全球粮食安全与营养论坛 (FSN论坛)

FAO together with the International Atomic Energy Acency runs its own agriculture and biotechnology research laboratories - an excellent in-house example, how science is used to foster evidence-based policy development. 

Since 1964, FAO and IAEA have collaboratively pursued their mandates through Joint FAO/IAEA Centre of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture. The Joint FAO/IAEA Centre leads the progression and practical application of nuclear and  biotechniques in the realm of food and agriculture within FAO and IAEA Member States. The overarching objective is to significantly contribute to global food security and foster sustainable agricultural development on a worldwide scale.

The Joint Centre advances and supports the safe and appropriate use by FAO and IAEA Member States of nuclear and related technologies in food and agriculture, aiming to contribute to global food security and sustainable agricultural development worldwide. It does so through adaptive research and development at its own laboratories in Seibersdorf as well as through annual support and coordination of more than 25 coordinated research projects involving some 400 research institutions and experimental stations; capacity-building and technology transfer to over 200 national and regional technical cooperation projects; and technical and policy advice to policymakers.

Functioning as a key hub for scientific research and development on nuclear and related techniques in food and agriculture, the Joint FAO/IAEA Centre focuses on five key thematic areas: Animal Production and Health, Food Safety and Control, Insect Pest Control, Plant Breeding and Genetics and Soil and Water Management and Crop Nutrition. 

Research activities are conducted within the Joint FAO/IAEA Centre's state-of-the-art Agriculture and Biotechnology laboratories, located in Seibersdorf, Austria. This unique setting provides an optimal environment for innovative scientific endeavours, fostering advancements that resonate globally.

A very concrete example, where science meets policy is our work on Codex Alimentarius Commission and the International Plant Protection Convention. Through the Joint FAO/IAEA Centre the two Organizations have worked together on many of the Radiation Safety Standards of the IAEA as well as the international standards of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the International Plant Protection Convention - standards that cover controls on agrifood systems, food safety, food quality and phytosanitary measures against plant pests. 

FAO's Strategic Prorgamme Area on Sustainable Bioeconomy aims to strenghten the science-policy interface between the biological sciences and  policy (agriculture, climate, environment etc)

The bioeconomy can be defined as the “sustainable production, utilization, and conservation of biological resources, encompassing knowledge, science, technology, and innovation, to deliver sustainable solutions across all economic sectors and facilitate a transition to a sustainable economy.”

The bioeconomy holds great potential for addressing global challenges and driving sustainable development. By utilizing renewable biological resources—such as crops, woody biomass, microorganisms, algae, and marine organisms—and new technologies, the bioeconomy can contribute to reducing dependence on fossil fuels, mitigating climate change, and promoting resource efficiency.

Thus, the bioeconomy can contribute significantly to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the climate change goals enshrined in the Paris Agreement.

On January 2015, at the Global Forum for Food and Agriculture (GFFA) in Berlin, 62 Ministers of Agriculture agreed on the importance of opportunities provided by a sustainable bioeconomy, while ensuring food security and nutrition. FAO was therefore called to coordinate international work on bioeconomy by facilitating information exchange and providing policy advice to its members.

Since then, FAO provides policy guidance and technical support to assist policymakers in establishing and implementing national and regional strategies, action plans, and programmes to develop a sustainable and circular bioeconomy in line with the Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Agreement and other Multilateral Environmental Agreements. 

Currently, 21 countries and 3 regions have a bioeconomy strategy, while an additional 17 countries are in the process of developing one. Many more have bioeconomy related strategies, that focus on the links between biotechnologies and policy or bioresources and policy alone.

FAO has been supporting countries in the development of such strategies, for instance in Namibia. The National Commission on Research, Science and Technology (NCRST), a coordinating agency under the Ministry of Higher Education, and FAO have been working together to develop  Namibia’s Bioeconomy Strategy.Inter-ministerial coordination has led to the identification of existing bioeconomy initiatives. This was a first step in the development of a country strategy, making it easier to identify and prioritize national objectives.

