المنتدى العالمي المعني بالأمن الغذائي والتغذية

I am writing on behalf of Aquatic Life Institute, an organization committed to the welfare and conservation of aquatic animals globally. We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the draft guidance on strengthening science-policy interfaces (SPIs) for agrifood systems, a crucial initiative for advancing sustainable development goals.

One of the greatest challenges in advancing SPIs for agrifood systems, especially concerning aquatic life, is integrating specialized environmental and welfare considerations into broader agrifood policies. These often overlooked aspects are critical for the sustainability of aquatic ecosystems and global biodiversity. The FAO guidance could further help by incorporating specific examples and protocols on how to integrate such niche but critical issues into national policy frameworks. A practical enhancement would be to include a toolkit or checklist that policymakers can use to ensure these considerations are not omitted.

While the draft guidance adeptly covers the governance and co-production of SPIs, it may benefit from a more pronounced focus on the ecological impacts of agrifood systems, particularly in aquatic environments. These systems often experience significant, unique challenges, such as overfishing and habitat destruction, which necessitate tailored policy responses. Furthermore, the current draft could expand its sections on cross-scale interactions to explore more deeply the dynamics between local, national, and international policy frameworks, which are often pivotal in managing aquatic resources sustainably.

Additionally, the guidance would be enriched by referencing more diverse sources, including interdisciplinary studies that explore the intersection of aquatic animal welfare and sustainable fishing practices. Including insights from fields such as marine biology, environmental science, and socio-economic research will provide a holistic view and strengthen the science-policy nexus.

We look forward to seeing these elements reflected in the final version of the guidance, contributing to more effective and inclusive SPIs worldwide. Thank you for considering our input.

Question 1

In Zambia, agrifood systems are affected by climate change and inherent land degradation, resulting in low, and poor-quality yields among most small holder farmers, who are the majority of producers.

To advance the Science-Policy Interface (SPI) in The Country’s agrifood systems, the FAO can support by bridging the gap between research and stakeholders through initializing already existing policies such as “The need to do-away with ‘Blanket Fertiliser Recommendations’ in production” (Chapoto et. al., 2016). Additionally, there’s urgent need to promote affordable periodic soil tests in order to ensure effective utilization of the available land and water resources. 

As Zambia continues to prioritize the agricultural sector to boost its economy, through agrifood systems transformation, it is imperative to foster sustainable practices across the entire food value chain. This is to be better-realised through its Comprehensive Agricultural Support Program (CASP), where the Country aims at improving livestock and agricultural crop production by enhancing water and irrigation management (AfDB, 2023).

FAO can, therefore, assist the Country by aligning its support to current policies, and initiatives, and enhancing them, where possible, for example;

a)    Development of irrigation farm blocks; which will reduce impacts of climatic shocks suck as droughts. The irrigated farm blocks can be in all the districts with priority to the most drought-hit areas.

An agroecological approach based on variations in annual precipitation variations, and edaphic factors can be used in this initiative.

b)    Promoting the use of renewable energy sources for powering irrigation schemes for crop and livestock production, and food processing for value addition as well as preservation. Since food loss and waste remain a major challenge in agrifood systems, this initiative is very important as it will also cater for storage facilities in major market places, thereby creating employment. 

c)    Capacity-building in climate and market information use for small-holder farmers; to ensure that farmers maximize their production, (while taking advantage of the already secured markets for produce in China, United Arab Emirates, South Africa and the European Union) through training in climate information services and products.

d)    Sponsoring behavioral or mind-set change initiatives aimed at shifting from Maize, as a major carbohydrate source, to more nutrient-rich and climate-resilient alternatives such as Sorghum, Cassava, etc., especially in children so that they acquire a taste for these.

Question 2

The SPI Guidance has covered all the key aspects of agrifood systems at national level but in Section 2 and also case study section, the Guidance can further include ways of mapping existing policies from the different actors, particularly those related to increasing the resilience of agrifood systems to climatic shocks, environmental degradation, pandemics and conflicts.

Question 4

In Section 5, on “Activities to ensure that the production and synthesis of knowledge is relevant and actionable for policy”, it can be specifically included on communication to use Animated productions. These increase the integration of all types of stakeholders, including the youth and young, who sometimes form a cardinal source of information to some farmers in remote areas. The activities should deliberately increase information ease of access and uptake, such as through music and art. Lastly, more information on indigenous knowledge and practices could also be included.

