibility: local-level awareness raising and campaigning on sustainable food. Receives support by KRCOther partner:

- International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED, UK). Role: supporting KRC in evidence generation and analysis

Party’s:- Kabarole District Council- Kabarole District Nutrition Coordination Committee- Uganda Multi-Sectoral Food Security and Nutrition Project- Religious leaders - Media, e.g. KRC Radio - Food Rights Alliance (linking local practices to national policy engagements)

These party’s are members of the Food Change Lab. This means they are regularly engaged at events and smaller activities. They do not carry a formal role or responsibility in the Lab.

11. Representativeness: How and by whom are the members chosen? Do they speak only for themselves or represent a broader category of stakholders? How long is their mandate? How does the MSP ensure inclusiveness and “fair” representation of the most affected people? Members are not chosen, the Food Change Lab is free to join. Most members of the Foodlab have joined through KRC outreach. Stakeholders can also freely join the CoW. Members are driven by passion to influence the food systems. Since inception, different actors have joined the group along the way, such as chefs, and women are also purposely represented and included. As the group has a horizontal leadership structure, there is no such thing as mandate.

The philosophy of the Food Change Lab centers around inclusivity and citizen agency in informing advocacy efforts. If planners and policymakers don’t meet people where they are, their plans can overlook and work against the vast but often invisible food systems of low income people, including the women who play such a critical role in food production, trade, vending and consumption. The Lab uses specific methodology that allows a diverse set of stakeholders to enhance their understanding of the system around them, including their own role, by taking different perspectives. Participants are invited to speak and listen with an open mind to differing voices and perspectives and all wisdoms are treated equally. Large part of the Lab’s



Proceedings / 274

stakeholders are farmers and low-income rural and urban citizens – the people most affected by flaws in the local food system, while at the same time being the people that hold part of the seeds for solutions.

What are the channels of communication between the MSP and the government(s)? Are the decisions/recommendations of the MSP to the government(s) are prescriptive or consultative? What public strategies/priorities this partnership supported at different scales? KRC is the main communication focal point of the municipal and district government. National government is engaged by KRC and Hivos. KRC generates and communicates the evidence that encourages government actors to reflect on critical issues concerning the food system and make commitment to address these issues. KRC (and Hivos at national level) regularly follows up with government representatives to side track progress on these commitments and communicates these commitments to Lab stakeholders and a larger audience, via traditional and social media, progress reports and newsletters.

12. Finance: How and by whom the MSP is funded? Who underwrites the partnership? Add relevant data about the budget, and budget share of each category of partners (public, private, civil society). Is the budget sufficient for work plan implementation? What are the financial tools and mechanisms used by the MSP? Hivos (an international NGO), under the banner of the Sustainable Diets for All programme, is the donor of KRC (civil society), that convenes the Food Change Lab. The Sustainable Diets for All programme is an advocacy programme that uses evidence, including evidence generated by citizens, to help low- income communities in Zambia, Uganda, Indonesia and Bolivia improve their access to sustainable, diverse and nutritious food. The 5-year (2016-2020) programme is coordinated by Hivos, IIED, and partners in the focal countries and is funded by the Dutch Foreign Ministry. KRC has received funding from Hivos (E 117.000) over these last two years and currently renewing its contract and funding cycle.From this budget, KRC is paying for activities implemented by the CoW.KRC is using their own financial tools and mechanisms to administer the budget for CoW activities.KRC and the other members of the CoW invest a significant own contribution, mainly in human resources.

II) OUTCOMES

13. What is the main function of the MSP? Is it mainly: (X)“policy-oriented”(X) “action-oriented”

The Food Change Lab combines advocacy with concrete interventions on the ground. A Lab is a problem-solving multi-stakeholder platform that develops ideas for solutions and supports those initial prototypes before they will be taken on by the broader ecosystem. But by involving policy makers in the Lab as well, it is a mechanism of ‘inclusive lobbying’; policy makers themselves are involved in analysis of the issues and coming up with potential solutions. And as many of the issues the Lab is working on are linked to policy, part of the Lab’s efforts focus on changing policy and policy implementation.

