Guidance on strengthening national science-policy interfaces for agrifood systems – Draft report
FAO’s first-ever Science and Innovation Strategy (the Strategy) is a key tool to support the delivery of the FAO Strategic Framework 2022-31 and hence the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Strengthening science-policy interfaces (SPIs) for agrifood systems is one of the nine outcomes of the Strategy (outcome 1.2) under the first pillar on “Strengthening science and evidence-based decision-making”.
The Strategy indicates that FAO will strengthen its contribution to SPIs at national, regional and global levels to support organized dialogue between scientists, policymakers and other relevant stakeholders in support of inclusive science- and evidence-based policymaking for greater policy coherence, shared ownership and collective action. The added value of FAO’s contribution is to focus at national and regional levels in addition to the global level, to address issues that are relevant to agrifood systems taking into account, as appropriate, information and analyses produced by existing global SPIs, such as the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE-FSN), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), and to enable ongoing and effective dialogue through the institutional architecture provided by the FAO Governing Bodies.
Aligned with the Strategy, the FAO Chief Scientist Office has developed guidance for strengthening science-policy interfaces for agrifood systems at the national level. Work was initiated with the organization of an online consultation to further identify and understand the barriers and opportunities for scientists and other knowledge holders (drawing their knowledge from other knowledge systems, including Indigenous Peoples, small-scale producers, etc.) to contribute to informing policy for more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems. The online consultation took place from 5 December 2022 to 24 January 2023, and received 91 valuable contributions from 39 countries.
Subsequently, two background papers were commissioned. The first one at the national level provides an overview of existing models and activities used for developing and operating science-policy systems and supporting the use of evidence, to transform global agrifood systems. Three high-level models are presented: the production-focused model, the policy-oriented model and the integrated model. The second one focusses on the global level to better understand how different international SPIs operate to address the complexities of their tasks. The conceptual framework identifies three key components of SPIs that, operating together, have the potential to anticipate and respond to needs and demands for both policy and science: governance, co-production and learning.
Building on findings from the online consultation, background studies to understand the experiences at global, regional and national levels, key informant interviews, desktop studies, literature reviews and an expert workshop, guidance on strengthening science-policy interfaces (SPIs) for agrifood systems at the national level was drafted. This document is meant to provide guidance to the individuals who produce and use evidence as well as the intermediaries who broker evidence in Member States and in partner organizations. It is targeted to SPIs that are focused on the transformation of agrifood systems (or some particular component of them) to contribute to the achievement of the SDGs, with a focus on the needs of low- and middle-income countries.
The guidance includes, among others: core elements for functional SPIs to be considered; principles such as credibility, relevance, legitimacy, etc.; different SPI models and the trade-offs and complementarities between models; cross-scale interactions, i.e. between SPIs at the national, regional and global levels; mechanisms and methods for knowledge co-creation, integration and synthesis; skills and capacities of SPI actors; monitoring, evaluation and learning options. Since circumstances differ according to specific contexts, there can be no one-size-fits-all approach and tailoring to national needs is essential. Accordingly, the guidance document 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. The guidance is envisioned to be a living document and improved (through further iterations of the guidance) by learning from such experiences.
As part of the guidance development process, the FAO Chief Scientist Office is launching this e-consultation to seek inputs, suggestions and comments on the draft guidance.
QUESTIONS TO GUIDE THIS CONSULTATION
We invite participants to address some or all of the following discussion questions (as relevant to their experience) and provide examples as appropriate:
| 1. | When you think about advancing an SPI for agrifood systems in your country, what is the greatest challenge that the FAO guidance, such as presented here, can help address? What suggestions do you have to make the guidance more practical and useable at the country level? |
| 2. | Are the sections/elements identified in the draft guidance the key ones to strengthen SPIs at the national level? If not, which other elements should be considered? Are there any other issues that have not been sufficiently covered in the draft guidance? Are any sections/topics under- or over-represented in relation to their importance? |
| 3. | In order to make the guidance as concrete as possible, we are including numerous boxes/cases studies on real-life use cases. In this context, please contribute 300-450 words on examples, success stories or lessons learnt from countries that have/are strengthening SPIs for agrifood systems, including addressing asymmetries in power, collaboration across knowledge systems, connecting across scales, capacity development activities and fostering learning among SPIs. |
| 4. | Is there additional information that should be included? Are there any key references, publications, or traditional or different kind of knowledges, that are missing in the draft and which should be considered? |
Your contributions and the results of this consultation will be used by the FAO Chief Scientist Office to further elaborate and refine this draft guidance. Proceedings of the contributions received will be made publicly available on this consultation webpage.
