Member profile
Mr. Jerome Bossuet
Organization:
consultant
Country:
United Kingdom
Field(s) of expertise:
I am working on:
South South sustainable fisheries management collaboration; Climate resilience of dryland cropping systems
Mr. Jerome Bossuet
Thank you for this very thoughtful draft report on how to strengthen science-policy interfaces. Here my thoughts.
First, a few general considerations. I noted you mentioned the very interesting Oped from Benton, 2023 which argues that scientists can do more to disrupt and reframe the solution space for food system transformation. Delivering evidence is not enough. We need a better understanding of how decision-makers use the information, according to their frames of reference and possible bias and prejudiced views.
Our research collective BRIDGE https://doi.org/10.23708/IY0MZY has been working on co-designing decision support frameworks of water and climate smart farming systems. I understand from your report, among the 3 categories of SPI models, we may be situated in the evidence producer-led model category. I would suggest for any research initiative developing policy decision support tools, a clear transdisciplinary strategy should be defined from the start how to co-produce knowledge, co-innovate with the different users of evidence including policy makers. In evaluating SPI, co-production metrics may help assess how transdisciplinary are the interfaces in a country. A literature review we did on how to improve co-production practices in the context of climate adaptation https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103775 provides some entry points to reflect on that.
I find the term science-policy interface too dichotomic. One suggestion to fill this empty boundary spanning in p46 diagram, is maybe to talk about science - practice - policy interfaces instead, as many stakeholders, including private sector, influence the direction of policies ,and the science outputs/delivery systems towards their interests. Also for the term policy, do you consider also policy implementation and programming decision-making, including for multilateral organisations? Science is probably not enough present in certain institutional decision-making processes (FAO first science and innovation strategy is a welcome initiative) .
Regarding your four questions.
I would clarify the definition of SPI according to national context. Specify what is the mandate of the SPI, who are influential within to prioritize agenda, how they select the type of evidence to listen to, how to manage tradeoffs?
Considering the power dynamics between the different policy stakeholders, the groups of interests over time is important. I noted that the word “lobby” and [science] diplomacy are not present in the report.
Report should also propose methodologies when there is scarce collaboration between administrations. Faysse et al, 2017 for instance suggests some participatory scenario planning per sector (agriculture and water) then joint exercises so that gradually each different sector consider different decision making priorities from others.
2. Topics under represented: fisheries and importance of aquatic food systems. No examples from the South mentioned, no mention of the blue economy and how SPI could help make it more inclusive. For vulnerable coastal communities, this will become important to ensure the recently formed blue economy policies incorporate community views (local knowledge and agency in the policy making process).
Water security dimension should also be more emphasized , may be in case studies, as growing water insecurity eg in MENA region is a driving factor to call for transformative sustainable change of food systems. And providing examples of successful cross sectoral SPI across food, land and water sectors that enable more integrated evidence and intersectoral collaboration. There are sometimes disjointed policy actions between agriculture and water sectors because of a lack of such space, including integrated ex-ante evidence. For instance, Green Wall initiative may not have consider enough hydrological evidence at the start to enable better tree survival. Is it because of non participation of some type of science, some decision-makers or not enough ground experience?
3. On SPI at national level: do not forget subnational levels. How new policies are adapted/implemented at local level. No mention of farmer typology, yet any policy measure should be tailored to different farming systems.
Case study: In Morocco, under climate resilience initiative ClimBeR, scientists collaborate with provincial agricultural and water offices, farmers, extension and academia gathered under Water Energy Food Environment nexus platform to assess sustainability and trade-offs of different climate adaptation scenarios eg scaling of conservation agriculture. See for instance this recent analysis of crop-legume intensification https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103769 . This collaborative exercise can alert decision makers of red flag for sustainability. It enables dialogue at subnational level about tailored implementation of national agricultural plans. Water-Food-Energy-Environment nexus science policy dialogue at subnational level to guide future adaptation scenarios in Morocco (cgiar.org)
4. I agree that skilled facilitation of the SPI’s process/work (p18) is crucial and that often not enough resources are dedicated to that.
I find that the report does not explain enough how SPI incorporates varied local perspectives and improves community agency to engage with SPI. Report is very light in communication approach (p38)
Projects supporting agrifood SPI often use ill-prepared stakeholder workshops where there is little thought on participatory communication, on how the vulnerable can express their views. The report needs to explain more how you do get local level knowledge and increase community agency to tailor policy AND practice, in contexts where literacy level is low, mistrust and unbalanced power dynamics (low social capital).
More visual communication and community-led content should be developed to explain the issues the SPI addresses: ag using Photovoice, participatory videos. Invest in people centered BCC / community based communication. Explain complex concepts in an inclusive way. for instance Blue Ventures made with octopus gleaner community in Madagascar this impactful tovo octopus gleaner co-written and acted by the community that highlights key sustainable fishery practices. Local conservation engagement is now greater.
In the SPI “space”, many talk about natural resources co-management models , about locally-led planning but not many explain successful ways to engage with the most vulnerable, sometimes with low literacy and challenging social norms. SPI then may reinforce inequalities rather than addressing social inclusion issues they are meant to solve.
I mention a few examples about leveraging Indigenous and local knowledge systems to inform and guide policies:
Disruptive Seeds is an approach Rutting et al 2022 s11625-022-01251-7.pdf (springer.com) that helps identify bottom up, innovative out-of-the-box sustainable strategies/practices that should be scaled as implemented in Guatemala.
Action research can help increase community engagement in co- design and monitor/evaluate new policies eg in women’s participation in Timor Leste small fisheries.
The Noh bec forest management (p40) is a good example of bridging between Indigenous and western knowledge systems as Ka’anan kaax Indigenous concept has helped explain western concept of sustainable development. But how Indigenous and local knowledge systems and decision making can better guide national policy-making processes which are using rational, western political economy processes? Licci – Local Indicators of Climate Change Impacts initiative has co-developed and tested a methodology with Indigenous and local communities to capture in a systematic way their perceptions of CC and how they are adapting, which can inform recent efforts for LLA. see policy brief licci-policy-brief-standard-july.pdf
Thank you,
Jerome Bossuet