HLPE e-consultation on the Report’s scope, proposed by the HLPE Steering Committee

HLPE report on Multistakeholder Partnerships to

Finance and Improve Food Security and Nutrition in the Framework of

the 2030 AgendaFrom 7 December 2016 to 31 January 2017

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

− Collection of contributions 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

Proceedings / 2

Table of contents

Topic.......................................................................................................................3Contributions received...........................................................................................6

1. Abdul Rahim Khan, Post Harvest Research Centre, Pakistan........................62. Sarah Tanvir..................................................................................................63. Durlave Roy, Bangladesh..............................................................................64. Amanda Pomeroy-Stevens, SPRING Project, United States of America.........75. Salvador Peña, Sinú Verde, Colombia...........................................................76. Claudio Schuftan, Viet Nam...........................................................................87. Elliot Berry, Braun School of Public Health, Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel......................................................................108. Bettina Prato, IFAD, Italy.............................................................................149. Haydee Bolivar, Bolivian Republic of Venezuela..........................................1510. Jaime Saul Batz Jerez, Guatemala............................................................15

www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe

Proceedings / 3

TopicDuring 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 its report elaboration process, the HLPE is launching an e-consultation to seek views and comments on the following scope and building blocks of the report, outlined below, as proposed by the HLPE Steering Committee.

To participate, please visit the dedicated HLPE e-consultation website:

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

Please note that in parallel to this consultation, the HLPE is calling for expression of interests of experts for joining the Project Team as a leader and/or as a member. The Project Team will be selected by end of March 2017 and will work from April 2017 to June 2018. The call for candidature is open until 31 January 2017; visit the HLPE website www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe for more details.

Proposed draft Scope of the HLPE Reportby the HLPE Steering Committee

Multistakeholder partnerships (MSPs) combine resources and expertise of different actors, which has made them attractive as a way to address complex issues that cannot easily be solved by a single actor. MSPs are identified in SDG 17 (in particular articles 17.6 and 17.7) as a central tool in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. They will be key in sharing experiences, technologies, knowledges, and in mobilising domestic and foreign, public and private resources, in line with the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) and with the CFS principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food systems (CFS-RAI).

The report shall explore the notion of multistakeholder partnerships related to food security and nutrition, looking at both processes and outcomes. The report shall assess the effectiveness of MSPs in realizing their objectives, in financing and improving FSN outcomes, as well as their contribution to

www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe

Proceedings / 4

the governance of food systems. The report shall suggest methods to map the different categories of MSPs, and criteria to assess them against the objective of improving their contribution to FSN in the framework of the 2030 Agenda.

The report shall address the following questions:

- Who are the stakeholders in food security and nutrition? What are the interests and motivations of each stakeholder? How to attract and retain partners? What are their various levels of responsibility?

- How to define “multistakeholder partnership” for food security and nutrition? What are the existing types of partnerships for financing and improving food security and nutrition? What are the tensions between the nature of these stakeholders and the functions of the partnerships?

- What are the goals, effectiveness, impact and performance of various forms of MSPs in reaching FSN objectives, in the context of the 2030 Agenda? What criteria, indicators, qualitative or quantitative approaches and methodologies could be used to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability, and value added for different types of MSPs?

- To what extent do existing MSPs influence national, regional and international policies and programmes for FSN?

- What are the potential controversies related to MSPs?

- What are/should be the respective roles and responsibilities of public, private stakeholders and civil society in such partnerships? What should be the respective contributions of each in the financing and improvement of FSN?

- How to ensure to all stakeholders a “fair” representation in multistakeholder decision making process? How to ensure meaningful and effective participation of the people affected by the MSP, in the decision-making process, including in the setting and implementation of priorities?

- How to improve MSPs in order to better implement the SDGs and improve FSN? What incentives mechanisms and legal and financial tools could be the most effective, efficient in this perspective? How the choice of the tools impacts on the governance and on the effectiveness of MSPs?

Do these questions correctly reflect the main issues to be covered?

