Member profile
Ms. Jo-Anne Relf-Eckstein
Country:
Canada
I am working on:
graduate studies in public policy, area of research is governance of agriculture producer organizations and their role in influencing public policy.
Ms. Jo-Anne Relf-Eckstein
Q1 comments:
1) What are the main issues for policy-makers to consider when linking climate change on the one hand and food security and nutrition on the other, in particular when designing, formulating and implementing policies and programmes?
Public policy is defined by Thomas Dye as "anything a government chooses to do or not to do". While this is but one way of understanding public policy, it has helped me think about answering this question. Question1 implies linking policy-makers who most likely have different agendas, resources and political priorities. Additionally, in many countries policy design/formulation/implementation for the issues of climate change; nutrition; and food cuts across several policy systems (climate change involves environment departments; nutrition is health and wellbeing and food can be agriculture (production), trade and economy and access to food or assistance in redistribution to those who are in need may fall under social welfare.
Nearly all policy problems display characteristics of reconciling cooperation and conflict. If you accept this, then the first main issue to consider is cooperation and finding common ground for the policy-makers that justifies government intervention in the economy - a problem common to all policy domains. Without agreement on the definition of the problem; the goal(s); the means to achieve the goals, and how to measure (ie evaluation), policy design/implementation/evaluation, the problem remains "unstructured"(see Hisschemöller and Hoppe 1995). I am coming to the conclusion policy-makers (the ones who actually make the decisions) either do not believe there will be a shortage of "commodities" (food), or if they do accept the information and evidence, it is riddled with too much uncertainty to sustain their attention, let alone come to agreement across the different policy arenas and policy systems (e..g different countries/regimes/ideologies). Perhaps there wont be policy action until there is a crisis - a big crisis and we make a new definition of the problem - such as social conflict? If we cannot agree on the ways to measure it, how can we manage it? And if there is lack of agreement on the values and beliefs (ie different policy domains), how can we expect "food security/insecurity" to be a main policy issue ? As Dye says, the govt chooses "not to do something". Its much easier to let the market work out a solution through innovation (e.g incentivize to increase food production) then take a policy systems-thinking approach to solving the complex global problem.
Time horizon is also a factor. Policy implementation may be viewed as beyond the scope of election cycle., so why take action now and especially when there remains high levels of uncertainty on the issues of climate change, food security and nutrition is an issue. (for example see Mark Gibson, The Feeding of Nations the many ways to measure food insecurity/security - if we cant measure, how can we manage?). Policy-makers have limited resources - there is only one pie (of available resources) but many ways to cut it. The evidence on climate change may be far too distant to give policy-makers certainty that they are making the right decision.
If we look back in our history and if the literature reporting on the early days of policy-making on food insecurity (ie formation of the FAO) is accurate, then we can postulate that the current state was one of social conflict. The governments and policy-makers of the day needed to address the problem of scarcity of food. The literature suggests 1) there was at least one policy broker with influence to advocate on behalf of those suffering and thus helping to define the problem and put it on the policy agenda; 2) a common goal held by the elected leadership to resolve the social conflict that food insecurity was causing and 3) political will to implement the means to reach the goal and resolve the issue of scarity and distribution of food. 4) in addition to respecting the human right to food principle, there were economic reasons to act. There was action. There was leadership. Common ground was "brokered".
So what could policy-makers consider? Maybe are trying to solve the wrong problem. The "problem", or difference between current state and future state is not just about food and the climate etc. but what happens when people dont have enough food - it is social conflict, diseases, loss of life, economic losses etc. Social conflict may be easier to quantify - as a society, we've been there, done that. A problem of social conflict might better engage our rational decision-making of costs and benefits and loss of quality of life speaks to our emotional component of decision-making. Designing policy solutions that incentive changes in individual behaviour from the bottom-up, focus on local knowledge and leadership and small but many changes in individual and community might help. Each local community knows its area, its strengths and weaknesses. For example, to solve the problem of coordination, instead of top-down government policies that are difficult to implement, monitor, evaluate and ensure compliance, nudging individual behaviour seems more achievable. Perhaps we need polices and financial resources to build leadership, cooperation and coordination at community levels and collaborative governance systems that are prepared to face the crisis we anticipate. Moreover, this needs to be done in both developed and developing countries; small landholders and large landholders. The problem is everyone's responsibility - NIMBY (not in my backyard) doesnt cut it. Small things like consumer food waste is embarrassingly high and yet we continue our behaviours. Sadly, will it take another crisis to focus a common problem and change policy? if you believe this, then is the next best policy option is for government intervention policies that build preparedness for the crisis but even that takes leadership, advocacy and finding common needs and wants.