Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Re: What are the barriers and opportunities for scientists and other knowledge holders to contribute to informing policy for more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems?

Anisah Madden

Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University
Australia

Background

I am a late-stage PhD candidate and a political geographer at Western Sydney Umiversity's Institute for Culture and Society. My research looks at the participatory opportunity opened up by the reform of the UNCFS, and analyses the participation of social movements, civil society organisations, and Indigenous Peoples' organisations in the CFS through the CSIPM. I was an alternate focal point for Australaisia on the CSIPM Coordination Committee from May- October 2019, and a co-facilitator of the CSIPM Youth Working Group from Jan 2020- Jan 2022. I have also served on the board of the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance -  a national, farmer led organisation working for food sovereignty in Australia, from October 2018 - October 2021. In these roles, I have worked directly with grassroots and Indigenous knowledge holders, academic researchers, and social and natural scientists to facilitate their participation in agri-food systems policy discussions. I have also personally followed and contributed to a number of CFS policy instruments, and have participated in various FAO convention and treaty meetings with the IPC. Prior to this I worked for 15 years in Canada as a community organiser in local and regional agri-food economic development.

These roles and experiences have provided crucial insights into the barriers and opportunities for scientists and other knowledge holders to contribute to informing policy for more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems. For this consultation, I want to focus on just three key points that I think are crucial elements for the FAO's new Science and Innovation Strategy

What counts as knowledge / evidence, and who decides?

  • First, it is important to recognise that there is a politics of knowledge. Knowledge is not neutral, it is produced and is mediated through historical, political, cultural, and social processes. We should consider which types of knowledge have become accepted, and which types are still on the fringes, and broaden our perspectives to fully integrate more kinds of relevant knowledge into policy and practice. For example, in Australia, we have particular fire management practices that are promoted and practiced by different levels of government. However, these were not sufficient to prevent the terrible bushfires of 2019, with enormous social and economic costs. Aboriginal 'cultural burning' practices are slowly being recognised as being more effective, efficient, and in harmony with nature - but these have a long way to go before they are fully incorporated into official fire management practices. This should be a priority going forward.
  • Currently, we tend to focus too much on the substance of knowledge, and its technical dimensions, rather than the way knowledge is produced (or the socio-cultural and philosophical basis of knowledge). For example, agroecology has been taken up by the FAO and the CFS, and is recognised as a holistic, context-adpatable approach to transforming food systems to be more efficient sustainable, inclusive and resilient. However, there is still a focus on agroecology as a science and a set of practices (the technical aspects of agroecology). Much less attention is paid to agroecology as a political ontology - a way of seeing the world as interdependent, and humans as part of complex, emergent adaptive systems. This view informs our actions in a different way than seeing ourselves as outside complexity, as independent of nature, and as managers and controllers of ecological systems. 

How do we effectively and meaningfully engage a range of knowledge-holders into agri-food policy discussions and into the implementation of policy instruments.

  • First, we must recognise the power inequities that currently exist to participation of knowledge holders, particularly peasants Indigenous peoples. women, youth, and academics from the global south, and make a realistic evaluation of the barriers to transforming these institutionalised inequities. 
  • One of the key barriers is a lack of understanding, relationships, and coordination between scales and regions, and across sectors, which prevents meaningful knowledge sharing and translation. Technical experts and policy officers at the FAO, and in governments, rather than building meaningful, long term relationships with people's organisations and social movements, often reproduce a top-down, technical, fly-in fly out approach. They may see themselves as the experts who are there to disseminate knowledge, resulting in knowledge transfer rather than knowledge dialogue. They may not fully understand local contexts, dynamics, and needs, nor build on the local strengths, capacities, and resources. 
  • These practices are reinforced by institutional practices and reporting expectations, and donor risk aversion and short term impact horizons, which leads to more short term ineffective projects and wasted resources. Some donors also have vested interests in certain kinds of outcomes, which narrows opportunities for innovation. 
  • The FAO should work with donor organisations and countries to connect them with organisations who are already working with local and regional knowledge holders to support bottom-up and dialogic approaches to knowledge sharing, and help them become more comfortable with longer time horizons and a different way of working with communities and assessing impact.
  • Technical experts and policy officers should be trained in the principles and practices of facilitation - an innovative methodology for participation developed by the CSIPM to support the leadership of peasant and Indigenous peoples, particularly women and youth from the global south, in agrifood policy discussions. The CSIPM has many examples of how this methodology has been and continues to be highly effective for the participation of knowledge holders in policy discussions. 
  • The CFS HLPE is an innovative and effective model for the participation of a diverse range of knowledge-holders in agrifood policy discussions. However, the HLPE should pay more attention to equity issues surrounding participation- providing funding / stipends for knowledge holders that are not otherwise institutionally supported so they have the capacity to contribute. Language and regional diversity is another important issue that needs to be addressed. 

If you would like to learn more about facilitation as a participatory methodology, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Anisah Madden

PhD Candidate, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

Community Economies Research Network (CERN). Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples Mechanism (CSIPM) for relations with the United Nations Committee on World Food Security. Youth Working Group https://www.csm4cfs.org/policy-working-groups/youth/ 

Recent publications

Healy, S., Chitranshi, B., Diprose, G., Eskelinen, T., Madden, A., Santala, I., & Williams, M. (2020). Planetary food commons and postcapitalist post-COVID food futures. Development, 63(2), 277-284. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41301-020-00267-9

Lyne, I., & Madden, A. (2020). Enterprising new worlds: social enterprise and the value of repair. In The Handbook of Diverse Economies. Edward Elgar Publishing.