Are you aware of references, examples, success stories, innovative practices and case studies that could be of interest for the preparation of this report? What are the existing MSPs related to FSN that you consider more relevant and why?

www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe

Proceedings / 5

The report shall provide a concise and focused review of the evidence-base, coming from diverse forms of knowledge and suggest concrete recommendations directed to different categories of stakeholders, in order to contribute to the design of policies, initiatives and investments required for MSPs to contribute to successfully finance and implement the 2030 Agenda.

On the basis of the analysis, the report will identify the conditions of success of MSPs and elaborate concrete, actionable, actor-oriented policy recommendations to fuel CFS policy discussions in October 2018.

***

We look forward to a rich and fruitful consultation.

The HLPE Steering Committee

www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe

Proceedings / 6

Contributions received

1. Abdul Rahim Khan, Post Harvest Research Centre, PakistanResearch & development is a dedicated job in the greater interest of others. I sure when you do the job for the prosperity of other people, you will get own prosperity in the return. When I started work on postharvest technology in 1992 people did not take interest in it because mostly people earn higher degrees as a cosmetic of basic education. Now I am seeing people just write a thesis or a scientific paper with a word "postharvest" and try to prove they know each and every thing. Being a postharvest technologist I feel it is not good and does not favor the task. Postharvest starts journey from commodity maturity level and end at processing. During this travelling many stations come and each and every station has its own requirements for specific time. This is known as postharvest technology of specific commodity.

Try to search right people for right job. Grooming of young scientists under the supervision experienced professional.

2. Sarah TanvirThe best way to better implement the SDGs is by giving education and awareness to stake holders involved. Food security is a multi factorial factor with multiple stake holders and everyone should be brought on one table to bring a effective strategy and to implement it for beneficial results.

3. Durlave Roy, BangladeshMultistakeholder partnership = Investment of agricultural by 4P (public private people partnership) model, People means farmers/growers, Must needed agricultural knowledge background professionaL

Criteria of Project Farmers’ Selection

· Farmers should be progressive and educated

· Farmers should be innovative

· Farmers should be cooperative

· Farmers should be participatory

· Farmers should be hard working

· Farmers should have leadership capacity

www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe

Proceedings / 7

Farmers are not so aware about the rapid change in agricultural technology and information. For them to keep track of these rapid changes, extension will play a big role in terms of knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) development. To strengthen the capacity of small-scale farmers, it is necessary to integrate the following factors: agricultural credit, production inputs and organized marketing strategies through a comprehensive agricultural extension programme.

The technology disseminated must meet the needs of farmers and has to be modified and adapted to the farmers’ condition in each locality to make it more appropriate and relevant. KAP development must build upon farmers as the learning base for enhanced capacity building. Farmers need to participate in the development of work plan to adopt a new innovation.

4. Amanda Pomeroy-Stevens, SPRING Project, United States of America

I want to draw your attention to the recently completed research by SPRING on the influence of multi-sectoral nutrition plans (and the stakeholders who implement them) on nutrition activity prioritization and financing. Our findings on the drivers (or motivation) of change, including multi-sectoral coordination, advocacy, ownership, and identity among other things, could be quite useful to answering the questions laid out for this report.

Please find these reports at our website (www.spring-nutrition.org/pbn) or in the latest supplement in Food and Nutrition Bulletin (http://fnb.sagepub.com/content/37/4_suppl.toc), alongside similarly relevant research from our colleagues at Nutrition Innovation Lab.

Finally, other colleagues on SPRING have done some formative work on coordination and integration specifically for agriculture and nutrition programs - this work can be found here: https://www.spring-nutrition.org/technical-areas/ag-nut/agriculture-and-nutrition-coordination-and-integration.

5. Salvador Peña, Sinú Verde, Colombia Para financiar y mejorar la seguridad alimentaria en el contexto de los países de américa latina, es necesario partir de la base de mejorar la inclusión financiera especialmente en sector rural. Muchos campesinos no tienen una cuenta bancaria la cual es fundamental para acceder diferentes tipos de incentivos institucionales y crédito para cultivos. La cobertura e infraestructura de servicios de internet es escasa en el campo y limita también el acceso a información relevante tanto para la producción como para acceso a políticas de incentivos.