Sources:

Africa Development Bank (AfDB, 2023) Dakar 2 Zambia Country Food and Agriculture Delivery Compact.Accessed on 7th May, 2024 from https://www.afdb.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/zambia_country_food_and_agriculture_delivery_compact.pdf

Chapoto et. al. (2016) A Long History of Low Productivity in Zambia: Is It Time To Do Away With Blanket Recommendations? Accessed on 7th May, 2024 from https://www.academia.edu/69327578/A_Long_History_of_Low_Productivity_in_Zambia_Is_it_Time_to_Do_Away_with_Blanket_Recommendations

Question 1:
The greatest challenge that the FAO guidance can help address in advancing an SPI for agrifood systems in Nigeria is the lack of a structured approach to science-policy interfaces, leading to limited dialogue between scientists, policymakers, and other stakeholders. The guidance can help address this by providing a framework for establishing functional SPIs, identifying core elements, and promoting principles such as credibility and legitimacy.

To make the guidance more practical and usable at the country level, I suggest:

- Providing concrete examples and case studies from Nigeria or similar contexts
- Developing a step-by-step guide for establishing and operationalizing SPIs
- Offering training and capacity-building programs for SPI actors
- Encouraging collaboration and knowledge sharing among stakeholders

Question 2:
The draft guidance covers essential sections and elements, including core elements, principles, and mechanisms for knowledge co-creation. However, additional elements that should be considered include:

- Addressing power asymmetries and ensuring inclusivity
- Fostering collaboration across different knowledge systems
- Developing capacity development activities for SPI actors
- Encouraging learning and evaluation mechanisms

Some sections, such as the importance of traditional knowledge and Indigenous Peoples' perspectives, may be underrepresented and should be expanded.

Question 3:
Here's a potential case study:

Nigeria's Agricultural Research Council (ARCN) established an SPI to address the country's agrifood system challenges. The SPI brought together scientists, policymakers, farmers, and industry experts to co-create solutions. Key success factors included:

- Inclusive dialogue and knowledge sharing
- Capacity development programs for stakeholders
- Collaborative research and innovation initiatives
- Policy reforms and implementation

Lessons learned include the importance of addressing power asymmetries, fostering collaboration across knowledge systems, and connecting across scales (local to global).

Question 4:
Additional information that should be included in the draft guidance includes:

- References to traditional knowledge and Indigenous Peoples' perspectives
- Case studies from low- and middle-income countries
- Examples of successful SPIs addressing asymmetries in power and collaboration across knowledge systems
- Key publications and resources on science-policy interfaces and agrifood systems

It is, therefore, mandatory to apply the FAO recommendations on science-policy interfaces (SPIs) as they relate to improving the agricultural food system in Nigeria, for example, and also to adapt the recommendations to meet peculiar local needs. Nigeria’s agricultural sector contributes to a significant part of the country’s GDP. Between July and September 2021, agriculture contributed almost 30 per cent of the total GDP (Sasu, 2023). By 2022, this sector accounts for about 38% of the population employed in Nigeria (World Bank, 2024).

However, the problematic predicaments that the agricultural sector of Nigeria is concerned with cannot be overemphasized. These problems include low productivity, enormous post-harvest wastage, poor market access, and the effects of climate change (World Bank, 2021).

Challenges and FAO Guidance Application:

1. Inclusivity in Policymaking:

• Challenge: The existing agrofood systems in Nigeria are made up of different segments of the stakeholders including smallholder farmers, native communities, and urban food producers which may not have their voices always heard in policy talks (Chiaka et al., 2022).
• FAO Guidance Utilization: The use of guidance implies creating inclusive platforms, where all agricultural sectors, regardless of their size participate, thereby enhancing policy relevance and acceptance. Taking this approach, the Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure (VGGT)  is supported because inclusive and participatory is shown as a vital decision making process (FAO, 2022).

2. Integration of Traditional Knowledge:

• Challenge: Nigeria identifies a wide range of informal indigenous agricultural knowledge in the national policy; however, such resources are rarely considered in planning the formal agricultural frameworks (Abioye et al., 2014).
• FAO Guidance Utilization: The guidance is encouraged whereby traditional knowledge and scientific research are mixed to aid formation of policies; hence, the policies presented are considered to be thoroughly scientifically and socially accurate. This correspond with the FAO acknowledgement of the importance of traditional knowledge systems in the creation of sustainable agriculture and food security (FAO, 2009).

