Analysis of the complexities and practical problems associated with science-policy interfaces:
- Do you have an understanding of how agrifood systems policy is enacted in your country or at the regional or international levels?
Response: It is not transparent and often confusing.
- Are you aware of opportunities to contribute science, evidence and knowledge to policy at national, regional or global levels?
Response: Scientific documents with published references (open access) are communicated to offices at all level through e-mail or open consultation like this from FSN team.
- What kind of knowledge and evidence is privileged in such processes?
Response: Questionable data quality (incomplete or inconsistent data), pseudo- science and belief- based evidence acceptable to the policy makers.
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the processes you are aware of?
Response: strength-popular policies, weakness- not sustainable on long term.
- What opportunities and challenges have you faced for drawing from sustainability science, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity to inform policy?
Response: Data consistency and completeness are two major challenges to analyse policies from sustainability point with independent view and lateral thinking.
- How can power asymmetries among stakeholders be taken effectively into account in science-policy processes?
Response: Percentage of people with income in a specific range like standard deviation from average annual income, GDP-PP is a quantitative measure of progress made in SDGs, which is independent of power asymmetries and local policy making bodies .Gross Domestic Production per capita (GDP-PP) is a better measure of quality of life. Nations with small population might be having higher GDP-PP than nations with higher GDP and large population.
Policy end point should be ‘quantitative’ but not ‘qualitative’ measure. For example, ratio of income of a person in a year including social security and GDP-PP is a quantifiable measure of ‘decent life’, ‘poverty status’, ‘inclusivity’ and ‘leaving behind’.
Knowledge production for policy:
- What actions do you take to align your research to problems and challenges faced by agrifood systems?
Response: Scientific documents based on published references (open access) are communicated to offices at various levels through e-mail or open consultation like this from FSN team.
- In what ways are the research questions in your sphere of work framed by academic interests and/or funders’ focus?
Response: I am an independent voluntary information practitioner; funded research is not in the sphere of work.
- 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?
Response: There is conflict of interest between research and policy- making communities. Hardly any unity. Researchers focus on science part and policy-making communities focus on electoral gains.
- 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?
Response: Information available in public domain irrespective of its source is validated, verified and analysed for quality.
- 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?
Response: Information from other knowledge holders and non-academic actors is used in preparing document with focus on distributed development, de-centralized administration, inclusive development and leaving no one behind.
Knowledge translation for policy making:
- To what extent does your organization/university support you to produce and disseminate knowledge products to a range of audiences?
Response: I am an independent voluntary information practitioner, not affiliated to any organisation or university.
- How does it create/maintain institutional linkages between producers and users of research? Describe any dedicated resources for knowledge translation that are in place.
Response: Institutional reports are used to analyse the links between producers and users. UN agencies technical reports and annual reports are used for validation and verification of the data.
- Please describe any incentives or rewards in place for effective, sustained policy engagement, for example successfully conducting policy-relevant research and for its dissemination.
Response: Not aware of any incentives or rewards. There should not be any incentives or rewards for maintaining neutrality of policy-relevant research.
- Please tell us about any activities that you or your organization / university engage in to collate evidence for policy, such as evidence synthesis activities, or guideline development.
Response: UN agencies technical reports and annual reports are used for validation and verification of the data.
Assessing evidence:
- What makes evidence credible, relevant and legitimate to different audiences, and how might we balance their different requirements?
Response: Institutional reports are used to analyse the requirements of producers and users. UN agencies technical reports and annual reports are used for validation and verification of the data.
- How can evidence be assessed in a rigorous, transparent and neutral manner?
Response: Institutional reports of producers and users are assessed in a rigorous, transparent and neutral manner. UN agencies technical reports and annual reports are used for validation and verification of the data.
- How can assessments of evidence best be communicated to all stakeholders?
Response: Scientific documents based on published references (open access) can be communicated to offices at various levels through e-mail or open consultation like this from FSN team.
Dr. Kameswararao Chiruvolu