A nivel de instituciones financieras debe desarrollarse un sistema de micro créditos especialmente para cubrir el agro. Gran parte de los campesinos requiere financiamiento por cantidades muy pequeñas que el sistema bancario actual no cubre y no se adapta a estas necesidades, a excepción de pequeñas entidades financieras.

Finalmente, para contribuir a la seguridad alimentaria también debería existir políticas públicas e incentivos en el uso de semillas mejoradas y certificadas, acceso a tecnologías de riego y conexión directa con los canales de comercialización.

www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe

Proceedings / 8

6. Claudio Schuftan, Viet Nam Multistakeholder partnerships (MSPs) combine resources and expertise of different actors, which has made them attractive to whom? And to whom not? and why? as a way to address complex issues that cannot easily be solved by a single actor. MSPs are identified in SDG 17 (in particular articles 17.6 and 17.7) as a central tool in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. They will be key in sharing experiences, technologies, knowledges, and in mobilising domestic and foreign, public and private resources, in line with the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) which was criticized by PICSOs and social movements and with the CFS principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food systems (CFS-RAI).

The report shall explore the notion of multistakeholder partnerships related to food security and nutrition, looking at both processes and outcomes. There are examples: Take the SUN Initiative which has little to show-for in terms of impact after many years. (*) The report shall assess the effectiveness of MSPs in realizing their objectives, in financing and improving FSN outcomes, as well as their contribution to the governance of food systems. The CoI issue has not been resolved and is a real impediment. (**) By definition, PPPs, the accompanying mechanism of MSPs, create financial and/or other economic dependencies of public institutions on private sector actors and will thus invariably create an economic, and a social and institutional, incentive for public institutions to align their policies with the commercial interests of private sector actors. Such an alignment will always compromise the objectivity and independence of public institutions. The report shall suggest methods to map the different categories of MSPs, and criteria to assess them against the objective of improving their contribution to FSN in the framework of the 2030 Agenda. This assessment has to be done in the light of the private sector always prevailing in PPPs and in MSPs.

The report shall address the following questions:

Who are the stakeholders? in food security and nutrition? What are the interests and motivations of each stakeholder? How to attract and retain partners? What are their various levels of responsibility? Why does the HLPE not use claim holders and duty bearers? These two have totally different motivations; ‘stakeholders’ hides these HR-based motivations. (This bullet has to be rewritten) The State always has to bare the major responsibility.

How to define “multistakeholder partnership” for food security and nutrition? What are the existing types of partnerships for financing and improving food security and nutrition? What are the tensions between the nature of these stakeholders? and the functions of the partnerships? MSPs for food and nutrition are no different from other MSPs. In all of them, the tensions are in the realm of the different motivations of claim holders and duty bearers and in the unresolved issue of CoI. Partnerships have to mean each partner (not forgetting PICSOs) has the same power: not the case in existing PPPs and MSPs where the playing field is not leveled.

www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe

Proceedings / 9

What are the goals, effectiveness, impact and performance of various forms of MSPs in reaching FSN objectives, in the context of the 2030 Agenda? As mentioned, what does SUN, the main MSP in our field, have to show for in terms of impact? What criteria, indicators, qualitative or quantitative approaches and methodologies could be used to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability, and value added for different types of MSPs? PPPs and MSPs have little or no transparency; inclusiveness has, more often than not, meant cooptation of private sector partner interests. PPPs and MSPs have little, if any, accountability to claim holders (e.g., SUN). Given this, one can question their added value.

To what extent do existing MSPs influence national, regional and international policies and programmes for FSN? SUN has/is influenced/ing FSN, but this boils down to mostly declarations and high level endorsements with little if any investments by private sector members. More and more, private sector participants in MSPs are now in a crusade to influence international policies and nutrition governance --including in UN agencies.

What are the potential controversies related to MSPs? Many as per above, plus a whole well known literature about it.