3. Adaptation to Climate Change:

• Challenge: Nigerian agriculture is affected by climate change more than any other sector and increasingly witnessing extreme weather such as droughts and floods (FMARD, 2018).
• FAO Guidance Utilization: The guidance helps in developing the policies that can endure the impacts caused by climate change through the synthesis of relevant climate data and estimates into the management and planning of the agrifood industry. This align with the FAO’s Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) strategy which provides assistance in the adaptibility and resilience to climate change (FAO, 2013).

Suggestions for Practical Application in Nigeria:

• Local Context Adaptation: Specify in the guidance an approach that is specific for Nigeria’s own agriculture-related portrayals and facilities, such as improving the access of farmers to markets and improving upon the agriculture-processing technologies (FMARD, 2016).
• Capacity Building: Initiate trainings for both the stakeholders and scientists on the impactful implementation of the guidance by leveraging on functional programmes such as West Africa Science Service Institute for Climate Change and Adapted Land Use (WASCAL) (WASCAL, n.d.).
• Pilot Projects: To test the guidance, start with pilot projects in several parts of the country  on a small scale in order to assess its initial effectiveness before a nationwide implementation. This is a reflection of the approach used in the Fadama III project of the World Bank (World Bank, 2013).

Key Elements and Suggestions for the Draft Guidance:

• Governance Structures: The guidelines should include models that weathered similar global contexts effectively, and specially those that have robustly weathered political and economic instability. Examples of these strategies best practice are the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) used in Uganda (Rwakakamba & Lukwago, 2014) and the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) (NEPAD, 2003).
• Stakeholder Engagement: The draft should highlight the continuity of stakeholder engagement  by stating the various ways for this engagement for the SPI to always remain adaptable and responsive to the emerging challenges and opportunities. To support this, experiences from platforms like the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform can be used (SAI Platform, n.d.)..
• Monitoring and Evaluation: The guidance should state the monitoring and performance evaluation process to be followed before the investigation begins. It should emphasize on sustainability and equity on agrifood systems. These protocols can be aligned with existing frameworks like the CAADP’s Biennial Review procedure (NEPAD, 2015).

Real-Life Success Story:

• Example: In Kenya, the implementation of the SPIs demonstrated its notable achievements by the creation of the Kenya Agriculture & Livestock Research Organisation (KALRO). KALRO is an organization that has successfully aligned scientific research with policy development to take forward food security and sustainability. This demonstrates effective partnership where different governmental and non-governmental organizations work together (KALRO, n.d.).

Additional Information Needs:

• Success Metrics: The guidelines need to define unambiguous metrics to assess the quality of SPIs and their effectiveness in empowering agrifood systems in terms of crop productivity, yields, incomes of farmers, and sustainability indicators. The introduced metrics could align with frameworks such  the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2015).

Case Studies: Presenting more case studies that center on countries in African regions, with particular emphasis on those which highlight the challenges and successes of SPIs as well as the local factors that contribute toward this success, would be a great source of information and also encourage the adoption of the best practices in the Nigerian environment. Significant examples include the Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa (S3A) (FARA, n.d.) and the Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture (RUFORUM) (RUFORUM, n.d.).

Through customizing FAO projection to the direct impacts and corresponding suggestions, Nigeria can increase the effectiveness of its science-policy interfaces and stimulate a better development of sustainable and inclusive growth of its agrifood system.

References

Abioye, A. A., Zaid, Y. A., & Egberongbe, H. S. (2014). Documenting and disseminating agricultural indigenous knowledge for sustainable food security: The efforts of agricultural research libraries in Nigeria. Libri, 64(1), 75-84. https://www.ifla.org/past-wlic/2011/78-abioye-en.pdf

Chiaka, J. C., Zhen, L., Yunfeng, H., Xiao, Y., Muhirwa, F., & Lang, T. (2022). Smallholder farmer's contribution to food production in Nigeria. Frontiers in Nutrition, 9, 916678. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.916678

FARA (Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa). (n.d.). Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa. Retrieved from https://faraafrica.org/programs/s3a/.

FAO. (2009). What is Agrobiodiversity? Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/y5609e/y5609e02.htm.