Comments are welcome in English, French and Spanish.
This consultation is open until 08 May 2024.
We thank in advance all the contributors for reading, commenting and providing feedback on this draft guidance, and look forward to a productive consultation.
Facilitator:
Dr Preet Lidder, Technical Adviser, Chief Scientist Office, FAO
How to take part in this consultation:
To take part in this consultation, please register to the FSN Forum, if you are not yet a member, or “sign in” to your account. Please download the draft Guidance on SPIs for your introduction and insert your comments to the guiding questions in the box “Post your contribution” on this webpage. For any technical support please contact [email protected].
- Read 7 contributions
When you think about advancing an SPI for agrifood systems in your country, what is the greatest challenge that the FAO guidance, such as presented here, can help address? What suggestions do you have to make the guidance more practical and useable at the country level?
i think there is a big challenge in countries like mine where most decisions are passed through the legislature (parliament) and then final approval by the head of state. most of our parliamentarians are more engaged into business and politics and do not master issues of environmental, agriculture or agri-food production, challenges and policies, policies are being made which does not tie with the realities in the field because these policy makers do not go to the field. leaving it alone for our government(s) will not be enough and i thing the FAO should change the strategy of strengthening partnerships with African governments by working more directly with agriculture extension officers and rural development NGOs, who could assist to meet directly with rural and small scheme farmers to educate them on the thresholds and policies through capacity building workshops and field demonstrations. ........
THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION BELOW
Необходимо, чтобы государство и академический научный сектор прислушивались к данным отраслевых союзов и ассоциаций, которые, как известно, практически являются фермерами в исследованиях. наука часто оторвана от практики, интересы фермеров и производителей не учитываются. Наука ради науки, а также просто освоение средств бюджета, местничество и имитация деятельности со стороны научных учреждений. Необходимо включить представителей производителей, фермеров в научные консультации, тендерные комиссии при правительстве, которые принимают решения по финансированию исследований, организовывать запросы на исследования от фермеров, ассоциаций и консультантов, и проводить отчеты перед ними.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is necessary that the government and the academic research sector consider the data/information of industry unions and associations, which, as we know, are practically "farmers" in research. Science is often distanced from practice, and interests of farmers and producers are not taken into account. There is science for the sake of science, as well as simply the use of funds, localism and imitation of activities on the part of scientific institutions. It is necessary: to include representatives of producers and farmers in scientific consultations, government tender commissions that make decisions on research funding; to call for proposals for research from farmers, associations and consultants; and to include the accountability to the process.
Santosh Kumar Mishra
Dear FSN Forum Team,
Find my contribution to Consultation: Guidance on strengthening national science-policy interfaces for agrifood systems-Draft report. I trust, you will find my inputs informative.
With compliments,
Independent Researcher (Scholar): Retired from the Population Education Resource Centre, Department of Life Long Learning and Extension, S. N. D. T. Women’s University, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India (https://sndt.ac.in)
Digital Address:: https://www.evalforward.org/members/santosh-mishra & https://www.breastcancer.scientexconference.com/speakers/Dr-Santosh-Kumar-Mishra
Note/Comments by the Contributor: Inputs presented below (taken from published work, with original sources being quoted) are of the contributor (Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra) and NOT of the PERC, DLLE, SNDTWU, the contributor was employed previously (from August 1, 1987 till June 30, 2020)
Agrifood systems provide food, nutrition, employment and economic security to millions of people in India (the country I live in). They are, however, facing unprecedented challenges, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation. The concerned government departments and units in the country are making efforts to operationalize science-policy interface (SPI) in the agrifood sector. There is a need for urgent action informed by the best available science and evidence. Agrifood systems transformation, in particular, requires solutions that transcend conventional policy boundaries and take into account different experiences, expertise and values. The multiple dimensions and complexities of agrifood systems highlight the need for a holistic approach and the inclusion of knowledge from both the academic (for, e.g., scientific research) and non-academic (for, e.g., knowledge of indigenous people and small-scale producers) spheres (including mechanisms, processes and governance structures) to equitably integrate and translate knowledge and evidence for policymaking.