What are/should be the respective roles and responsibilities of public, private stakeholders and civil society in such partnerships? What should be the respective contributions of each in the financing and improvement of FSN? Given that PPPs and MSPs are, for now, a fait-accompli, the public sector has to have/regain the final word. PICSOs and social movements are always to be members and lead in demanding accountability; they are to be veritable watchdogs. The private sector in PPPs and MSPs is to actually invest real financial resources “to address the complex issues” the HLPE wants addressed (and not to pursue their interests quite removed from human rights considerations).

How to ensure to all stakeholders? a “fair” representation in multistakeholder decision making process? As of now, there is no fair representation --it gives the private partner undue power. PICSOs and social movements are to act as monitors representing claim holders whose right to food is being violated. How to ensure meaningful and effective participation of the people affected by the MSP, in the decision-making process, including in the setting and implementation of priorities? This is an absolute prerequisite before any PPP or MSP is set up. Not the case now.

How to improve MSPs in order to better implement the SDGs and improve FSN? The HLPE must come up with a balanced report that includes valid critiques of MSPs. What incentives mechanisms and legal and financial tools could be the most effective, efficient in this perspective? The HLPE has the moral authority to warn about the dangers of PPPs and MSPs; the report should not shy away from this. How will the choice of tools impact on the governance and on the effectiveness of MSPs? Depends on what tools. Regulatory tools are needed to control the role of the private partners. The choice of other tools is quite irrelevant if the HLPE does not recommend such regulation.

Do these questions correctly reflect the main issues to be covered? Do we really need MSPs with private sector involvement if not properly regulated? This is not asked.

Are you aware of references, examples, success stories, innovative practices and case studies that could be of interest for the preparation of this report? What are the existing MSPs related to FSN that you consider more relevant and why? For sure SUN, since UN agencies are (to me wrongly)

www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe

Proceedings / 10

heavily involved. [This calls for an objective and dispassionate (“evidence-based”) evaluation of SUN by the HLPE]. The HLPE is to look at the IBFAN website for many references on PPPs, MSPs and CoI.

The report shall provide a concise and focused review of the evidence-base, coming from diverse forms of knowledge and suggest concrete recommendations directed to different categories of stakeholders, in order to contribute to the design of policies, initiatives and investments required for MSPs to contribute to successfully finance and implement the 2030 Agenda. I would end asking: Is it fair to take MSPs as a fait accompli? Is it too late to question them?

On the basis of the analysis, the report will identify the conditions of success and failure? of MSPs and elaborate concrete, balanced, actionable, actor-oriented policy recommendations to fuel CFS policy discussions in October 2018. (***)

____

(*): As regards the right to food, the SDGs quite predictably will give priority to the SUN Initiative.... This can realistically be foreseen and the question is what the HLPE can do about it given the many-times-pointed-out conflicts of interest the role of the private sector plays in it and in the forthcoming Decade of Action for Nutrition. As pertains to the latter, there simply are only counted socially-minded governments to take up the CFS recommendations so we cannot rely on them. In a way, holding governments accountable --even if to civil society-- is post facto (we act when we confirm they do not act). In the spirit of the human rights framework, PICSOs and social movements are expected to demand changes, i.e., challenge governments upfront.

(**): As PICSOs and social movements, we are critical-of, but not private sector bashers. We look at what is happening with CoI, PPPs, FTAs, multistakeholder platforms… and what is the common denominator? An increasing interference in public decision-making.

PPPs and MSPs too often hide the fundamental conflict of interest between the profit-oriented enterprises with a transnational orientation and the societies being subject to these partnerships. This being the fashion, foreign aid also reinforces the existing power imbalances in which the rich countries of the North and BRIC countries act as donors.

(***): HLPE members are encouraged to read the recent blog by Nora Mckeon on this topic at https://foodgovernance.com/category/cfs-blog-series/

7. Elliot Berry, Braun School of Public Health, Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel

SDG 17 Partnerships for the Goals

Elliot M Berry MD, FRCP, Braun School of Public Health, Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel

Elliotb@ekmd.huji.ac.il

www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe

Proceedings / 11

My comments relate to Sustainable Food Systems:

1. Who are the stakeholders in food security and nutrition? What are the interests and motivations of each stakeholder? How to attract and retain partners? What are their various levels of responsibility?

