Interview with Adeline Lescanne, CEO of the Nutriset group – a French manufacturer producing high-nutritional value foods to prevent and treat malnutrition in vulnerable populations worldwide. She is the founder of PlumpyField®, an international network of independent agro-industrial partners within the Nutriset Group across 11 countries. A development engineer with expertise in sociology and rural development, Adeline has lead the Nutriset Group since 2012, with a deep commitment to creating a fairer, more sustainable world by actively pursuing transformative goals: envisioning the future of food systems, promoting the use of locally sourced plant-based raw materials, creating new food formulas, and building effective distribution networks for essential goods.
1/In your view, what are the most effective ways to improve the performance and efficiency of nutrition delivery in humanitarian contexts?
We believe that, in order to be more effective in delivering our products and services, we need greater long-term visibility. Currently, we provide a wide range of products, but improved visibility would enable us to develop more services and support, whilst reducing costs, as we would have a clearer understanding of where the needs lie.
In our view, the key issue is that financial frameworks tend to follow political calendars rather than the operational realities of programmes on the ground. If funding were more multi-annual and predictable, whilst needs remain broadly constant, this would allow for better planning. We could pre-position stocks and better prepare our responses. Furthermore, we are now far more able to predict crises and needs than previously. With continuous funding, we could gradually move away from a mindset of constant emergency management, which remains very costly.
The private sector should also be more closely involved in the early stages of discussions on needs and implementation arrangements. At present, we are mainly seen as suppliers, whereas we could contribute more to strategic planning thanks to our experience on the ground. In Burkina Faso, for instance, the local private sector has a detailed understanding of local realities, which could enhance analysis and decision-making. Involving them at an earlier stage could also result in better tailored and potentially more effective solutions.
At present, we, often respond to calls for tenders that are already very narrowly defined. If private sector actors were consulted right from the early stages when defining the issues, this would open the scope for more innovation. It would also be important to further break down barriers to communication and information sharing between stakeholders.
Nutrition should also be better integrated into health programmes, particularly in relation to prevention, malaria and interventions during the first 1,000 days of life. Populations that are more resilient before crises occur would be less in need of intensive nutritional care during them.
Another key challenge concerns the funding of research and development. Today, investment in R&D relies primarily on the private sector, even though mechanisms to protect innovation are limited. A company that heavily invests in research can often find itself competing with others who have not made the same level of investment in innovation. As a way to counter these trends, it would therefore be useful to consider innovative mechanisms for financing research and development into new treatment protocols.
Finally, the issue of climate change must be fully integrated into nutritional strategies. Climate change is now one of the main causes of malnutrition, and this issue must be placed at the centre of discussions and interventions.
2/How can supply chains, joint procurement, and predictable funding be strengthened to ensure continuous access to essential nutrition services and products?
There are various mechanisms, such as revolving funds, that enable stakeholders to order products as soon as they know they will need them. Today, even if there is a known demand, funding often arrives too late, even though it may already be available.
Therefore, the challenge lies in streamlining such funding to enable supply chain stakeholders to operate effectively. Arguably, everyone is doing their job at their own level, but there is still a need for more coordinated reflection on how to reassure buyers, by guaranteeing that funding will be available.
European financial mechanisms are undeniably complex, but I think that multi-year financial instruments could help provide greater security for international humanitarian organisations or governments. Governments also have real local expertise. As such, we need to work together more closely, country by country.
From a regulatory perspective, it is regrettable that the European Union is not taking advantage of its strong normative presence to lead on environmental issues in this sector. At present, there are very few environmental requirements in tenders for nutritional products. Yet, when European funding is used, it would make sense to apply European manufacturing and sustainability criteria. If the European Union does not impose this sort of requirement, at this time, it is difficult to see which major donors might do so.
3/What role can localisation and people-centred modalities (e.g. cash-based approaches) play in improving nutrition outcomes?
Through the PlumpyField network, which we have been developing for nearly twenty years, our view has always been that malnutrition is not just a disease, but also an economic and public policy issue. A country’s economic development is a key driver for achieving a lasting reduction in malnutrition.
It is with this in mind that we have set up local production facilities in several countries, working with local partners. The aim was to be as close as possible to the needs on the ground, but also to involve governments more closely in nutritional care. Malnutrition must be integrated into health systems among other childhood illnesses and should not depend solely on international institutions and imported products.
Conversely, when it comes to prevention and development strategies, it is our view that responses must be much better tailored to local realities, available resources and national public policies. Our challenge today is therefore to develop, drawing on local networks and agro-industrial expertise, prevention solutions that are tailored to each country. To do so, we are supporting local production, which is one tool among many.
We are also working to support governments in adopting broader approaches to preventing malnutrition, particularly through ‘First 1,000 Days’ programmes, with solutions tailored to the specific needs of each country, as when it comes to prevention, governments remain key players. In most countries, policies already exist regarding the monitoring of pregnant women, free healthcare for young children, or programmes related to the first 1,000 days. The challenge is not to create new programmes specifically focused on nutrition, but rather to integrate nutrition into existing health systems. Otherwise, costs become too high and effectiveness is limited. We must avoid working in silos.
Beyond governments, there is also a significant local ecosystem: universities, research centres, centres of excellence, private companies and highly innovative start-ups. We are seeing an increase ing in NGOs drawing on this local fabric, which is positive.
The question is rather how humanitarian action can sustainably strengthen these ecosystems. In many severely deteriorated situations and difficult contexts, such as Sudan, the private sector continues to function. In the aftermath of conflict, it is often this very sector that revives the economy, creates jobs and restructures local value chains.
Relying more heavily on the local private sector would therefore not only strengthen nutritional prevention and local food systems but also support post-conflict economic recovery. It serves as a lever for both prevention and reconstruction.
Any last remarks to share?
The European Union operates as a buyer and donor, and therefore we need to increase multi-annual funding, further encourage local procurement, and incorporate stricter environmental requirements into tender processes. This has the added advantage of enabling Europe to strengthen its crisis response capacity whilst supporting more sustainable models.
The European Union is also a strategic and political actor. At this level, it could be argued that the role of the private sector remains underestimated, particularly in fragile contexts or those exposed to climate and security crises. Major climate crises are now largely predictable. We should therefore further strengthen partnerships with local private-sector actors in order to improve prevention, resilience and the rapid resumption of activities following crises.
Support for the private sector is not just about the businesses themselves: it also helps to preserve jobs, process raw materials locally, structure value chains and support the economies of the countries concerned.
;
