Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Le Cameroun est un pays dont l'action gouvernementale a du mal à être synchronisée au sein des différents départements ministériels. Cet état de chose se répercute au niveau du fonctionnement interne des départements ministériels. Les politiques aujourd'hui pour être acceptées se doivent de souscrire au consensus. Le consensus nécessite la prise en compte de tous les acteurs. Cette consultation de la FAO interpelle la politique et la science, de marcher main dans la main, mais surtout d'intégrer un troisième aspect ou élément qu'est l'expérience de terrain pour élaborer de meilleures stratégies et de concevoir de meilleures politiques plus proches de la réalité. Le politique renvoie à l’acteur stratégique ; le scientifique, quant à lui, c’est l’homme de la science, cette science qui renvoie à l’observation, l’expérimentation et à la modélisation ; et enfin un 3e acteur et non des moindres, qu’est le producteur, qui offre son expérience pratique, sa réalité, son vécu.

Ainsi pour répondre à cette consultation lancée par la FAO, on va mener une analyse basée sur les points suivants :

1.       Un environnement défavorable ;

2.       Des rapports asymétriques entre les acteurs ;

3.       Un processus d’élaboration des politiques biaisé ;

4.       Des budgets insuffisants ou quasi-inexistants dédiés à la recherche.

1.      Un environnement défavorable (institutions, volonté politique, gouvernance, cadre réglementaire)

Dans l’historique des institutions, le Cameroun est un état indépendant depuis 62 ans, et dont les institutions souveraines datent à partir de cette période. En d’autres termes, les institutions les plus anciennes datent de cette période et les plus récentes n’ont pas plus de 10 ans. Le Cameroun de 1960 à 1990 à évoluer sous le régime du parti unique, de 1990 à nos jours, sous le multipartisme. Ce pays a fait le choix de la démocratie et de se doter de ses institutions de manière progressive. Ce choix s’est-il fait par stratégie ou par calculs politiciens ? ou simplement par réalisme politique ? Dans un autre pan, la configuration politique a créé un déséquilibre de la scène politique où on a un parti superpuissant avec des alliés d’un côté et de l’autre, des partis de l’opposition, même en additionnant leurs scores, ne parviennent pas à inquiéter le parti au pouvoir. Ce déséquilibre de la scène politique a créé une classe administrative hyperpuissante aux ordres de la classe politique dirigeante. Cette classe administrative qui tire son pouvoir du politique, subjugue tous les autres acteurs notamment : le secteur privé, la société civile, les organisations professionnelles, etc.

Pourrait-on penser objectivement que dans un pays comme le Cameroun, il existe réellement une volonté politique ? quand on sait que le Cameroun depuis 1996 et 2004 avait déjà pris le chemin de la décentralisation et qu’on assiste impuissamment au torpillage de ce processus par cette classe administrative. La volonté politique au Cameroun ne sert pas les intérêts collectifs mais les intérêts corporatistes ou d’une classe.

Quant à la gouvernance, il y’a tellement à redire. La répartition des richesses nationales n’est pas encore proportionnellement et équitablement répartie. La dépense publique continue à être déraisonnable, embourgeoisant l’élite administrative, et c’est le peuple qui doit toujours serrer la ceinture. Dans la gestion publique, les fautes et les écarts sont tolérés en toute impunité. On a l’impression qu’il n’y a pas de suivi, qui donnerai lieu à des rapports à mi-parcours permettant de voir l’évolution dans la gestion et le fonctionnement de la structure. Cette habitude a fait avec le temps, le lit de l’opacité et de l’impunité. La transparence dans la gestion reste encore à être améliorée ; l’accès à l’information, à des documents doit suivre une procédure qui parfois n’aboutit pas même si elle est bien motivée. Les lois sont la plupart du temps votées et les textes d’application sont inexistants ou mis en vigueur au moins une décennie plus tard, cela créée un vide juridique qui est entretenu à tort ou à raison par l’administration centrale. Ainsi, lorsqu’on a un cadre réglementaire qui ne rassure pas dans un pays, il est difficile d’être optimiste.

2.      Rapports asymétriques entre les différents acteurs

Les acteurs qui interviennent ou qui sont concernés dans l’élaboration des politiques en matière de sécurité alimentaire sont : le politique, l’administrateur, le scientifique, la société civile, les peuples autochtones, les producteurs, les opérateurs ou investisseurs, etc. Dans ce jeu multi-acteur, il se pose donc un jeu de rôles, parfois ou la plus part du temps, les infractions sont multipliées par les acteurs les plus influents. Généralement, le politique veut s’attribuer tous les mérites, pendant que l’administration veut contrôler l’initiative. Ce contrôle vise tout simplement à imposer sa vision et ses idées.

Dans le domaine agricole, le document de stratégie du développement du secteur rural (DSDSR) et le plan national de l’investissement agricole sont des documents de référence dans ce domaine. Généralement, le processus d’élaboration de ces documents qui renseignent sur la politique du gouvernement dans ce domaine, commence par une consultation large publique ou par appel d’offre, à la suite, l’administration organise un atelier de restitution lors de laquelle elle invite ou peut inviter les autres acteurs comme les scientifiques, et les petits producteurs, qui ont un rôle consultatif et décisionnaire. Donc, réduit en général à faire des recommandations. Il faut d’ailleurs signaler que les acteurs administratifs s’arrangent à être majoritaires dans ces rencontres et minorer du point de vue de l’effectif, les autres acteurs.