A recently published flagship report of the International Advisory Council of Global Bioeconomy details the development of the bioeconomy science-policy interface country by country over the past years. You may want to select some additional case studies for your report from here:  Dietz, T., Bogdanski, A.,  Boldt, C.,  Börner, J. ….Wehrheim, P. (2024). Bioeconomy globalization: Recent trends and drivers of national programs and policies. A report by the International Advisory Council on Global Bioeconomy (IACGB). Global_Bioeconomy_-_April_2024_IACGB.pdf

• Box on the FSCI looks great!
• 4.2, on the second point, the list of sectors expected to be included does not include education. Wouldn't that be essential? Schools have been an important entry point for improving nutrition, and similarly understanding of and willingness to do something about climate change. 
• 4.2, in general I wondered if there's some need here to add in a call for resources for the national actors to engage in the regional/global interfaces and, for example, to be able to work with the UNFSS Hub. This may be elsehwere in the doc, I was reading selectively, but it seems an important issue to enable national actors to be able to liaise between the national and international fora.
• 4.2 another missing issue is ensuring the incentives are there inside the national government to make use of the evidence and opportunity that SPIs provide. National bureaucrats assigned to participate without clear evidence of higher level political will have little incentive to make effort, prioritize, or engage. This seems like a risk that deserves at least mention in this section, though again it may be treated elsewhere.
• I agree with your points throughout that the governance and decision-making structure and authority of the SPI matters so much. I didn't see much examples from multisectoral nutrition platforms, but these are another great example and have several cases where they worked really well and others where they were there but not paritcularly effective or lacked sufficient support to be effective. Learning from these efforts seems important and is a gap in the current draft that should be addressed with something like another box. SUN probably has a great list of examples (good and less good) that you could draw from.
• 5.1 - there needs to be a person or group who are funded and can make it their job (full-time if warranted, or enough of their part-time as successful implementation demands) and a clear decision-making structure (addressed throughout but cannot be emphasized enough). 
• 5.1 - not all these actions need to be carried out "in house" - there could be a lot of efficiency gains from countries/sub-national jurisdictions having access to an analysis shop whose job is to support with the necessary data, analytics and research - something like applied policy research firms contract by the SPI or the government or even an international capacity hub that serves countries. These may exist, but just thinkint about relevant experiences and where the gaps may be in this guidance depending on context.
• Throughout it seems important to pay attention to the risk of elite capture of the SPI mechanism. Engagement with communities at a very local level needs a way to be part / feed up their priorities, issues, and concerns, etc.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Agricultural Innovations (Gates Ag One) organization has expressed a desire to help accelerate crop innovations reaching — and benefiting — smallholders in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Here is some background information on attempts to improve smallholder welfare that may be of value.

History of Gates approach

 Bill Gates and his advisors investigated methods for reducing global poverty in 1990. At the time Mr. Gates was forming a new company called Teledesic that planned to offer broadband connectivity using a constellation of low-earth-orbit satellites. He wanted ideas that concurrently addressed “Global Issues”. These “Global Issues” are:

 ·         Health

·         Food

·         Water

·         Energy

·         Education

·         Environment Protection

·         Security

·         Population Shift

·         Governance

·         Crime

Solving all Global Issues concurrently proved to be an overwhelming problem. My company management, who supported the Teledesic project, suggested to Mr. Gates that I hire people from 10 different countries to prepare a report that showed how the Teledesic project might help solve one of the 10 Global issues in each of the 10 countries.  In contrast, Mr. Gates decided to concentrate on the Gates Foundation instead. The Gates Foundation in turn limited the focus on the Global Issues to four issues:

·         Health

·         Food

·         Energy

·         Education.

In this way the Foundation would not be over committed financially.

A problem with the Gates Foundation more focused approach is that a poverty program may fail due to a “Global Issue” not being addressed.  In many countries political violence and crime could ruin a well-constructed food security, youth employment, and poverty reduction project.  The Gates Ag One organization needs to ensure that all “Global Issues” are addressed even though their primary focus is on food. University personnel with help from government officials, technical personnel, and NGO personnel can support the Gates Foundation by identifying better methods for small farmers to earn a living. University personnel must fully flush out the risks of “Global Issues” ruining their good intentions.  The Harvard “Case Method” and Business Process Re-Engineering (BPR) principles have proven to be helpful in providing a structured method to study the consequences of each idea.

A second problem with the Gates Foundation approach is that they do not supply a small farm plan that people in poverty can follow. How should small-scale growers reduce their production costs and optimize their profitability? What equipment and supplies should they buy? What laws need to be changed and what investments should national governments make to help small scale farmers?

Small scale farmers do not get grants.  They often get loans with high interest rates.  They cannot obtain  farm insurance. Their costs to transport their products to market may be large. They must support their families using the resources that are available. They must pay their rent and other bills. These are the problems that Dr. Whatley addressed.