Source: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (September, 2023). “Strengthening science-policy interfaces for agrifood systems, Hundred and Thirty-seventh Session, Rome, 6-10 November 2023” (Accessed on April 23, 2024 from: https://www.fao.org/3/nn083en/nn083en.pdf).
The stakeholders in the agricultural sector need to devise renewed strategies to make the agrifood systems sustainable. This aspect gains increased significance in view of food insecurity resulting from war (conflict) situations in some countries/regions of the globe. More efficient and meaningful SPIs (science-policy interfaces) must deliver at least the following three priorities: (1) the integration of research and data across food systems to support multi-sectoral and cross-scalar policies that combine food and nutrition security, public health, environmental sustainability and societal wellbeing and equity; (2) the provision of a robust, transparent and independent synthesis and assessment of knowledge, including scientific evidence and insights from the relevant stakeholders; and (3) the provision of a relevant, policy-related research agenda. Together, addressing these priorities will help to ensure the legitimacy of policy advice through an independent, transparent, credible and authoritative consensus on scientific evidence and other forms of knowledge, thereby helping to overcome both controversies and uncertainties and to fill knowledge gaps.
Source: Singh, B.K., Arnold, T., Biermayr-Jenzano, P. et al. “Enhancing science – policy interfaces for food systems transformation” (Accessed on April 23, 2024 from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00406-6). 2. Are the sections/elements identified in the draft guidance the key ones to strengthen SPIs at the national level? If not, which other elements should be considered? Are there any other issues that have not been sufficiently covered in the draft guidance? Are any sections/topics under- or over-represented in relation to their importance?
The draft guidance identifies all relevant elements for strengthening SPIs at the national level. However, from micro level point of view, under VIII PILLARS, I suggest adding below: D. Pillar 4: Institutional mechanism for gender equality and equity
Strategies need to be devised to ensure that the above aspect forms part of institutional mechanism aimed at strengthening SPIs. In view of this, relevant information needs to be added in the draft guidance.
Important Point: I find the contents covered to my satisfaction. However, before finalizing the draft guidelines, I suggest that Dr Preet Lidder, Technical Adviser and the FAO Forum team organise one-day duration “Dissemination Workshop” to get more inputs. I will be good idea to have this type of workshop, may be by hybrid mode.
3. In order to make the guidance as concrete as possible, we are including numerous boxes/cases studies on real-life use cases. In this context, please contribute 300-450 words on examples, success stories or lessons learnt from countries that have/are strengthening SPIs for agrifood systems, including addressing asymmetries in power, collaboration across knowledge systems, connecting across scales, capacity development activities and fostering learning among SPIs. In response to this question, I present following initiative: Name of the project: Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) for the Horizon Europe candidate partnership Agriculture of Data
Description of the project: The primary goal of this Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) for the Horizon Europe candidate partnership Agriculture of Data is to address the scientific research, development and innovation needs within the overall scope of the partnership adequately and comprehensively. The SRIA follows up on the partnership document published in March 2022, building on its participatory approach and co-creation process, which included a number of outreach activities and public consultation. The partnership document discusses the overall scope and approach of the partnership, its intervention logic and the envisaged governance structures. This partnership aims to enhance sustainable agricultural production and to strengthen policy monitoring and evaluation capacities through exploiting the potential of Earth Observation (EO), environmental, agricultural and other data, in combination with state of the art data technologies. Data-based solutions are key assets to boost the resiliency of the sector and to strengthen its competitiveness in the short- medium- and long-term on local and global scales. They are also key enablers for implementing and assessing the performance of European and national policies smartly and efficiently. The further development of sustainable and competitive agricultural will require the sector simultaneously reduce its environmental footprint, respond to the decline in biodiversity, while ensuring food security and adapting to climate change. The partnership Agriculture of Data will enable the sector to meet those challenges and cope with trade-offs, in particular through providing a foundation for decision-making support, for e.g. producers and policy-makers.