3.      Un processus d’élaboration des politiques biaisé

L’administration pour justifier ses politiques et les consensus obtenus en leurs seins, argue que : au début, elle a établi de larges consultations à la base qui ont impliqué de multiples acteurs parmi lesquels ceux qui sont mis en exergue dans cette consultation (scientifiques, politiques, populations autochtones, petits producteurs). Comment pourrait-on faire prospérer ses opinions lorsqu’on est non seulement minoré au sein des consultations, mais invité également à titre consultatif. Lorsque l’élaboration d’une politique est faussée à la base et que l’on veuille absolument justifier du respect des procédures, cela relève de la mauvaise foi. Pendant que sur une thématique comme la sécurité alimentaire, l’administration ou le Gouvernement sera représenté par tous les sectoriels impliqués dans cette thématique à savoir : les ministères en charge de l’agriculture, l’élevage, l’environnement, le foncier, les finances, l’économie, l’énergie, le commerce, etc. ; les autres acteurs par corporation ne sont malheureusement pas aussi diversement représentés. Dans les pays en développement comme le Cameroun, on continue malheureusement à constater un hiatus entre le politique et le scientifique, qui pense-t-on, le premier n’exploite pas suffisamment les résultats ou les conclusions auxquelles aboutit le second. L’interface politique/science n’est pas encore assez structurée pour la récupération des résultats de la science par le politique. Idem de l’interface politique/peuples autochtones ou petits producteurs, qui eux, apportent une expérience riche de terrain qui devrait être pris en compte dans l’élaboration des politiques. Pour le moment le Gouvernement a créé un ministère en charge de la recherche scientifique et de l’innovation ; au-delà de ce ministère, il existe également des structures sous-tutelles comme l’IRAD/IRD, qui assurent également la recherche poussée dans le secteur agropastoral, notamment dans le secteur des semences. Cette structure par exemple offre des semences améliorées pour optimiser le rendement des producteurs.

4.      Les budgets insuffisants ou quasi-inexistants dédiés à la recherche

La première intension que l’on remarque dans un pays qui accorde une place de choix à la recherche se trouve au niveau des budgets qu’il accorde à la recherche. Voici un historique des budgets alloués au ministère en charge de la recherche scientifique et de l’innovation au Cameroun de 2012 à 2018 :

§  2012 : 8 793 000 000 FCFA :

§  2013 : 11 731 000 000 FCFA ;

§  2014 : 12 260 000 000 FCFA ;

§  2015 : 13 847 000 000 FCFA ;

§  2016 : 12 837 000 000 FCFA ;

§  2017 : 8 584 000 000 FCFA ;

§  2018 : 10 300 000 000 FCFA ;   

Dans nos universités et centres de recherches ou laboratoires, il existe beaucoup d’idées, de productions scientifiques. Le vrai problème est que lorsqu’il faut partir de cette idée pour en faire un produit consommable, utile à la société, il faut investir sur la « recherche pour le développement ». Ainsi, il est très difficile avec les maigres budgets alloués au ministère de la recherche scientifique de financer la recherche au Cameroun, car le fonctionnement de ce ministère se taille la part du lion, et le reste est orienté vers l’investissement. L’IRAD qui aujourd’hui fonctionne en partenariat avec l’IRD probablement à cause des raisons financières, est la structure de référence en matière de recherche/développement dans le domaine agropastoral. Ce partenariat apporte à l’IRAD un concours technique et financier de l’IRD. Au Cameroun, l’IRAD n’est pas la seule structure capable d’apporter de la matière dans le domaine agropastoral, car il y’a aussi la FASA de Dschang qui a d’ailleurs un démembrement au niveau de Yaoundé-Nkolbisson, nommé CRESA et bien d’autres. Toutes ces structures dépendent des budgets de l’Etat, donc n’ont pas la dépendance financière nécessaire pour faire le lobbying afin d’influer sur l’orientation des politiques. L’IRAD/IRD parvient à le faire parce que cette institution bénéficie de concours technique et financier de la France dans le cadre du contrat pour le désendettement et développement (C2D).

Après avoir énuméré les obstacles, on va indiquer quelques pistes qui peuvent permettre le fonctionnement efficace des interfaces politiques/scientifiques ou politiques/petits producteurs/peuples autochtones.

Ø  Développer une capacité d’influence qui peut débuter par une indépendance financière et l’augmentation de ses ressources en dehors de celles qui provient de l’Etat ;

Ø  Bénéficier d’une représentation corporatiste consistante et considérable dans les sphères d’influence au niveau du parlement afin de faire pencher les lois pour leurs causes ;

Ø  Développer des capacités de plaidoyer et de lobbying pour porter haut des revendications et d’influer l’orientation des décisions.

On behalf of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food

In 2022 the Global Alliance for the Future of Food published the Politics of Knowledge, in which we asked 17 diverse contributor teams from around the world how they understand, document, and communicate evidence about agroecology, regenerative approaches, and Indigenous foodways. The resulting compendium synthesizes the key insights shared by all of the contributors. It squarely addresses the barriers and opportunities for scientists and other knowledge holders to contribute to informing policy for more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems.

Section 1 of the compendium discusses the broader meaning of evidence, the power and politics that shape and infuse our understanding of evidence, what counts as evidence, the broad range of ways evidence is documented, and the historical, epistemological roots that shape our understanding of agroecology, regenerative approaches, and Indigenous foodways.

Section 2 is shaped by five dominant questions identified by the contributors as contested ground in agroecology, regenerative approaches, and Indigenous foodways. In each we share evidence from their experiences and perspectives, whether academic, practical, farmer, Indigenous, scientific, social movement, or a combination.

Section 3 provides insights into how evidence is mobilized across different constituencies — who is asking for evidence, for whom, and in what form? Two key findings are that: 1) different food systems actors (farmers, policymakers, and donors, for example) require different evidence; and 2) relationship-building with these different actors is a key strategy for mobilization.

Section 4 outlines five priority areas to catalyze a transformative research and action agenda that is transdisciplinary; is focused on political and social justice and the right to food and food sovereignty; and challenges entrenched power, vested interests, and structural lock-ins. These five priority areas are:

1. Support comparative and systems performance research;
2. Explore questions of scale, time, and space;
3. Build capacity for transdisciplinary and participatory research and training;
4. Support knowledge and evidence mobilization as well as communication; and
5. Accelerate transformational pathways.