14. What are the main areas of contribution of the MSP? Please tick in the table below the main, secondary



Proceedings / 275

and tertiary areas of contribution of the MSP.

For each of the areas of contribution mentioned above, please give examples of the MSP outcomes and impacts1. Kabarole district Local Government was influenced to review the production and environment ordinance to integrate sustainable diets for rural and urban households.2. Orugali women have been instrumental in mobilizing their neighbours (women and children) through orugali food fests to discuss food production and consumption issues / healthy diets. 3. The Coalition of the Willing has improved its advocacy capacity and has been proactively engaged in community level nutrition advocacy activities to influence behaviour change in the food system.5. By means of knowledge sharing and awareness raising, the Lab has improved agronomic practices by smallholder farmers (e.g. banana) in Kabarole district, which has positively contributed to soil and water conservation in the farm lands. This has been achieved though complimentary programmes of KRC targeting the same local actors.6. Women and youth in Kabarole district have adopted safe processing practices to add value to their agriculture products such banana. For example the farmers in Kasende sub county in Kabarole district were supported by KRC in banana wine and juice processing. These farmers have increased their production, incomes and ensured better nutrition for their families.




X


X


X



X


X


8. Other (Specify: ________________)


Proceedings / 276

What are the main organizational and collective benefits gained from setting-up this MSP? The main achievements include 1) collective agency to advocate for better policies and programmes to reshape the food system in Kabarole district and the municipality. 2) Generated knowledge through action research, reflections and community engagements such as Orugali food fests. 3) The capacity of KRC as a local NGO has been enhanced through partnerships in areas of research, advocacy and community engagement; 4) Increased spaces of engagements with government and civil society to discuss food policies and programmes.


15. Please rank your overall assessment of the MSP, ranking from 1 to 5 (with 1 being lowest to 5 highest)4

16. Explain your above rankingThe MSP has been very successful in knowledge generation and translating that knowledge into awareness raising and advocacy messages (and outcomes). Very tangible outcomes have been achieved in a relatively short timeframe, such as municipality’s provision of safe selling spaces for informal food vendors, which impacts the food system of the urban poor. Improvement is to be sought in the area of resource mobilisation to implement concrete projects, especially when it comes to spurring local processing capacity of this fertile, yet poor, region.



Inclusiveness(the intention to include everyone affected by decisions, especially those who are routinely ignored)

X

Accountability(assigned responsibility that a representative or a group acquires with the action of speaking or deciding on behalf of someone else)

X

Transparency/Access to Information(openness to public scrutiny, availability of information)

X

Reflexivity(capacity of a MSP to learn from mistakes, to assess long-term trends, and to react accordingly

X



Proceedings / 277

Effectiveness(assessment of the achievement of MSP’s objectives)

X

Efficiency(comparison between the use of resources with the potential benefits the MSP can generate, including intangible benefits)

X

Resource mobilisation(raising of financial resources, and other enabling resources to improve FSN)

X

Impact(impact on FSN in its four dimensions at different scales)

X

18. Any comments on the above ratings:Promising tangible and intangible results have been measured, but it is too soon to measure ‘impact’ yet. There’s still many challenges to tackle and especially policy change (and implementation) is a long-term process.

19. How do you rate the power relations between participants? (choose one option) ( X ) Equal( ) Less Equal

20. Explain your above ratingPower relations are equal within a platform such as the CoW. However inside the whole Food Change Lab, there’s a funding dependency relationship. The funding base needs to be broadened to create more equality.


21. Could you identify current strengths supporting and/or weakness challenging the MSP? Strengths:

- Level of engagement of the actors; from poor Foodlab members (such as farmers and street food vendors) to policy makers at the municipality: all see the benefits of the Food Change Lab and are eager to be part of its activities and process

- A sound knowledge base for advocacy efforts. KRC is an established organisation with great knowledge of the local food system, and the Food Change Lab has compiled an impressive amount of new data (on urban and rural diets – by means of food diaries) over the last two years.