The number of stakeholders are indeed many and include:

Government (Health, Nutrition, Agriculture, Environment, Education, Finance (economics), and Justice),

Local Authorities (Urban Planning), Agriculture (farmers), Environment, Health Professions, Industry, Catering sectors, Academia, Media, NGOs, Civil Society and the Consumer public. and more…

It is a major challenge how to get all these actors to participate and work together

2. How to define “multistakeholder partnership” for food security and nutrition?(FSN) What are the existing types of partnerships for financing and improving food security and nutrition? What are the tensions between the nature of these stakeholders and the functions of the partnerships?

I think it will be very difficult to get partnerships together unless the subject is broken up into distinct categories. For example 1) Sustainability/ (Environment, Economics and Socio-cultural aspects) and then the 4 dimensions of Food Security 2) Availability 3) Accessibility 4) Utilization and 5) Stability. One can use the existing framework developed by the UN 10 year program to bring representatives together. But there is always problems in translating expert opinion (“Top down”) into National policy and action.

Another complementary way should be” Bottom-up” in that countries and regions should perform their own needs assessment and prioritize them. Then teams can be built up to best answer their needs.

3. What are the goals, effectiveness, impact and performance of various forms of MSPs in reaching FSN objectives, in the context of the 2030 Agenda? What criteria, indicators, qualitative or

www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe

Proceedings / 12

quantitative approaches and methodologies could be used to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability, and value added for different types of MSPs?

As an exercise it is possible to show that all 17 SDGs may be involved in Sustainable Food Systems

Figure 1 : Sustainable Food Systems and the SDG goals

We will have to find suitable metrics (composite indices) through which it may be possible to monitor the dimensions of FSN.

www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe

SUSTAINABLE FOOD (SECURE) SYSTEMS & SD GOALS

STABILITY

UTILIZATIONIndividual

ACCESSIBILITYHousehold

AVAILABILITYNational

ENVIRONMENTRegional

Proceedings / 13

To what extent do existing MSPs influence national, regional and international policies and programmes for FSN?

The United States Department of Agriculture offers grants to farmers, ranchers, educators, researchers, nonprofits, and students to promote innovations in sustainable agriculture.

Britain’s Department for Environmental, Food, and Rural Affairs has launched a research project to investigate ways to increase farm productivity while decreasing negative environmental effects.

France created a Ministry for Sustainable Development and added a Charter for the Environment to their constitution. Globally, there is a focus on reducing food waste, with France even making it illegal for supermarkets to throw away otherwise good food.

Brazil includes the right to food in its Constitution, and has become known for its success with reducing malnutrition through its national Zero Hunger program. Many countries have standards for food fortification to improve nutritional quality of food.

The UK, the Netherlands, and Scandinavian countries all have laws restricting the advertisement of food to children. In France, food advertisements for children must include one of four health messages (such as the importance of physical activity, limiting sugar, and eating more fruits and vegetables), otherwise advertisers face a fine.

4. What are the potential controversies related to MSPs?

Everyone agrees that they are important (in theory). But what happens to their recommendations? It all depends on their mandate and who convened them. MSPs need to know a priori what is expected of them and what are the commitments of their conveners for ACTION!

5. What are/should be the respective roles and responsibilities of public, private stakeholders and civil society in such partnerships? What should be the respective contributions of each in the financing and improvement of FSN?

Public Private Partnerships are very important regarding Funding. Analogous to the general non-identifiable funds to combat HIV/AIDS from the drug industry, The food Industry should be approached to give open donations to promote FSN, I feel strongly that we have to involve the food industry in the discussions to work together to improve the quality of their products (salt, sugars and fats and labeling).

Another concern is the remuneration of the members of the MSPs for their time and travel expenses, when they have to rely on their own funds..

6. How to ensure to all stakeholders a “fair” representation in multistakeholder decision making process? How to ensure meaningful and effective participation of the people affected by the MSP, in the decision-making process, including in the setting and implementation of priorities?