The primary goal of this Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) for the Horizon Europe candidate partnership Agriculture of Data is to address the scientific research, development and innovation needs within the overall scope of the partnership adequately and comprehensively. The SRIA follows up on the partnership document published in March 2022, building on its participatory approach and co-creation process, which included a number of outreach activities and public consultation. The partnership document discusses the overall scope and approach of the partnership, its intervention logic and the envisaged governance structures. This partnership aims to enhance sustainable agricultural production and to strengthen policy monitoring and evaluation capacities through exploiting the potential of Earth Observation (EO), environmental, agricultural and other data, in combination with state of the art data technologies. Data-based solutions are key assets to boost the resiliency of the sector and to strengthen its competitiveness in the short- medium- and long-term on local and global scales. They are also key enablers for implementing and assessing the performance of European and national policies smartly and efficiently. The further development of sustainable and competitive agricultural will require the sector simultaneously reduce its environmental footprint, respond to the decline in biodiversity, and while ensuring food security and adapting to climate change. The partnership Agriculture of Data will enable the sector to meet those challenges and cope with trade-offs, in particular through providing a foundation for decision-making support, for e.g. producers and policy-makers.
Source: Horizon Europe Candidate Partnership Agriculture of Data (March, 2-23). “European Partnership “Agriculture of Data” - Unlocking the potential of data for sustainable agriculture - Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda” (Accessed on April 23, 2024 from: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-08/AgData%20SRIA%20final_version.pdf).
4. Is there additional information that should be included? Are there any key references, publications, or traditional or different kind of knowledges, that are missing in the draft and which should be considered? Following information forms introductory part of the draft document: The current world is afflicted with crises which affect the integrity of our food systems’ sustainability, including its capability to provide nutritional and quality foods, decent livelihood opportunities, and the biological diversity’s capacity to produce renewable, ecological yield. The crises are myriad and nuanced, with unclear triggers and trajectories – ranging from land-use agricultural production, to food processing, through waste management. However, its socioeconomic impacts are clear. Transforming global food systems has the potential to guarantee a just society that would address human health, reduce environmental pollution, and secure fundamental rights for communities. Investing in food systems’ transformation has the notable advantage being self-perpetuating, further enhancing its resilience for intergenerational equity.
Source: “UN Environment Management Group Nexus Dialogues” (Accessed on April 22, 2024 from: https://unemg.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/EMG-ND-on-Food-Systems-Resilience_Final.pdf).
|
-------------------- End of Contribution --------------------
|
Brief Biography of Contributor: I, Independent Researcher (Scholar) retired (on June 30, 2020), as Technical Assistant, from Population Education Resource Centre, Department of Lifelong Learning & Extension, S.N.D.T. Women's University, Mumbai, India. I underwent training in demography, with award of Government of India Fellowship, during 1986-1987 from the IIPS, Mumbai. Also, I acquired Ph. D. from University of Patna in 1999. My other qualifications include Post-Master’s Diploma in Adult & Continuing Education, Certificate Course on Hospital and Health Care Management, and Diploma in Human Resource Development. I have authored (some co-authored) 5 booklets, 4 books, 23 book chapters, 97 journal articles, 2 monographs, 7 research studies, & 56 papers for national & international conferences (some with bursary). I have been awarded with Certificate of Excellence in Reviewing for 2017, 2018, 2021 & 2022. I have been conferred with Excellence of Research Award for outstanding contribution & recognition in the field of agriculture in 2021.
|
Strengthening national science-policy interfaces for agrifood systems is crucial for informed decision-making and effective implementation of policies. Here are some suggestions to enhance these interfaces:
- Multi-Stakeholder Engagement: Foster collaboration among scientists, policymakers, farmers, industry representatives, civil society organizations, and other relevant stakeholders. This inclusive approach ensures diverse perspectives are considered and increases the relevance and acceptance of policies.
- Capacity Building: Invest in training programs and workshops to enhance the capacity of policymakers in understanding scientific evidence and methodologies. Likewise, scientists should be trained in communication skills to effectively convey research findings to policymakers in a clear and accessible manner.
- Data Sharing and Transparency: Establish mechanisms for transparent sharing of data and research findings between scientists and policymakers. Open access to data and research publications facilitates evidence-based policymaking and fosters trust among stakeholders.
- Policy-Relevant Research: Encourage the conduct of research that addresses the specific needs and challenges of agrifood systems. This research should provide actionable insights and practical solutions to inform policy development and implementation.
- Policy Briefs and Summaries: Scientists should produce concise policy briefs and summaries of their research findings tailored to the needs of policymakers. These documents should highlight key findings, implications, and recommendations in a format that is easily understandable and actionable.