The contributors emphasized that a transformative research and action agenda must:

• Advance political justice elements of food sovereignty, gender equity, and rights to land and seeds.
• Boost investments in public research and development that focuses on agroecology, regenerative approaches, and Indigenous foodways, with a focus on the public good rather than private interests.
• Assist farmer and food producer organizations to strengthen knowledge and evidence mobilization strategies for their own movements, as well as advocating for more supportive policies and practices.
• Build capacity for participatory, multidisciplinary, multi-actor research and action, and support co-innovation with farmers, value chains, and policymakers.
• Strengthen transdisciplinary and feminist agroecology methodologies that break down colonial and patriarchal knowledge regimes, and lift up the agricultural knowledge systems of women, Indigenous Peoples, and other marginalized communities.
• Reform the current system for academic valuation so that outcomes other than scientific publications and policy briefs are encouraged and hence better allow co-inquiry, participation, and democratization of knowledge.
• Convene diverse actors, including funders supporting agricultural research, to understand tensions related to research, action, and agroecological transitions and to continue co-creating knowledge with an emphasis on farmer-to-farmer dialogues and knowledge sharing through horizontal networks of exchange.
• Develop and mainstream innovative approaches and methodologies that highlight good practice case studies and ascendant narratives in agroecology, regenerative approaches, and Indigenous foodways in order to influence research and policies.

Extensive detail and case studies relevant to this consultation can be found throughout the attached compendium. 

Amanda Jekums, Program Coordinator, Global Alliance for the Future of Food

2. Knowlege production:

 What actions do you take to align your research to problems and challenges faced by agrifood systems?

Include operationalize objectives to find out optimal solutions for the development of the system. Then make recommendations for policy makers.

 In what ways are the research questions in your sphere of work framed by academic interests and/or funders’ focus?

Academic interest

• To what extent do you feel research and policy-making communities in your sphere of work are united in their understanding of the challenges facing agrifood systems? 

In my experience they are working parallel way like railway lines.

• To what extent do you work across disciplines and/or draw on expertise from academic and non-academic actors including Indigenous Peoples and small-scale producers?

I always work with them because indigenous knowledge is more important to me shape and revisit my recommendations.

• To what extent, and in what ways, is your research co-produced with other knowledge holders and non-academic-stakeholders important for informing policy in agrifood systems?

It is important, sometimes research recommendations may not address the inherent situation of the problem. I mean some cultural and norms are with community can be extracted through IK to optimize the solution.  for ex. most of the time with perishable commodities theoretical perspectives do not work as it is, then IK is important to make policies to address the isses.  

Dear FNS Moderator,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to share our thoughts on barriers and opportunities for helping to guide agri-food system policies

It will not be possible to invest in all the Sustainable Development Goals, and this is especially true today given the multiple crises we are experiencing globally. Inflation and declining growth in many countries will undoubtedly limit our ability to invest in achieving the SDGs in time.

It is therefore extremely important for the scientific community to show how it is possible to work in an interdisciplinary way for sustainability in order to gain efficiency.

By investing and taking action in one sustainable development goal, it is possible to have impacts in the targeted area but also, in a related way, in other sustainable development goals. There are solutions that can be win-win in several areas. It is therefore extremely important that scientists highlight these solutions to guide policy makers in their investment choices. This will allow economies of scale to be made to better address the other SDGs more quickly.

 

Two examples with this perspective :

- Investing in school meal has an impact on children's food security, schooling (and learning capacity) and well-being. This strategy can also help transform local food systems if the food brought into schools is sourced from small-scale producers. Acting for children can therefore impact on the human capital of tomorrow and contribute to the transformation of food systems.

- In the same way, when we invest in agro-ecology, we can achieve several objectives related to climate, biodiversity, health, soil vitality, water quality, etc.



Our institution provides training and conducts research on agriculture, food and the environment. We integrate sustainable development objectives in the formulation of the competences we aim to achieve for our students at master's and doctoral level. We involve development actors (donors, development agencies), non-governmental organisations, the private sector and other academic partners from the South in the design of our programmes. It is important to open up the universities and to hear the needs of the stakeholders in society.

I have the feeling that the scientific community is more eager than ever to be useful, but that this is not always easy for researchers who have been trained by one discipline.



However, the stakeholders themselves are not always aware of the advances and solutions identified by the scientific community. It is very important to engage in mass dissemination processes. We participated in the creation of a mooc on food systems and nutrition with the FAO e-learning platform. This kind of action allows recent knowledge to be disseminated free of charge and on a large scale.

In addition, we are participating with the International Research Consortium on Nutrition and Health in the development of country narratives to describe good school feeding practices and promote exchange between nations. Best practices are being identified and dialogue with government and policy makers is planned to encourage decision makers to invest in these areas.

Working in such a consortium is extremely interesting and effective and this kind of collaborative organisation should be organised more frequently to foster synergies between the scientists themselves and allow them to come together in dialogue with policy makers.

Universities and research institutions can interact with governments and ministries to influence policy but these processes are still infrequent. This should be explicitly written into the mandate of universities.



I would like to thank the organisers of this consultation for the opportunity to discuss these important issues.  

 

Estimada Oficina del Científico Jefe de la FAO y miembros del FSN,

Agradecemos su trabajo en la Estrategia para la ciencia y la innovación, y en la presente consulta.  Al respecto, la Coordinación de Agrobiodiversidad y Recursos Biológicos de la CONABIO (Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad) por mi conducto, envía el documento adjunto con los insumos a las pregunta realizadas.

Esperamos que dicha información les sea de utilidad.

Agradecemos de antemano su atención y enviamos saludos cordiales.

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?



