Orientations sur le renforcement au niveau national des interfaces entre science et politiques au service des systèmes agroalimentaires - Projet de rapport
La Stratégie de la FAO en matière de science et d’innovation (ci-après «la Stratégie») est un outil essentiel qui vise à faciliter la mise en œuvre du Cadre stratégique de la FAO pour 2022-2031, et par conséquent celle du Programme de développement durable à l’horizon 2030. Le renforcement des interfaces entre science et politiques au service des systèmes agroalimentaires compte parmi les neuf résultats, résultat 1.2) entrant dans le cadre du premier pilier de la Stratégie, lequel s’intitule «Renforcer une prise de décisions fondées sur des données scientifiques et factuelles ».
D’après la Stratégie, la FAO intensifiera sa participation aux interfaces entre science et politiques aux niveaux national, régional et mondial afin de soutenir le dialogue organisé entre scientifiques, décideurs et autres parties prenantes pertinentes à l’appui d’un processus d’élaboration des politiques inclusif et fondé sur la science, en vue d’accroître la cohérence des politiques, l’adhésion à celles-ci et l’action collective. La valeur ajoutée de la participation de la FAO est l’attention portée aux niveaux national et régional, en plus du niveau mondial; le traitement de questions intéressant les systèmes agroalimentaires compte tenu, selon qu’il convient, des informations et analyses générées par les interfaces entre science et politiques existantes, comme le Groupe d’experts de haut niveau (HLPE-FSN) et le Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (GIEC), ainsi que la Plateforme intergouvernementale scientifique et politique sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques (IPBES), et l’établissement d’un dialogue continu et efficace grâce à la structure institutionnelle apportée par les organes directeurs de la FAO.
Conformément à la Stratégie, le Bureau du scientifique en chef de la FAO a élaboré un projet d’orientations concernant les interfaces entre science et politiques au niveau national au service des systèmes agroalimentaires. Les travaux ont débuté avec l'organisation d'une consultation en ligne pour mieux identifier et comprendre les obstacles et les possibilités pour les scientifiques et les autres détenteurs de connaissances (tirant leurs connaissances d'autres systèmes de connaissances, y compris les peuples autochtones, les petits producteurs, etc.) afin de contribuer à l'élaboration de politiques pour des systèmes agroalimentaires plus efficaces, plus inclusifs, plus résilients et plus durables. La consultation en ligne s'est déroulée du 5 décembre 2022 au 24 janvier 2023, et a reçu 91 précieuses contributions de 39 pays.
Par la suite, deux documents de référence ont été commandés. La première, au niveau national, donne une vue d'ensemble des modèles et activités existants utilisés pour développer et exploiter des systèmes scientifiques et politiques et soutenir l'utilisation de données probantes, afin de transformer les systèmes agroalimentaires mondiaux. Trois modèles à haut niveau sont présentés : le modèle axé sur la production, le modèle axé sur les politiques et le modèle intégré. La seconde se concentre sur le niveau mondial afin de mieux comprendre comment les différentes interfaces entre science et politiques internationales gèrent la complexité de leurs tâches. Ce cadre conceptuel identifie trois composantes clés des interfaces entre science et politiques qui, agissant ensemble, ont le potentiel d'anticiper et de satisfaire les besoins et les demandes en matière de politique et de science : la gouvernance, la co-production et l'apprentissage.
Sur la base des résultats issus de la consultation en ligne, d’études de référence visant à comprendre la situation aux niveaux mondial, régional et national, d’entretiens avec des informateurs clés, d’études documentaires, d’études bibliographiques et d’un atelier d’experts, un projet d’orientations a été élaboré sur le renforcement des interfaces entre science et politiques au niveau national. Ce document a pour but de fournir des indications aux personnes qui produisent et utilisent des données probantes, ainsi qu'aux intermédiaires qui les transmettent au sein des États membres et des organisations partenaires. Ce projet s'adresse aux interfaces entre science et politiques axées sur la transformation des systèmes agroalimentaires (ou d'une de leurs composantes) afin de contribuer à la réalisation des ODD, et plus particulièrement aux besoins des pays à faible revenu et à revenu intermédiaire.