- Establishment of Science-Policy Platforms: Create dedicated platforms or forums where scientists and policymakers can interact regularly to exchange knowledge, discuss emerging issues, and co-design research agendas and policy interventions.
- Long-Term Engagement: Foster long-term relationships and ongoing dialogue between scientists and policymakers. This continuity ensures that scientific evidence is consistently integrated into policymaking processes and that policies are adaptive to changing circumstances.
- Incentivize Collaboration: Provide incentives for scientists to engage with policymakers, such as recognition in academic evaluations, funding opportunities for policy-relevant research, and career advancement pathways that value science-policy engagement.
- Evaluation and Monitoring: Develop mechanisms to evaluate the effectiveness of science-policy interfaces and monitor the impact of policies on agrifood systems. This feedback loop helps identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement in the interface.
- International Collaboration: Facilitate collaboration and knowledge exchange with international organizations, research institutions, and networks working on similar issues. Lessons learned from other countries can inform domestic policy processes and enhance global cooperation on agrifood system challenges.
By implementing these suggestions, countries can strengthen their science-policy interfaces and enhance the effectiveness of policymaking in addressing the complex challenges facing agrifood systems.
As of my observation, FAO should focus on the following issues for SPIs:
- Ensuring the credibility and the reliability of data on which the policy based on from different relevant stakeholders and reach at a conclusive evidence-based data that all parties/stakeholders trusted (it is common to read different results and conclusions from different organizations on the same agenda)
- The depth of data analysis including the skill of analysts also matters a lot therefore, there is a need to continual capacity building particularly data for policy making.
- There is a need to draw different showcases on failed polices due to low quality data particularly from different developing countries as lessons learnt.
Mr. Sayed M Naim Khalid
In the context of Afghanistan, I think FAO can help the country in various ways through its Science and Innovation Strategy. Here are few areas that it can focus:
- Agricultural Research and Development: FAO can support Afghanistan in conducting research to develop high-yielding and climate-resilient crop varieties suitable for local conditions. This includes investing in the development of drought-resistant seeds, pest-resistant crops, and crops with improved nutritional content.
- Capacity Building: FAO can facilitate training programs and workshops to build the capacity of Afghan farmers, extension workers, and policymakers in modern agricultural techniques, including sustainable farming practices, water management, and post-harvest handling.
- Agriculture higher education: FAO can and should help in building agriculture educational institutions for long term and sustainable results not only in food security but in forest, environment, wildlife, livestock and fishery sector as well.
- Technology Adoption: FAO can assist Afghanistan in adopting innovative technologies such as precision agriculture, drip irrigation systems, and mobile applications for weather forecasting and market information. These technologies can help increase agricultural productivity and improve resource efficiency.
- Infrastructure Development: FAO can support the development of agricultural infrastructure such as irrigation systems, storage facilities, and transportation networks. Improving infrastructure can help reduce post-harvest losses, increase market access for farmers, and enhance overall food security.
- Value Chain Enhancement: FAO can work with Afghan stakeholders to strengthen agricultural value chains, from production to consumption. This includes promoting agro-processing activities, improving market linkages, and facilitating access to credit and market information for smallholder farmers.
- Focus on producing less policy documents, act more. FAO and several other UN agencies generated a lot of documents. Most of them under dust and shelves here and there in different countries. I think it is time to work, we have enough evidence of issues in various countries.
I think, when considering the advancement of an SPI (Sustainable Performance Index) for agrifood systems in any country there are several challenges that the FAO guidance can help address. But to make the FAO guidance more practical and usable at the country level, the following suggestions can be considered to enable the effective implementation of an SPI for agrifood systems.
- Encourage active participation and engagement of relevant stakeholders at all stages of developing and implementing the SPI. This includes representatives from government agencies, farmers' associations, research institutions, civil society, and the private sector.
- Ensure that the guidance considers the availability and accessibility of data required for SPI calculation. Provide guidelines and support for data collection, monitoring, and reporting systems. Encourage using standardized indicators while allowing flexibility to adapt them to local data availability and reporting capacities.
- It is important to align the FAO guidance with existing national or regional sustainable development frameworks, strategies, and targets. This integration can foster coherence, avoid duplication of efforts, and ensure the SPI contributes to broader sustainability agendas.
- Develop mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness and impact of the SPI implementation. This includes confirming clear indicators and targets and periodic assessments to trace progress and detect areas for progress.