Proceedings / 278

- Strong local convening power. KRC is a recognised actor and can easily convene local, and even national actors

Challenges:- Sustainability. A minimum amount of funding is required to keep on running advocacy efforts, on

the ground awareness raising activities, and implementation of prototypes. Current funding runs until 2020; who will take it on from there? Funding diversification is a key priority for the Food Change Lab/

- Local private sector is only limited involved.


Opportunities:- Opportunities for local entrepreneurs / youth, to capitalise on the region’s agricultural and

processing potential. Knowledge and resources are needed to spur this – the Lab can help in leveraging (part of) this.

Threats:- Shrinking civic space and political changes could affect the willingness of different actors to work

together. The last political change in Fort Portal, a new mayor from another political party, did not affect the continuity of the food change lab. But this could be different next time.

23. Which conditions could enable the MSP to better function?- Putting more resources/efforts into documentation / communication. This can grow the movement (CSOs in other districts have already shown interest in the employed Food Diary research method), mobilise change agents (such as policy makers) and funding resources for sustainability of the Lab.- Formalising the CoW. They have indicated that lack of an official legal status effects their convening and speaking power.


The MSP has already shown results in influencing public priorities towards improving FSN, such as a commitment from MPs to review the outdated 1932 Public Health Act; revitalisation of the District Coordination Committee on Nutrition (a formerly ‘sleeping body’, now actively engaged in the Food Change Lab); and municipal awareness on access to healthy food in the informal food economy for low-income urban dwellers.A large part still hinges on policy change and implementation. More voice / ‘clout’ (and therefore funding) is needed to push for change in the short run. KRC and Hivos have put resource mobilisation more prominent on the agenda for 2018.

25. What is the potential of this MSP to address the specific needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups



Proceedings / 279

most affected by food insecurity and malnutrition?

Inclusivity is a core trait of the Food Change Lab. It is the first body in Fort Portal that has succeeded in bringing together vulnerable populations and policy makers and actually having policy makers listen to these stakeholders. The Foodlab methodology has proven instrumental in this matter. The food diaries generated by the citizens themselves will provide powerful evidence to influence policy makers and other stakeholders.


Hivos and IIED are also running Food Change Labs in Zambia and Indonesia, and in Bolivia, one will be taking off mid 2018. Hivos has employed a Foodlab coordinator in its global office in The Hague, that is responsible for sharing learnings and supporting the different Labs in the design of their process. Some conditions for scaling up/out this MSP experience:

- Knowledge sharing on methodology- Proper design and budgeting throughout the whole Lab cycle- Securing a local partner with strong convening power- Spending ample time on evidence generation, and preferably citizen-generated evidence (paper by

Hivos/IIED on this topic will be launched in April 2018)

REFERENCES


- A very detailed story of this MSP up till 2016: “Uganda Food Change Lab: Planning for the food system of Kabarole district”, by Busiinge C. Amooti, Bill Vorley and Felia Boerwinkel. Hivos, IIED and KRC, September 2016. http://www.foodchangelab.org/assets/2016/09/food-lab-pub.pdf- Sustainable Value chains for sustainable food systems, a workshop of FAO/UNEP Programme on Sustainable Food Systems, FAO Rome 2016. Food Innovation labs, from farm to fork page 79-86. http://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/en/c/522288/

- Hivos has a body of studies on Multi-Actor initiatives in several countries:

https://www.hivos.org/case-study-multi-actor-sumba-iconic-island-initiative



https://www.hivos.org/case-study-multi-actor-sumba-iconic-island-initiative

http://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/en/c/522288/

http://www.foodchangelab.org/assets/2016/09/food-lab-pub.pdf

Proceedings / 280

https://www.hivos.org/case-study-rural-value-chains-project-guatemalahttps://www.hivos.org/case-study-stop-child-labour-campaign-multi-actor-initiative

- On Social Labs: https://www.hivos.org/how-social-labs-cultivate-change-through-innovation-and-collaboration




https://www.hivos.org/how-social-labs-cultivate-change-through-innovation-and-collaboration

https://www.hivos.org/how-social-labs-cultivate-change-through-innovation-and-collaboration

https://www.hivos.org/case-study-stop-child-labour-campaign-multi-actor-initiative

https://www.hivos.org/case-study-rural-value-chains-project-guatemala