There are several barriers that can prevent scientists and other knowledge holders from effectively contributing to informing policy for agrifood systems:

• Limited access to decision-makers and policymakers: Scientists and other experts may not have the connections or resources to engage with decision-makers and policymakers.

• Lack of understanding of the policy-making process: Scientists and experts may not be familiar with the political and bureaucratic processes that govern policy-making, making it difficult for them to navigate and effectively participate.
• Limited resources: Scientists and experts may not have the funding or resources to conduct the research or analysis necessary to inform policy.
• Limited engagement of stakeholders: Scientists and experts may not engage with stakeholders and community members in a meaningful way, which can limit the impact of their research and analysis.
• Limited capacity for multi-disciplinary research and collaboration: Scientists and experts may not have the capacity to conduct multi-disciplinary research or collaborate with other experts, which can limit the breadth and depth of their research and analysis.

Despite these barriers, there are also several opportunities for scientists and other knowledge holders to contribute to informing policy for agrifood systems:

• Engaging with decision-makers and policymakers: Scientists and experts can engage with decision-makers and policymakers to share their research and expertise, and to help inform policy.

• Building partnerships: Scientists and experts can build partnerships with other stakeholders, including community members, industry leaders, and policymakers, to help inform policy.

• Using data and technology: Scientists and experts can use data and technology to conduct research and analysis that informs policy.

• Leveraging existing networks: Scientists and experts can leverage existing networks, such as professional associations, to share information and collaborate with other experts.

• Developing interdisciplinary research: Scientists and experts can develop interdisciplinary research that brings together different perspectives and expertise to inform policy.

Scientists and other knowledge holders can contribute to agrifood systems policy by engaging with decision-makers and policymakers, building partnerships with other stakeholders, using data and technology to conduct research and analysis, and leveraging existing networks to share information and collaborate with other experts.



In general, policy-makers tend to prioritise evidence that is relevant, reliable, and actionable.

Some of the strengths of the process include the ability to bring together a wide range of stakeholders and perspectives, the use of evidence and data to inform decision-making, and the ability to adapt and respond to changing conditions. Some of the weaknesses of the process include the potential for political and economic considerations to take precedence over scientific evidence, the potential for bias and power imbalances among stakeholders, and the potential for the process to be slow and bureaucratic.



Sustainability science, inter-disciplinarity, and trans-disciplinarity can inform agrifood systems policy by providing a holistic perspective that takes into account the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of the issue. However, opportunities and challenges can arise when attempting to apply these approaches to policy-making. These include the need for effective communication and collaboration among experts from different fields, the need to balance competing priorities, and the need to navigate the complexity of the policy-making process.



Power asymmetries among stakeholders can be effectively taken into account in science-policy processes by ensuring that the voices and perspectives of marginalised and underrepresented groups are heard, and by taking steps to address structural and systemic barriers that can limit their participation.

This can include efforts to increase transparency and accountability in the policy-making process, to engage with stakeholders and community members in a meaningful way, and to build partnerships and networks that bring together a wide range of perspectives and expertise.



Researchers can take several actions to align their research to problems and challenges faced by agrifood systems, such as:

• Engaging with stakeholders and community members: Researchers can engage with stakeholders and community members to understand the problems and challenges they face, and to identify opportunities for research that can inform policy.

• Conducting interdisciplinary research: Researchers can conduct interdisciplinary research that brings together different perspectives and expertise to understand the complex issues facing agrifood systems.

• Building partnerships: Researchers can build partnerships with other experts, including scientists, policymakers, industry leaders, and community members, to help inform policy.

• Using data and technology: Researchers can use data and technology to conduct research and analysis that informs policy.

• Leveraging existing networks: Researchers can leverage existing networks, such as professional associations, to share information and collaborate with other experts.

Research questions in the sphere of work are often framed by academic interests, but also by the focus of funders. Researchers need to balance their own interests with the goals and objectives of the funding agencies.



The research and policy-making communities in the sphere of work may not always be united in their understanding of the challenges facing agrifood systems. Scientists may focus on specific research questions, while policymakers may focus on practical solutions.



Researchers can work across disciplines and draw on expertise from academic and non-academic actors, including Indigenous Peoples and small-scale producers, to provide a holistic perspective on agrifood systems challenges.



Co-producing research with other knowledge holders and non-academic stakeholders is important for informing policy in agrifood systems as it allows for a more inclusive and diverse perspective. It also ensures that research is more relevant to the specific context, and that stakeholders are more likely to use and act upon the research findings.



Universities and research organisations can support researchers to produce and disseminate knowledge products by providing resources such as funding, staff, and equipment. They can also provide training and support for knowledge translation, such as by organising workshops and seminars on effective communication and dissemination strategies.



Universities and research organisations can create and maintain institutional linkages between producers and users of research by building partnerships and networks with other organisations and stakeholders, such as government agencies, industry groups, and community organisations. They can also provide dedicated resources for knowledge translation, such as communication specialists or science policy officers.



Incentives and rewards for effective policy engagement can include funding for research and dissemination activities, recognition through awards and promotions, and opportunities for professional development and training.



Universities and research organisations can engage in activities such as evidence synthesis and guideline development to collate evidence for policy. They can also engage in processes to build evidence into agrifood policy processes, such as through government consultations and knowledge management systems.



Universities and research organisations can also contribute to efforts to ensure that evidence is provided for policy-making that is grounded in an understanding of a national or sub-national contexts, demand-driven, and focused on contextualising the evidence for a given decision in an equitable way by conducting research that is context-specific and relevant to the needs of the community and stakeholders. They can also engage with stakeholders and community members to ensure that their research is accessible, understandable and relevant to the specific context.



Evidence is considered credible, relevant, and legitimate when it is based on sound research methods, has been peer-reviewed, and is consistent with other available evidence. Additionally, evidence is considered relevant when it addresses a specific problem or question of interest to the audience, and legitimate when it is derived from trustworthy and unbiased sources.