History of Booker T Whatley approach

Professor Booker T Whatley (Tuskegee University) developed an approach for helping small southern farm holders in the United States that was very different than the approach used by the Gates Foundation.  Dr. Whatley developed a small farm plan for poor black southern family farmers that was designed to net $100,000 a year for farmers who had 25 acres of land.  See https://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/small-farm-plan-zmaz82mjzkin/

Dr. Whatley noted:

“The truth is that we professional agronomists have helped create the situation that exists today. We’ve made life h”rd on the small farmers by recommending that they grow exactly what the big boys produce. We’ll tell a little guy with 40 acres to plant a scaled-down version of the crop mix that some fellow with 2,000 acres raises. For example, we’ll suggest that he keeps fifteen acres in cotton, ten acres in soybeans, seven acres in corn, seven in pasture and then try to raise a few head of beef cattle. Well, those particular crops give a very low per-acre return, so what happens? The man works hard and just about starves to death.

I say let the big boys grow soybeans, cotton, hay, peanuts and beef cattle. The plan I’m talking about takes the small farmer out of the big guys’ ballpark.”

Dr. Whatley’s plan was adopted by many small farmers in the United States.  It is based on developing a plan that meets five essential criteria for the success of this small-farm operation. The criteria are:

1.      Each crop component of a limited-resource farm must produce an annual gross minimum income of $3,000.

2.      The components of the farm must provide year-round family income.

3.      The components of the farm must be compatible. They shouldn’t compete with each other for labor, and you don’t want everything coming in at once.

4.      The farm must provide year-round full employment.

5.      The farm should be a pick-your-own operation, with a clientele membership club.

Dr. Whatley’s small farm plan criteria were adopted by small farmers throughout the United States.  Dr. Whately’s basic principles and the five critical guidelines can be applied almost anywhere.  The crop mix will vary from area to area — you must raise products that grow and sell well where you live — but the plan’s basic principles, and the five critical guidelines mentioned, can be applied almost anywhere based on local conditions. Dr Whatley added 10 commandments to further aid small farmers.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booker_T._Whatley.  These commandments were:

Thy small farm shalt:
I. Provide year-round, daily cash flow.
II. Be a pick-your-own operation.
III. Have a guaranteed market with a Clientele Membership Club.
IV. Provide year-round, full-time employment.
V. Be located on a hard-surfaced road within a radius of 40 miles of a population center of at least 50,000, with well-drained soil and an excellent source of water.
VI. Produce only what they clients demand—and nothing else!
VII. Shun middlemen and middlewomen like the plague, for they are a curse upon thee.
VIII. Consist of compatible, complementary crop components that earn a minimum of $3,000 per acre annually.
IX. Be 'weatherproof', at least as far as possible with both drip and sprinkler irrigation.
X. Be covered by a minimum of $250,000 worth ($1 million is better) of liability insurance.

What approach should African farmers use?

Both the Gates approach and the Whatley approach are valuable. The Whatley approach to small farm development focuses almost entirely on small farm profits. It is the approach that Asian farmers use extensively.  Asian farmers do not focus on “global issues”, “technological breakthroughs” biodiversity, or climate change.  The Asian path to reducing poverty has been very successful. NGOs that focus on “global issues” and “technological breakthroughs” may be of more use to big farmers. Bill Gates addressed this issue in his Gates note “Can the Asian miracle happen in Africa? Can the lessons from Asia’s rise apply on another continent?" See https://www.gatesnotes.com/How-Asia-Works. .  Bill Gates thought so much of Joe Studwell’s book "How Asia Works" that he bought copies for his entire staff.

I am using the small farm concepts developed by Dr. Booker T Whatley to develop a small farm demonstration for Cameroon Government officials. This demonstration will allow Cameroon government officials to determine if they want to implement the Asian approach to economic development in Cameroon The Asian approach to economic development was used by Japan, Taiwan, South Korea,China and at least five other countries in Asia.  The Asian approach to economic development currently is being implemented by the government of India.  Dr. Whatley's small farm concepts were used to lift many small farmers in the southern parts of the US out of poverty. It was particularly successful for black farmers who had small farms. See 

https://www.gatesnotes.com/How-Asia-Works

https://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/small-farm-plan-zmaz82mjzkin/

One of the greatest challenges in advancing strategic science-policy interfaces for agrifood systems in South Africa is ensuring effective communication and collaboration between scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders to inform evidence-based decision-making and policy formulation. The FAO guidance can help address this challenge by providing frameworks, tools, and best practices for establishing and strengthening science-policy interfaces at the national and sub-national levels.

