Skip to main content
Back to map

HOME-GROWN SCHOOL FEEDING (HGSF) | ALIMENTACIÓN ESCOLAR CON PRODUCTOS LOCALES (AEPL)

BOLIVIA

Thematic area

Availability, Accessibility, Affordability, Social Capital

Policy scope

National

Target audience

Citizens/Consumers

Status

Ongoing

Aim and method

To improve children's nutrition, boost local economies by creating demand for local food, and support smallholder farmers.

Background

The Home-Grown School Feeding (HGSF) policy emerged in the early 2000s as an evolution of traditional school feeding programs. Originally focused on improving education and child nutrition, it later expanded to support local agriculture and rural development by sourcing school meals from smallholder farmers. The idea was first promoted by NEPAD in 2003, followed by major support from the United Nations (UN), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Food Programme (WFP), and Brazil’s successful model (PNAE), which required schools to buy at least 30% of food from family farmers. By 2016, the African Union recognized HGSF as a key strategy for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) — combining education, nutrition, and local economic growth in one integrated policy.

Monitoring and ownership

It is led by national governments, which plan, fund, and coordinate the programme through ministries of education, agriculture, health, and social protection. International organizations like FAO, WFP, NEPAD, IFAD, and GCNF provide technical and financial support. Local actors—such as smallholder farmers, schools, and communities—supply food, manage activities, and monitor progress.

Implementation and Results

There are current tenders for "Complementary Feeding" in some municipalities (e.g. Achocalla) indicating ongoing implementation at local level. Women-led associations have become approved suppliers to local schools for items like quinoa bars. Still, there is a discussion on how to spread the access since funding has been concentrated in some areas. Studies show high transaction costs and pure market coordination act as strong barriers to smallholders' active participation.