To balance the different requirements of different audiences, it is important to communicate the evidence in a clear and accessible manner, and to provide context and explanations that help to make the evidence relevant and understandable. Additionally, it is important to involve stakeholders in the process of evidence generation, assessment and communication, to ensure that their perspectives and needs are taken into account.



Evidence can be assessed in a rigorous, transparent, and neutral manner by using established methods and standards, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and by involving experts from different disciplines and perspectives. Additionally, assessments should be conducted in a transparent manner, with all methods, data, and results fully disclosed, and by being aware of potential biases and conflicts of interest.



Assessments of evidence can best be communicated to all stakeholders by using clear and accessible language, providing context and explanations, and involving stakeholders in the process. This can include organising workshops, seminars, and other events to share the evidence and to discuss its implications with stakeholders, and by using digital and social media to disseminate the evidence to a wide range of audiences.

 

This contribution is from The Vegan Society, led by Head of Campaigns, Policy and Research Claire Ogley ([email protected]), with AC Baker.

In summary: The vested interests in the industrial animal farming system are a huge barrier to efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems.

The scale, complexity and speed of the necessary agrifood policy and practice transition requires fully-funded and consistent leadership from Global North Governments and Intergovernmental Organisations.

Policymakers must fund traditionally marginalized voices, including small-scale, Indigenous and plant-based agrifood stakeholders to assess the evidence, to update the policies, and to co-ordinate the implementation of the efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable plant-based agrifood system policies too.

The language and culture of Global North 'science and innovation' can directly and actively, exclude Indigenous and small-scale practitioners, community members, activists, and traditional knowledge.  We need to be alert to the contradiction in the following statement: “While science is fundamentally important, the Strategy also recognizes the knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and small-scale producers as an important source of innovation for agrifood systems.”

Whose norms are used to establish 'credibility' of evidence?  How are 'rigor' and 'neutrality' defined?  Whose knowledge is included, and who is excluded e.g. stock-growers, permaculture based upon Indigenous farming?

This is key learning, to quote this call for contributions: “Decades of development efforts around the world have shown that narrow approaches and technological quick-fixes do not work, especially in the long-term.”

The Strategy emphasizes guiding principles: rights-based and people-centered; gender-equal; evidence-based; needs-driven; sustainability-aligned; risk-informed; and ethics-based. 

Our guiding principles must include the rights, needs, and ethical relationships of all, including all people, and with all free-living and artificially bred animals.

Complexities and practical problems

We have some knowledge of how agrifood systems policy is enacted, but the systems are hugely opaque, complex and surrounded by barriers at every level.

We have some awareness of opportunities to contribute.  But the resources of time, and thus money, required to have your knowledge, evidence and research incorporated into agrifood systems policy are huge.

Knowledge and evidence which confirms the status quo, or only slightly changes it, are greatly privileged in current processes.  

Knowledge and evidence which challenges the status quo faces huge barriers from the vested interests who are benefiting from how things currently work.   Also, someone who is representing a large organisation, who has generally supported the status quo, and/or who has consistently had access to significant resources (time, money, land, staff etc.) is hugely privileged in agrifood systems policy at local, national, regional and global levels.

A current example are moves in various countries and regions by the industrial animal farming lobby to place restrictions on the labelling of plant-based foods.  If food policy knowledge and evidence was neutral and transparent, no one would be suggesting such restrictions.  Empirical research (e.g. published & summarised here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3727710, https://proveg.com/press-release/new-reports-reveal-best-ways-to-label-…) demonstrates that most people understand that both traditional and newer products can accurate be described as vegan-friendly animal-free, plant-based meat, sausages, burgers, butter, cheese, milk, eggs etc.  Leaving out these food description words on appropriate plant-based products is what seems to cause people confusion when they are buying food.   Agrifood policymakers should actively support the use of these food description words, which have been used for example to describe coconut meat, soya milk, peanut butter, damson cheese and so on for decades or even centuries. 

Current weaknesses in processes

The biggest weakness of the current processes is the power of vested interests, particularly large-scale animal food industries, to stop sustainable plant-based land management and food systems. 

For example: Canada is a world-leader in legume growing. The country has invested strongly in legume farming, including diversified legume cropping & improved legume cultivars since the 1970s. The Pulse Canada organisation of farmers and exporters now has an ambitious “25 by 2025” strategy, to get 25% of pulse production into new, higher value markets by 2025.

https://www.foodincanada.com/features/exporting-canadian-value-added-pu…

In Canada, about 20% of arable land is now in crop rotations including legumes.  In contrast, the figure is only about 1% across Europe. Meanwhile, Europe imports vast quantities of soya beans for animal feed from South America, driving Amazon deforestation.

So, we must critically examine the question, given Canada’s work, why hasn’t global food policy and practice also focused on pulses for the past 50 years? There are pulses which are suitable for high-value food uses which grow well in many of the global agricultural climate zones. 

The vested interests in the industrial animal farming system are a huge barrier to efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems.

Opportunities and challenges

There are many serious barriers to drawing from sustainability science, interdisciplinarity and trans-disciplinarity to inform policy.

Over the past ten years, food policy experts have increasingly urgently explained the opportunities that plant-based farming, food manufacturing and diets offer for creating an efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood system. 

One of the main challenges has been the lack of leadership from Global North Governments in using agricultural subsidies, public procurement and other huge policy and finance levers to make this potential, reality.  At the moment, a relatively small proportion of people who have the personal resources to make more sustainable food choices, along with relatively well-financed interested businesses driving innovation within plant-based food.  However, we need to move further, faster to achieve sustainable transition to end multiple crises including: catastrophic climate change; malnutrition and food insecurity; destruction of free-living animals and the biodiverse habitats which support them; and the daily suffering of thousands of millions of farmed animals. The scale, complexity and speed of the necessary agrifood policy and practice transition requires fully-funded and consistent leadership from Global North Governments and Intergovernmental Organisations.