Les orientations comprennent, entre autres, les aspects fondamentaux des interfaces entre science et politiques opérationnelles à prendre en considération, des principes tels que la crédibilité, la pertinence, la légitimité, etc., les différents modèles d’interfaces entre science et politiques ainsi que les compromis et les complémentarités entre les modèles, les interactions transversales, c'est-à-dire entre les interfaces entre science et politiques aux niveaux national, régional et mondial, les mécanismes et les méthodes de cocréation, d'intégration et de synthèse des connaissances, les compétences et les capacités des acteurs des interfaces entre science et politiques, les options de suivi, d'évaluation et d'apprentissage. Étant donné que les situations varient en fonction de chaque contexte, il ne peut y avoir d’approche universelle et il est donc essentiel d’adapter la méthode selon les besoins nationaux. C’est pourquoi le document d’orientation est conçu comme un outil pour faciliter la réflexion sur le développement d'une interface entre science et politiques, son champ d'application possible et son mandat et lancer un processus d’apprentissage concernant les interfaces entre science et politiques. Il peut être utilisé au niveau national dans le cadre d’un processus visant à renforcer les interfaces entre science et politiques qui existent déjà en matière de systèmes agroalimentaires ou à en créer de nouvelles. Ce document est conçu comme un document évolutif et appelé à être amélioré (grâce à des itérations ultérieures des orientations) à la lumière des enseignements tirés de ces expériences.
Dans le cadre du processus d'élaboration des directives, le Bureau du scientifique en chef de la FAO lance cette consultation électronique afin de recueillir des contributions, des suggestions et des commentaires sur le projet d'orientations.
QUESTIONS POUR ORIENTER LA CONSULTATION ÉLECTRONIQUE
Nous invitons les participants à répondre à une partie ou à l'ensemble des questions suivantes (en fonction de leur expérience) et à fournir des exemples s'il y a lieu.
| 1. | Lorsque vous envisagez de développer une interface entre science et politiques pour les systèmes agroalimentaires dans votre pays, quel est le plus grand défi que les orientations de la FAO, telles qu'elles sont présentées ici, peuvent vous aider à relever ? Quelles sont vos suggestions pour rendre ces orientations plus pratiques et plus facilement applicables au niveau national ? |
| 2. | Les rubriques/éléments identifiés dans le projet d'orientation sont-ils les plus importants pour renforcer les interfaces entre science et politiques au niveau national ? Dans la négative, quels sont les autres éléments à prendre en considération ? Y a-t-il d'autres questions qui n'ont pas été suffisamment abordées dans le projet d'orientations ? Y a-t-il des sections/thèmes sous-représentés ou surreprésentés au regard de leur importance ? |
| 3. | Afin de rendre les orientations aussi concrètes que possible, nous incluons un grand nombre d'encadrés/études de cas sur des exemples concrets d'utilisation. Dans ce contexte, veuillez fournir une contribution de 300 à 450 mots portant sur des exemples, des réussites ou des enseignements tirés de pays qui ont renforcé ou renforcent les interfaces entre science et politiques au service des systèmes agroalimentaires, notamment en s'attaquant aux asymétries de pouvoir, à la collaboration entre les systèmes de connaissances, à la connexion entre les différentes échelles, aux activités de développement des capacités et à l'encouragement de l'apprentissage entre les interfaces entre science et politiques. |
| 4. | Souhaitez-vous ajouter des informations supplémentaires ? Existe-t-il des références clés, des publications ou des connaissances traditionnelles ou différentes qui sont absentes du projet et dont il faudrait tenir compte ? |
Vos contributions et les résultats de cette consultation seront utilisés par le Bureau du scientifique en chef de la FAO pour approfondir et peaufiner ce projet d'orientations. Les comptes rendus des contributions reçues seront rendus publics sur la page web de la consultation.
Les commentaires sont les bienvenus en anglais, français et espagnol.
La consultation est ouverte jusqu'au 15 mai 2024.
Nous remercions d'avance toutes les personnes qui auront lu, commenté et apporté un retour d'information sur ce projet d'orientations, et nous nous réjouissons à l'idée d'une consultation productive.
Facilitatrice :
Dr Preet Lidder, conseillère technique auprès du Scientifique en chef, FAO
Comment participer à cette consultation :
Pour participer à cette consultation, veuillez vous inscrire sur le Forum FSN, si vous n'êtes pas encore membre, ou vous « connecter » pour accéder à votre compte. Veuillez télécharger le projet de lignes directrices pour votre introduction et insérer vos commentaires sur les questions directrices dans la case « Envoyez votre contribution » sur cette page Web. Pour toute assistance technique, veuillez contacter [email protected].
- Afficher 48 contributions
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.
- Practical questions to make it more usable. As Dr. Abdurrazzaq Ibrahim Abdullahi, providing a list of effective SPI at country level, with some visual benchmarking regarding their efficiency, SPI model, impact in transforming food system in a more sustainable way and weaknesses would be useful.
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
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.
Dr. Dr. 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.
M. 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.
Cette activité est maintenant terminée. Veuillez contacter [email protected] pour toute information complémentaire.