FAO. (2022). Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/i2801e/i2801e.pdf

FAO. (2013). Climate-Smart Agriculture Sourcebook. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/i3325e/i3325e.pdf

FMARD (Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Nigeria). (2016). The Agriculture Promotion Policy (2016 – 2020). Retrieved from https://fscluster.org/sites/default/files/documents/2016-nigeria-agric-sector-policy-roadmap_june-15-2016.pdf

FMARD. (2018). National Policy on Climate Change and Response Strategy. Retrieved from https://climatechange.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/National-Policy-on-Climate-Change_Nigeria-2022.pdf

KALRO (Kenya Agricultural & Livestock Research Organization). (n.d.). About KALRO. Retrieved from https://www.kalro.org/about-us/ 

Sasu, D.D. (2023) Contribution of agriculture to GDP in Nigeria 2019-2021. Retrieved from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1193506/contribution-of-agriculture-to-gdp-in-nigeria/

World Bank (2024) Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) – Nigeria. Retrieved from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS?locations=NG

NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa's Development). (2003). Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme. Retrieved from https://www.nepad.org/publication/comprehensive-africa-agriculture-development-programme-caadp

NEPAD. (2015). The CAADP Biennial Review Process. Retrieved from https://www.nepad.org/caadp/resources/guides-and-manuals

Renforcer le système politique National d’agroalimentaire et disponibilité le financement dans la d’assurer l’autonomisation, en mesure où elle se limite uniquement à la situation actuelle et au changement climatique, réchauffement climatique, de manière centrée, mais pas en tant que politique scientifique fondamentale.

Strengthen the POLICY to the extent of only limited to current situation and climate change, centric, but not as a basic science policy.

Under the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), an empirical action researh work was implemented in five different West African countries and consisted in conceptualising, setting up and testing the functioning of national science-policy dialogue platforms for climate change, agriculture and food security. The main objective was to use scientific evidence to create awareness of climate change impacts on agriculture and advocate for the mainstreaming of climate change and climate-smart agriculture (CSA) into national agricultural development plans. Based on the platforms' operations and achievements, we used semi-structured questionnaire interviews and reviewed technical reports produced by the platforms to analyse how their modes of operation and achievements improve understanding of the science-policy interfaces between agricultural and climate change decision making. 

Results showed that these platforms constitute an innovative approach to effectively engaging decision-makers and sustainably mainstreaming climate change into development plans. Effective science-policy interaction requires: (a) institutionalizing dialogue platforms by embedding them within national institutions, which improves their credibility, relevance and legitimacy among policymakers; (b) two-way communication, which contributes substantially to the co-development of solutions that address climate change vulnerabilities and impacts; and (c) relevant communication products and packaging of evidence that aligns with country priorities, which facilitates its uptake in policy-making processes. We conclude with a framework of sustainable operation for such platforms based on lessons learnt in the three countries. These results were published in a scientific paper titled "Science-policy interfaces for sustainable climate-smart agriculture uptake: lessons learnt from national science-policy dialogue platforms in West Africa". You can find more information through (https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2019.1670934).

In an effort to enhance the effectiveness of science-policy interfaces (SPIs) for agrifood systems on a national scale, the draft guidance delineates critical sections and elements that are essential for their efficient implementation. These encompass multifaceted stakeholder engagement, capacity building initiatives, transparent sharing of data and research findings, conducting policy-relevant research endeavors, producing concise policy briefs and summaries, establishing dedicated platforms for science-policy interactions, fostering long-term relationships between scientists and policymakers, incentivizing collaboration among various stakeholders, and implementing robust evaluation and monitoring mechanisms. Together, these sections comprehensively address the diverse array of components necessary to cultivate SPIs that yield positive outcomes in the realm of agrifood systems.

An important element to consider is the integration of Indigenous knowledge systems into SPI frameworks. Indigenous communities possess rich and valuable traditional knowledge that has been passed down through generations. This knowledge can provide unique insights and solutions for sustainable agricultural practices, biodiversity conservation, and natural resource management.

In addition, there should be a focus on promoting agroecological approaches within SPIs. Agroecology emphasizes the integration of ecological principles into agricultural systems, promoting biodiversity, soil health, and resilience to climate change. Incorporating agroecological approaches into policy development can help shift towards more sustainable and regenerative farming practices.

Furthermore, it would be beneficial to include strategies for addressing power imbalances within SPIs. Power dynamics often influence decision-making processes, with certain stakeholders having more influence than others. Ensuring equitable representation and meaningful participation of marginalized groups such as small-scale farmers or rural women is crucial for effective policy development.

Lastly, there should be an emphasis on monitoring and evaluation mechanisms within SPI frameworks. Regular assessment of the impact and effectiveness of policies implemented through SPIs can help identify areas for improvement and inform future decision-making processes.