We are left with a ‘wicked problem’ with complex interdependences.  Land managers, food businesses, and all of us as people who eat, are unable to bring about the efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood system without co-ordination.  Action and academic research, and policy development, remain locked into the industrial animal-based inefficient, exclusive, fragile and unsustainable agrifood model of the twentieth century.

Ending Power Asymmetries

Money is time is power.  Substantial financial redistribution has to be part of the solution.  People need money to access land to do the action research required to demonstrate efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable plant-based agrifood systems. Substantial grant funding to small-scale practitioners will empower them to also hire the staff to collate, assess, and repeatedly present the evidence to policy makers that comes from practical experimentation 'in the field'.  Agrifood stakeholders need substantial transitional funding to escape from industrial animal-based systems, along the lines of the transitional funding that some Organic producers can access.

Alongside funding, stakeholders need policymakers to actively listen to, believe, and act upon the vast existing evidence from people who are already involved in sustainable agrifood.   This means policymakers must be committed to consistently challenging the vested interests so we can dismantle the current inefficient, exclusive, fragile and unsustainable industrial animal-based agrifood system.

Knowledge Production

We keep in contact with land managers, food producers and grassroots food needs, particularly in the UK & the EU. We mostly do not undertake primary research, we commission and synthesize evidence relevant to plant-based efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems. Our Grow Green policy series: https://www.vegansociety.com/take-action/campaigns/grow-green/policy-ma… including our Planting Value in Our Food System report, is based upon primary research with agrifood system stakeholders: https://www.plantingvalueinfood.org/ and has extensive science-based policy recommendations.  Although focused upon the UK, many of these policy points adapt well to other temperate zones, and much of the Global North.

Large, well-funded industrial animal-based agrifood organisations have a disproportionate influence on research questions across the board.

There is a growing convergence between researchers and high-level global policymakers (including various UN bodies) that efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems must be plant-based.   However, policymakers at local, national and regional level are continuing to be disproportionately swayed by industrial animal-based agrifood organisations.

Our work is intrinsically trans-disciplinary and inclusive of action research by practitioners: we envision a completely plant-based society, free of animal (ab)use.  This must be founded upon a plant-based agrifood system.  Indigenous Peoples had inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems for millennia before the Global North created the industrial animal-based agrifood system.  Small-scale producers including Indigenous People are re-creating inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems almost every microclimate.  The work of small-scale and Indigenous land managers is indispensable for efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable plant-based agrifood systems.

We keep in contact with land managers, food producers and grassroots food needs, particularly in the UK & the EU. We mostly do not undertake primary research, we synthesize evidence relevant to plant-based efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems. Our Grow Green policy series: https://www.vegansociety.com/take-action/campaigns/grow-green/policy-ma… including Planting Value in Our Food system which is based upon primary research with agrifood system stakeholders: https://www.plantingvalueinfood.org/ has extensive science-based policy recommendations.  Although focused upon the UK, many of these policy points adapt well to other temperate zones, and much of the Global North.

Knowledge translation

A key purpose of The Vegan Society is to synthesize and share knowledge of plant-based efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems to all relevant audiences.

Our Policy Team works with our Research Team and our Business Development Team to continually find new ways to share plant-based agrifood system knowledge and innovation.  The Vegan Society has a Research Advisory Committee (https://www.vegansociety.com/get-involved/research/who-we-are) of about 30 people who conduct and share academic and other research, give specialist advice, act as peer reviewers, recommend peer-reviewed evidence, and otherwise support our agrifood and other work. We also have a Researcher Network (https://www.vegansociety.com/get-involved/research/researcher-network), which is also open to independent, early career and postgraduate student researchers conducting any relevant research.  The Researcher Network community of about 45 people helps create and strength knowledge sharing between agrifood researchers and agrifood practitioners working independently or in organisations.   We work with about 40 UK and 10 non-UK Universities through these groups.  We published about 25 Research News articles (https://www.vegansociety.com/get-involved/research/research-news).    The most popular of these articles was the psychology of veganism and why people adopt or drop plant-based eating patterns. We have also looked at plant-based nutrition in dietetic clinical practice.  We also had nine episodes of our ‘On the Pulse’ Webinars in 2022, where researchers share their knowledge with other researchers as well as the wider interested community such as land managers, farmers, foresters, food manufacturers, retailers and vegans (https://www.vegansociety.com/get-involved/research/pulse-webinars).  We usually have one or two active research collaboration projects underway too.

Our registration system, The Vegan Trademark (https://www.vegansociety.com/the-vegan-trademark), is run by people with expert knowledge of the practicalities of plant-based products including food and drink.  Our Senior Management Team regularly attend networking events for the agrifood system, including international events such as the UN IPCC Climate Change COP26 in Glasgow in 2022.

The work is its own incentive: This is the core role for our Policy Team, and fundamental to how their work is appraised and assessed each year.

Our Research and Policy Teams collaborate with a wider Research Advisory Committee and Research Network.   We are in constant dialogue, including about research and policy on plant-based agrifood systems.  We regularly have external researchers briefing us on recent advances, and consult them in turn for policy input.

We produce briefings for policymakers working in agrifood about how plant-based land management, food systems and industrial supply can support work to end the ongoing harms of the climate, biodiversity, public health and malnourishment crises.  We work with our Research Advisory Committee and Researcher Networks (c. 75 people across c. 50 institutions) to identify gaps in knowledge around plant-based agrifood system, and complete the research needed to fill them.   We produce concept reports to synthesize existing knowledge on plant-based agrifood systems, targeted to specific audiences.