Fair representation requires also commitment. One “cannot please all the people all the time”. The

www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe

Proceedings / 14

nature of the stakeholders will depend on the topic / priority under discussion. In the Figure 1 above it is possible to position the stakeholders listed in 1 supra.

Also, we need to ensure Geographic Representation and that the members are not weighted towards Developed countries.

7. How to improve MSPs in order to better implement the SDGs and improve FSN? What incentives mechanisms and legal and financial tools could be the most effective, efficient in this perspective? How the choice of the tools impact on the governance and on the effectiveness of MSPs?

I do not have knowledge on this point. I am sure we can learn from the experience of large organizations.

8. Do these questions correctly reflect the main issues to be covered?

I think so. The point to be made (again) is that success of MSPs will depend on their purpose and their ability to achieve results

9. Are you aware of references, examples, success stories, innovative practices and case studies that could be of interest for the preparation of this report? What are the existing MSPs related to FSN that you consider more relevant and why?

The UN 10 year Program Framework

Thank you

Elliot Berry

8. Bettina Prato, IFAD, Italy

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this eConsultation. The proposed scope for this forthcoming HLPE report indeed covers a range of important questions. It may, however, be strengthened by clearly positioning multi-stakeholder partnerships, defined in a clear and rigorous manner, in the broader context of the necessary alignment of efforts by different actors (including duty bearers, right holders, and other "stakeholders") towards the realization of the 2030 Agenda and of sustainable development more broadly.

www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe

Proceedings / 15

Concretely, one suggestion would involve:

1. Clearly articulating early on in the text the need to better ALIGN the efforts of different groups of actors to realize the 2030 Agenda and the AAAA, with particular focus on the two, distinct though inter-related challenges of a) boosting supply of and inclusive access to finance for agriculture and the agri-food sector and b) ending hunger and malnutrition.2. Presenting various models of PARTNERSHIP proper – including those that bring together different groups of "stakeholders" – as specific types of instruments to achieve the needed alignment, though by no means the only ones nor the ones most appropriate in all contexts or for all specific aspects of the two challenges listed at point 1.3. Structuring the report to make room both for the broader question of alignment and for the narrower question of "partnerships".

Please note that this input is provided on a personal capacity and not as an institutional contribution.

With best regards,

Bettina Prato

9. Haydee Bolivar, Bolivian Republic of VenezuelaLa experiencia y conocimientos de muchos especialistas en seguridad alimentaria y nutrición contribuirá a la implementación de la Agenda 2030, a través de acciones y estrategias conjuntas para el logro de los objetivos del desarrollo sostenible a nivel local y regional, nacional e internacional, con la participación también de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil y autoridades en todos los ámbitos de decisión a nivel mundial. En este sentido, propongo que se organicen eventos nacionales e internacionales a nivel de las comunidades locales de Venezuela y América Latina, y desarrollar proyectos en rubros agrícolas de alto impacto en la seguridad alimentaria y nutrición en toda la cadena de valor, y elevar su producción, aunado con la administración y gestión agrícola. Al mismo tiempo brindar educación y capacitación a nivel de agricultores y técnicos de campo proporcionando herramientas de administración, registros, y gestión de negocios agropecuarios, y con ello garantizar la seguridad alimentaria al menos hasta el 2030.

www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe

Proceedings / 16

10. Jaime Saul Batz Jerez, Guatemala

La falta de oportunidades de la poblacion rural e indigena de Guatemala a tener acceso a micro creditos con tasas a su nivel con capacitacion y asesoria incide significativamente a una Inseguridad alimentaria y por ende a una mala nutricion.

El sistema de concejos de Desarrollo es una alternativa que aun no se le ha dado el valor agregado, debe fortalecerse por medio de las comisiones de SAN, con enfasis en la organizacion comunitaria, ya que solo con la participacion de ellos se lograran mejores resultados para el año 2030. es indispensable que los recursos lleguen en mayores cantidades a la poblacion y no en lo administrativo.

El empoderamiento de la mujer es una obligacion que debe fortalecerse como eje principal de la seguridad alimentaria.

 

www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe