International science-policy interface for food systems transformation

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of the European Commission, Webb, P., Sonnino, R., Fraser, E. and Arnold T., Everyone at the Table: Transforming food systems by connecting science, policy and society, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022, # 70 p. 

The recommendations of the expert group are meant to both inspire and inform stakeholders on how to strengthen international science-policy interfaces for improved food systems governance. Food system transformation is needed more than ever as shown by the current food crisis triggered by the invasion of Ukraine and the challenges linked to climate change,

The expert group concluded that this transformation must be better supported through more ambitious, interlinked science-policy-society interfaces. The report includes the expert group’s recommendations and the pathways needed, such as multilateral governance, multisectoral task forces, and a network of networks.

For more detailed info please consult the final report (# 70 p) and policy brief (# 6 p.) available in here

Extracts

The UNFSS was politically significant because more than 100 countries committed to transforming their national food systems. Nevertheless, translating this commitment into reality will be challenging for most countries, many of which do not even have food or nutrition policies worthy of the name, let alone an adequately integrated policy framework to guide transformation across different sectoral domains. (page 14)

Scientific endeavours must produce more ‘socially robust knowledge’ that engages a wider range of stakeholders. The collective capacities of the natural and social sciences are not yet fully mobilized to the benefit of a sustainability transition The European Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM) argued that previous scientific advice on how to achieve a sustainable food system ‘has not fully considered how the social sciences could be used to bring about a more sustainable food system’. 

Science Policy Society Interfaces (SPSIs) must engage with industry and commercial food players.  (page 14)

• To be fully effective, SPSIs must articulate both the differences between, and the complementarities among, different types of knowledge and evidence, and anticipate trends at multiple scales to provide timely information. (page 16 - 17).
• It is unclear how (and which) institutions can be empowered to translate knowledge into practice and document experiences such that lessons may be transferable to multiple audiences. (page 17).
• Access to travel funds, legal advice and capacity development is necessary to reduce barriers to participation. SPSIs should provide support not only for people of various ethnic groups, but also for young people, older people and those who are illiterate (a disproportionate number of illiterate people are women). (page 18).
• It is important to differentiate between aspirational goals, set on scientific grounds, and political or policy targets that emerge from a negotiation process that accounts for the complexity of social and economic systems, trade-offs among potentially conflicting targets and diverse stakeholder views. (page 26).
• Targets must link to outcome indicators (to measure whether results are achieved) and to specific policies and policy indicators (to measure whether sufficient efforts are invested with the aim of achieving the results). (page 26)
• One CGIAR (formerly the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research). However, it is not currently resourced to convene regular/frequent national-level dialogues.  (page 32)

Example of an interface mechanism that works across regions
AIRCA was founded in 2013 by seven centres working towards food and nutrition security. AIRCA, with offices in 33 countries and a team exceeding 2 000 people, conducts policy-focused research and provides advice to various governments in the countries it works in. Its research is published in international scientific journals and reports. AIRCA has created a searchable database (www.cabi.org/airca) of abstracts of key publications by member organisations, making them freely available.  (page 29)

One of the main challenges for transformation lies in the capacity to address contradictions
and trade-offs across sectoral interests on the one hand, and across spatial and temporal scales on the other hand. Science should shed light on the consequences of, and potential conflicts inherent in, policy or investment decisions; that is, it should allow for transparent policy arbitration based on a clear understanding of obstacles, interests and consequences of multiple pathways. This must include understanding of how local changes may have global impacts and vice versa. The intersection between local food systems and global markets is critical and often controversial. (page 18)

There is a need for much greater contributions by the private sector to public good dimensions of SPSIs, including more open sharing of data on market patterns and trends, on drivers of price formation, on product research and on development prioritisation, and sharing of longer-term corporate strategies. (page 18).

A coordination mechanism should allow the social innovations developed by food system actors to be considered (alongside technological innovations developed in research and development departments of large firms and public research centres) to expand the range of policy options presented to decision-makers. (page 21).

Assessment reports should include relevant evidence on the effectiveness of food system governance and provide recommendations to help target governments’ own capacity-building initiatives. An example of a local ‘evidence intermediary is the Centre for Rapid Evidence Synthesis at Makerere University in Uganda receives requests from policymakers and generates a rapid synthesis of relevant evidence. The centre’s staff then seek to provide the evidence that policymakers need, tailored to their context, when they need it. (page 22).

Open access to data from across the food system: more and better information is needed on local and regional food sources, quality and prices; production processes (including input quantities and costs); environmental impact (such as on water quality, biodiversity and GHG emissions); market structures; diets and consumption patterns; drivers of food choices and consumer behaviour; local variability in food system drivers and outcomes; and social justice dimensions (e.g. food sector wages, working conditions and women’s participation in activities along the food value chain). (page 22).

Forecasting and scenarios. 

• While acknowledging the limitations of modelling, there is still a need for agencies and organisations to be empowered to use the best available knowledge and research to anticipate future trends and consider potential alternative pathways; these insights need to be made available transparently and must be accessible to relevant groups, who must represent different actors from multiple scales. (page 24).
• Foresight provides intelligence (awareness of people’s plans and thoughts about the future), sense-making (understanding of potential developments and their policy implications) and shared visions of challenges and opportunities.
• Forecasting and scenario building must be much more focused than at present on policy and business options for enhancing food system resilience. (page 24)
• The available evidence is typically not converted into actionable recommendations to support concrete policy initiatives. (page 25)
• The FAO have some ability to forecast or develop ‘over the horizon’ reports. Similarly, the EU Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR) produced five foresight reports between 2013 and 2021. However, at present, there are few organisations engaged in systematic long-term planning or forecasting for the entirety of food systems at relevant scales. (page 31)

FAO has country representatives all over the world. Nevertheless, the administrative burdens and funding constraints associated with many UN organisations hamper their ability to engage with a plurality and diversity of stakeholders. Empowering stakeholders requires more than dialogues, but the latter are a minimum requirement for a transparent process of engagement. Setting up accountability mechanisms that address concerns raised through such engagement is an important step. (page 30)

The biggest danger of doing nothing, or too little, is further fragmentation of initiatives that drive policies and investments in divergent ways, resulting in net effects that cancel out or negate positive actions. (page 32)

The Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture (RUFORUM), which is a consortium of 147 African universities across 38 countries, already seeks to strengthen the capacity of locally based researchers in the context of national development. However, the forum is resource constrained and heavily focused on agricultural research. With greater resources, improved technical capacity to expand training and a wider remit that would link to food-systems-wide issues, such a regional network could achieve much more. (page 34)