Our Grow Green project, reports and campaigns aim to change agrifood policy. The United Nations agrees, no sector can be ignored if we are to achieve climate change targets. Therefore, agrifood policy at every level must fully address the harmful impacts of a century of industrial animal-based farming.  The health, environmental, and ethical case for a shift from animal protein to plant protein diets is widely documented.  We address why this transition is not yet rapid enough, and what policies could catalyse the needed changes. https://www.vegansociety.com/take-action/campaigns/grow-green

This includes our landmark, ‘Planting Value in Our Food’ system project and report, which is based upon primary research with agrifood system stakeholders: https://www.plantingvalueinfood.org/ has extensive science-based policy recommendations.

​​​​​

In 2022, our Policy Team responded to numerous agrifood consultations run by the Welsh, Scottish, UK and EU Government, as well as agrifood non- and inter-governmental organisations.  With our Business team, we also engage with industry consultations.

We contextualise evidence on plant-based agrifood systems for equity in many contexts including land management, food security, public health, and freedom for non-human animals.

Assessing evidence

What makes evidence credible, relevant and legitimate? These are subjective criteria: People rate as more credible, relevant and legitimate evidence which corresponds to their existing values systems, and existing knowledge of agrifood systems.  However, people tend to frame such assessments as ‘objective’, to avoid cognitive dissonance.  when our conscious attitudes, and our past, current and planned behaviours, and our beliefs about the world and ourselves, clash with new information, we tend to reject the new information.  

However, it is a widely held ethical belief that it is wrong to cause harm unnecessarily.  We are particularly ethically repelled by causing unnecessary suffering – that is, harm that is experienced by people or animals.  Yet our whole current industrial animal-based agrifood system is founded upon suffering and harm.   We know that agrifood has to change to avert the ongoing harms of the climate, biodiversity, public health and malnourishment crises.  We know that thousands of millions of people and animals are currently suffering in the agrifood system.  But we all need to and deserve to eat, to eat well, and to eat food that we enjoy. 

So, every time we eat, if we are facing up to the realities of the current agrifood system, we are liable to feel painful or even paralysing cognitive dissonance.  We are ‘good’ people actively, daily participating in a ‘wicked problem’ (Churchman C. W. (1967). "Wicked Problems” https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.14.4.B141). 

Not everything that is faced can be changed; But nothing can be changed until it is faced, as James Baldwin said. Land managers, food businesses, and all of us as people who eat, have to learn to face the true harms of our agrifood system to bring about the efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable plant-based agrifood system which can end those harms. 

We need a critical mass of agrifood stakeholders to absorb, not simply state, the harms of the current system. The Table Debates organisation is actively researching how to move beyond this deadlock, for example in their "Gut feelings ..: (where) does animal farming fit?" paper. https://www.tabledebates.org/node/12341

Money is time is power.  Policymakers must fund traditionally marginalized voices, including small-scale, Indigenous and plant-based agrifood stakeholders to assess the evidence, to update the policies, and to co-ordinate the implementation of the efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable plant-based agrifood system policies too. We approached two highly respected UK-based practicing stock-free farmers, neither who had the capacity to contribute to this consultation without being paid.

Substantial financial redistribution has to be part of the solution.  People need money to access land to do the action research required to demonstrate the necessary agrifood system changes. Agrifood stakeholders need substantial transitional funding to escape from industrial animal-based systems, along the lines of the transitional funding that some Organic producers can access.

Alongside funding, stakeholders need policymakers to actively listen to, believe, and act upon the vast existing evidence from people who are already involved in sustainable agrifood.   This means policymakers must be committed to consistently challenging the vested interests so we can dismantle the current inefficient, exclusive, fragile and unsustainable industrial animal-based agrifood system

We are most likely to believe new evidence that comes to us from trusted peer sources.  We are most likely to believe new evidence that comes to us from trusted peer sources. Policymakers must fund traditionally marginalized voices, including small-scale, Indigenous and plant-based agrifood stakeholders to co-ordinate the communication of  implementation of the evidence and techniques required for efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable plant-based agrifood systems.

Agrifood stakeholders need substantial transitional funding to implement evidence and change.  This is necessary for them to escape from industrial animal-based systems, along the lines of the transitional funding that some Organic producers can access.

The most influential agrifood system stakeholders, including funders, land owners, large animal-based organisations and policymakers must be committed to dismantling the current inefficient, exclusive, fragile and unsustainable industrial animal-based agrifood system.

Examples of translating knowledge to policy

The Vegan Society Public Relations, Policy and Research Teams have been reviewing, collating, generating and sharing plant-based agrifood system knowledge with policymakers for many years.  Most recently:

- Our Grow Green project, reports and campaigns aim to change agrifood policy. The United Nations agrees, no sector can be ignored if we are to achieve climate change targets. Therefore, agrifood policy at every level must fully address the harmful impacts of a century of industrial animal-based farming.  The health, environmental, and ethical case for a shift from animal protein to plant protein diets is widely documented.  We address why this transition is not yet rapid enough, and what policies could catalyse the needed changes. https://www.vegansociety.com/take-action/campaigns/grow-green

- Our Planting Value in Our Food system project and report, which is based upon primary research with agrifood system stakeholders: https://www.plantingvalueinfood.org/ has extensive science-based policy recommendations.

- The Vegan Society Policy Team have responded to around 14 Consultations in 2022 at EU, UK, and UK Nation Region levels relating to the agrifood system: EU Sustainable Food System; EU Forestry; EU Soil health; EU School Fruit, Vegetables & Milk scheme; EU Waste Regulations; EU alcoholic drinks labelling; UK 2030 World Climate & Nature Strategy; UK Food Standards Agency Precautionary Allergen Labelling; UK Bread & Flour Regulations;  England Agriculture & Horticulture Development Board reform; England Dept. Health & Social Care Vitamin D; England Public Sector food; Scotland Land Reform; Scotland Agriculture.