To make the guidance more practical at the country level, it would be useful to provide specific examples or case studies from different countries or regions that have successfully implemented SPI initiatives in their agrifood systems. These examples can serve as inspiration while highlighting best practices and lessons learned that can be applied in different contexts.

Additionally, capacity building efforts should be tailored to address specific knowledge gaps or challenges faced by policymakers in each country or region. This could involve training programs focused on topics such as climate change adaptation strategies or sustainable land management practices.

Overall , by incorporating these additional elements into the draft guidance document on strengthening national science-policy interfaces for agrifood systems , FAO can provide a more comprehensive framework that addresses key issues related to gender equality, subnational engagement water security traditional knowledge systems communication strategies.

Dear Participants,

Thank you for your active and fruitful contributions so far. Aligned with the FAO Science and Innovation Strategy, the guidance is intended to be a tool to facilitate reflection about advancing an SPI, its possible scope and mandate, and launch a learning process around SPIs. It could be considered at the country level in a process to strengthen existing, or establish new, agrifood system SPIs. Your valuable insights are very important for further elaborating and refining this draft.

We acknowledge that the document is substantial in scope and content, requiring additional time for a thorough review. Therefore, we are extending the deadline to ensure that you have sufficient time to provide comprehensive feedback in line with the guiding questions.

Best regards from the facilitator of the e-consultation,

Dr Preet Lidder, Technical Adviser, Chief Scientist Office, FAO

   The draft report 'Guidance on Strengthening National Science-Policy Interfaces (SPI) for Agri-Food Systems' presents a comprehensive approach to enhancing national SPI frameworks within the agri-food sector. The report establishes a clear operational framework, detailing core elements such as aims, roles, principles, and various models supporting effective implementation. It also addresses challenges in providing policy-relevant evidence for agri-food systems, emphasizing the need for transparent, inclusive, and effective decision-making processes.

   Additionally, as a contribution to the discussion here, two key aspects significantly enrich the debate: one focuses on the systems approach to science and innovation, while the other highlights the intersection of social and economic inclusivity with innovation.

Systems Approach to Science and Innovation: The innovation systems framework brings together diverse actors (individuals, firms, institutions, etc.) across various scales to foster synergy and innovation. This framework incorporates national and regional perspectives, such as the well-established Regional Innovation Systems, which guide sustainable development even in smaller countries.

Inclusive Innovation: It is essential to merge inclusivity with innovation to promote technological, non-technological, and social advancements for marginalized groups, including those with low income or education. In some instances, these innovations emerge from the very individuals in these communities. Particularly in rural areas, traditional knowledge from family farmers, indigenous people, and artisanal fishers can drive significant innovative potential.

Furthermore, it is necessary to incorporate more overall governance approaches for SPI, such as Experimental Governance. This approach values citizens' knowledge and insights in addressing daily challenges and fostering community involvement in developing efficient, context-specific innovations. The integration of scientific knowledge with traditional, practical expertise is fundamental for successful implementation.

Some interesting references:

Morgan, K. (2018). Experimental governance and territorial development. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy/Morgan(2018)ExperimentalGovernanceAndTerritorialDevelopment_OECD_FINAL.pdf

Tartaruga, I. G. (2021). Tradition, Inclusive Innovation, and Development in Rural Territories: Exploring the Case of Amiais Village (Portugal). In Oliveira, L., Amaro, A., & Melro, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Cultural Heritage and Its Impact on Territory Innovation and Development (pp. 62-74). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-6701-2.ch004

Tartaruga, I. G. P., & Sperotto, F. Q. (2022). Políticas de inovação inclusiva, digitalização e desenvolvimento territorial em sistemas agroalimentares: os desafios para a agricultura familiar à luz da sustentabilidade. In: M. E. Valencia, S. Sauer, A. Z. Leite, F. C. Canavesi, & M. L. Ávila (Orgs.), Desenvolvimento territorial, sistemas agroalimentares e agricultura familiar (pp. 122–146). São Leopoldo, Brasil: Oikos. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3N0EHdK [in Portuguese]

Tartaruga, I., & Sperotto, F. (2024, January). Digitalization, sustainability, and inclusion in European agri-food systems. Paper presented in 7th Geography of Innovation Conference (GEOINNO 2024) (pp. 1-4), Manchester, UK. Abstract retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17401.44645

Tartaruga, I., Sperotto, F., & Carvalho, L. (2024). Addressing inclusion, innovation, and sustainability challenges through the lens of economic geography: Introducing the hierarchical regional innovation system. Geography and Sustainability, 5(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2023.10.002