HLPE-FSN contribution to the FAO consultation on the “Guidance on strengthening national science-policy interfaces for agrifood systems” – Draft report
“Guidance on strengthening national science-policy interfaces for agrifood systems”, draft for review – April 2024
1.1 Challenges to providing evidence for policy Page 6, Table 1
Description of the HLPE-FSN should include a mention to the CFS and its role. The HLPE-FSN Steering Committee suggests the following wording:
Secretariat UN Affiliate: FAO, IFAD, WFP
Sector: Food security and nutrition
Description of the SPI:
The HLPE-FSN of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to world food security and nutrition. It is governed by a steering committee of 15 scientific experts in food security and nutrition-related fields. It provides independent, comprehensive and evidence-based analysis to the CFS , and elaborates its studies through a scientific, transparent and inclusive process.
The HLPE-FSN holds a high degree of legitimacy with its constituents — including governments, civil society, the private sector, and UN agencies — based on its inclusive procedures, such as seeking inputs from different disciplines, knowledge bases, experiences, and perspectives to inform its work. Its reports and issues papers serve as the basis for high-profile policy recommendations, which are adopted by CFS and then implemented by governments and other CFS stakeholders. HLPE-FSN members are selected in an open nomination process that is rigorous and based on scientific excellence.
HLPE-FSN is hosted by FAO.
CFS is the foremost inclusive international and intergovernmental platform for all stakeholders to work together to ensure food security and nutrition for all. Using a multi-stakeholder, inclusive approach, CFS develops and endorses policy recommendations and guidance on a wide range of food security and nutrition topics. These are developed starting from scientific and evidence-based reports produced by the HLPE-FSN.
1.3 The role of FAO
Page 7
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 the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), as well as the the policy recommendations adopted by the Plenary of the UN committee on food security and nutrition (CFS) and to enable ongoing and effective dialogue through the institutional architecture provided by the FAO Governing Bodies.
2.2 Mapping and assessment of the science-policy advisory ecosystem
Page 11
One of the primary challenges is the fragmentation of expertise, institutions, and sectors, more than reforming existing SPIs or establishing new one, a stronger partnership and global coordination would be beneficial: a common roadmap and structuring a community of practice and learning on the science-policy interfaces could be more efficient than creating new structures.
Effective collaboration is the cornerstone of effectively addressing global challenges such as food security, nutrition, climate change, health and biodiversity conservation.
Practical proposals and ideas aimed at bolstering cooperation among diverse science-policy-society interfaces could include:
-
cross peer-reviews of the flagship publications;
-
the establishment of an annual thematic collaborative event;
-
the sharing of best practices across different SPIs;
-
the formation of special task forces; and
-
the consideration of powerful joint reports and calls to action.
3.2 Guiding principles
Page 16
The HLPE-FSN proposes the adoption of a set of interconnected principles — independent, transparent, accessible, consultative and evidence-based —that we refer to as the I-TrACE principles, which together support legitimacy at the interface of science and policy for food systems. Although some of these principles are noted in recent papers on science–policy–society interfaces (SPSIs) with respect to food systems, they are often mentioned only briefly, expressed indifferent ways and are not always presented as a package4–6. Here, we propose these principles as a coherent and unified set of actionable criteria that are deeply interlinked with one another in ways that uphold legitimate science and knowledge for food systems policy advice and work to ensure that SPSIs remain accountable to their mission.
For the full description of each principle, please refer to Clapp, J., Lehmann, B., Moseley, W. et al. The I-TrACE principles for legitimate food systems science–policy–society interfaces. Nat Food 4, 128–129 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00686-6
Page 18
On Indigenous Peoples’ and local knowledge legitimacy and hierarchies please also refer to The Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems. Rethinking hierarchies of evidence for sustainable food systems. Nat Food 2, 843–845 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00388-5
Page 19, Box 4
Add a clear reference to Clapp, J., Lehmann, B., Moseley, W. et al. The I-TrACE principles for legitimate food systems science–policy–society interfaces. Nat Food 4, 128–129 (2023).
Please also note that their paper is not only about legitimacy, or more broadly, legitimacy relies on iterativity (broad consultation at various stages of the report’s preparation).
Page 21
About legitimacy, the systemic view and the importance of stakeholders’ participation, please refer to Duncan, J., Claeys, P. Politicizing food security governance through participation: opportunities and opposition. Food Sec. 10, 1411–1424 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-018-0852-x
Page 27
“As such, it is vital to maximize synergies and align these pathways with climate-and biodiversity-related targets, including Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), and National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs).”
Add that the national pathways also align with the HLPE-FSN recommendations and the CFS policy recommendations.
Page 28, Box 8
On the Alive initiative reads like publicity without any caveat on the process.
On the selection of members of national SPIs: some countries lack analyses of the local contexts; thus the members of a national SPIs are likely to need access to data and statistics of their country to assess the priority ranking of their recommendations (for instance, based on the order of magnitude of the issues they face). In doing so, national SPIs could create the “local demand for data” that HLPE-FSN report #17 (2022) was calling for (the report has been included in references).
Boxes
It would be interesting to know all sources related to the information in boxes.
References
About Caron, P., Ferrero Y de Loma-Osorio, G., Nabarro, D., Hainzelin, E., et al. (2018). Food systems for sustainable development: proposals for a profound four-part transformation. Agron Sustain Dev. 38(4):41. doi: 10.1007/s13593-018-0519-1
When referencing HLPE. 2019. Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome.
You may include the following link: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/ff385e60-0693-40fe-9a6b-79bbef05202c/content
HLPE. 2022. Data collection and analysis tools for food security and nutrition: towards enhancing effective, inclusive, evidence-informed, decision making. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome.
Dr. Paola Termine