The impacts of such work are notoriously hard to quantify without dedicated financial investment in monitoring.   However, as part of the wider plant-based agrifood system movement since 1944, we have moved the policy debate and agrifood practice forward significantly.

For example, the EU's strategy, ‘Creating a sustainable food system’ now explicitly recognises that, “Although EU agriculture is the only major farm sector worldwide to have reduced its greenhouse gas emissions (by 20% since 1990), it still accounts for about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions (of which 70% are due to animals).” https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20200519STO794…).

In summary: The vested interests in the industrial animal farming system are a huge barrier to efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems.

The scale, complexity and speed of the necessary agrifood policy and practice transition requires fully-funded and consistent leadership from Global North Governments and Intergovernmental Organisations.

Policymakers must fund traditionally marginalized voices, including small-scale, Indigenous and plant-based agrifood stakeholders to assess the evidence, to update the policies, and to co-ordinate the implementation of the efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable plant-based agrifood system policies too.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I transmit to you, for all intents and purposes, ADACO's modest contribution relating to this consultation. Please find it in the attached file. Kind regards, Davy Pouaty Nzembialela

Composición y sustancias bioactivas en subproductos de la industrialización de frutas y hortalizas

        El sector agrícola origina enorme cantidad de residuos con efectos negativos para el medio ambiente (FAO, 2011). Las perdidas ocurren desde la cosecha y continúan a lo largo de toda la cadena. Globalmente 30-40% de la producción mundial de alimentos termina en residuos.   FAO (2011) estima que los desperdicios   de frutas y verduras contribuyen con el 60%. FAO estima que un 1/3/ de los alimentos producidos se pierde y que las mayores pérdidas se producen en frutas, vegetales y la industria pesquera. En una escala global se pierden 1 trillón de dólares (Ben-Othman et al. 2020).

        La industrialización de las frutas contribuye con más de 0,5 billones de toneladas mundiales de residuos (Banerjee et al., 2017). Estos residuos son rápidamente sujetos a degradación y contaminación por patógenos. Procesar esos residuos a un producto desecado es una opción muy interesante pero insume tiempo, costos y puede afectar su composición. Los subproductos de la industrialización de frutas consisten en carbohidratos (pectina, celulosa, hemicelulosa, etc.), metabolitos secundarios (fenólicos, glucósidos, alcaloides, aceites volátiles, gomas, mucilagos, lípidos, proteínas, etc.). Los compuestos bioactivos varían según variedad, ubicación geográfica, estado de madurez y los parámetros de extracción. En general las semillas son fuentes ricas en polifenoles y lípidos bioactivos mientras que las cascaras son ricas en fibra dietarias.   

        Los subproductos frutihortícolas constituyen una fuente importante de compuestos bioactivos con efectos saludables en la salud y en la prevención de enfermedades. Los subproductos y residuos provienen generalmente de las partes no comestibles y son generalmente poco valorados. Con los cambios en los hábitos alimentarios y el aumento de la población la producción y el procesamiento de los vegetales han incrementado notablemente. La gran producción de residuos generados por las industrias basadas en la industrialización de frutas y hortalizas ha llevado a pérdidas económicas y problemas ambientales. La presente actualización intenta describir la composición y el aporte de compuestos bioactivos de los distintos subproductos hortícolas destacando al mismo tiempo el potencial de los mismos.

       La mayoría de los residuos se originan después de la obtención del jugo o del empleo de los subproductos. Las partes no comestibles, capas externas y semillas, son generalmente descartadas en la mayoría de los casos. Estos residuos son rápidamente sujetos a degradación y contaminación por patógenos.   Esos residuos son muy ricos en compuestos bioactivos (BA) indicando que aun con la extracción del jugo, una cantidad considerable de compuestos BA permanecen. Estos compuestos exhiben un amplio rango de efectos antioxidantes, antinflamatorios, antialérgicos, anti aterogénicos y vasodilatorios. Extractos de los subproductos o compuestos aislados pueden ser usados también como ingredientes en alimentos funcionales o como nutraceúticos en preparaciones medicinales o farmacéuticas.    

Análisis de las complejidades y los problemas prácticos asociados a las interfaces científicas-normativas.      

           En Argentina la información sobre el potencial de los residuos de la industrialización frutihortícola (RIFH) llega en a través de publicaciones científicas, generalmente en inglés, y en revistas super especializadas que solo son consultadas por expertos e investigadores en el tema.  Por lo tanto, el aporte en sustancias bioactivas y las características de los RIFH no llegan ni al productor ni a las asociaciones de los mismos y con ello se limita mucho su disponibilidad de uso.

            El tema sobre el potencial de los RIFH es de tal importancia en el mundo que el volumen mundial de información merece ser difundida adecuadamente a asesores, escuelas rurales, asociaciones de productores, programas universitarios, etc.

             En mis dos publicaciones he tratado de acceder al tema mediante el acceso a información actual respecto del potencial. La importancia del tema se traduce en la enorme cantidad de patentes que se están generando en s investigaciones, así como datos cuantificables de las concentraciones en los diversos FIFH originados.

            El tratamiento de los RIFH debe ser similar al del producto madre para permitir preparar extractos de uso por las diversas industrias y su posterior procesamiento por parte de las mismas, condiciones higiénicas, ausencia de contaminantes, etc.

           El productor debe aprender a manejar los RIFH como parte importante de su sistema de producción y con el tiempo puede incrementar su actividad en la purificación de dichos extractos y su optima conservación.

          Es necesario generar personal técnico que trasmita la importancia del tema a los productores y potenciales usuarios de estos subproductos, ya sea en forma de conferencias, cursos, etc. dentro de las asociaciones de productores.    

Pilar Teresa Garcia

Foro de la Alimentación, la Nutricion y la Salud (FANUS)