Here are some ways in which the FAO guidance can be practical and usable at the country level, with suggestions for improvement:

1. Tailored Approach: The FAO guidance should be adaptable to the specific context, needs, and priorities of South Africa's agrifood systems. It should take into account the country's unique socio-economic, political, and environmental conditions, as well as the diversity of stakeholders involved.
2. Capacity Building: Provide capacity-building support to enhance the skills and knowledge of stakeholders involved in science-policy interfaces. This could include training programs, workshops, and mentorship opportunities to strengthen their understanding of scientific evidence, policy processes, and communication strategies.
3. Engagement and Participation: Facilitate meaningful engagement and participation of diverse stakeholders, including farmers, industry representatives, civil society organizations, and local communities, in the science-policy dialogue. Ensure that their perspectives, experiences, and needs are adequately represented and considered in decision-making processes.
4. Transparent and Accessible Information: Ensure transparency and accessibility of scientific information, data, and evidence to policymakers and stakeholders. Develop user-friendly platforms, databases, and knowledge-sharing mechanisms to disseminate relevant research findings, reports, and policy briefs in a timely and comprehensible manner.
5. Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Encourage interdisciplinary collaboration and co-production of knowledge between scientists from different disciplines (e.g., agriculture, ecology, economics, sociology) and policymakers. Foster mutual learning and exchange of expertise to address complex agrifood system challenges from multiple perspectives.
6. Monitoring and Evaluation: Establish mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness and impact of science-policy interfaces over time. Develop indicators and benchmarks to assess the uptake of scientific evidence in policymaking, the quality of policy outcomes, and the extent of stakeholder engagement.
7. Policy Coherence and Integration: Promote policy coherence and integration across relevant sectors (e.g., agriculture, environment, health, trade) to address interconnected challenges such as food security, climate change, and biodiversity conservation. Encourage the alignment of agrifood policies with national development priorities and international commitments (e.g., SDGs, Paris Agreement).
8. Long-Term Commitment: Recognize that building effective science-policy interfaces is a long-term process that requires sustained commitment and investment from governments, research institutions, and development partners. Foster political will and institutional support to prioritize evidence-informed policymaking and strengthen the role of science in decision-making processes.

By incorporating these suggestions, the FAO guidance can be more practical and actionable for advancing strategic science-policy interfaces for agrifood systems in South Africa, ultimately contributing to more sustainable, inclusive, and resilient food systems.

GUIDE QUESTIONS and RESPONDENT INPUTS

1. 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?

My central drive is to obtain Scientific guidance for the optimum / maximum utilization of agri-wastes. I focus on cellulosic agri-wastes, biomass, which are typically in the millions of metric tonnes. Material flow economic modelling is needed to recognize that the sunk resource to produce crops are producing vastly underutilized and often deleteriously managed products. There should be no “waste”, only optimized resource utilization. The planet is over-stretched in providing resource for human economic activity, yet all the science that permits biomass to be converted into nutrition, renewable energy, building materials, and other valuable products is ignored, including the processes of up-valuing by biological and technological means, of industrial development with education and employment, and of replacement of many unstainable products that are globally used, with sustainable ones.

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?

Agriculture in every country, based on multiple crops and farming techniques, contains many sectors which can be dealt with independently but also holistically. Policy is the opportunity to install effective Material flow economic modelling which has to be initiated and managed at National level at least.

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.

I think it most productive to produce multiple stories and lessons not learned regarding biomass management.

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?

Please understand I don’t have time to write a book to integrate the above inputs into SPI most effectively. However, if windows must be opened, please consider opening the Material Flow economic model and biomass windows.

Please find attached a detailed set of comments on the Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition’s draft Guidance on strengthening national science-policy interfaces for agrifood systems from Professor Erik Millstone, of the Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, England.  

Email: [email protected] 

1 See https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/en/

2 Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2003, Procedural Manual, 13th edition, Appendix IV paras. 13-16; available at http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/procedural_manual.jsp. The same provisions remain part of the CAC’s 2023 28th Procedural Manual, available at https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/cdb4b110- b8bf-45dc-9c53-4ea9fcda1fc8/content

3 https://www.fao.org/food-safety/scientific-advice/jecfa/en/ JECFA and JMPR are ‘Joint’ as they are convened jointly by the WHO and the FAO.

4 https://www.who.int/groups/joint-fao-who-meeting-on-pesticide-residues-(jmpr)/about

5See https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/committees/general-subject-committees/en/

6 CAC (2007) Report of Thirtieth Session of the JOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STANDARDS PROGRAMME, CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION, p. 9 paras 56-60, available at https://www.fao.org/fao-who- codexalimentarius/sh- proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252FMeetings%2 52FCX-701-30%252Fal30REPe.pdf accessed 6 May 2024

7 Op cit page 9

8 E. Millstone, ‘Can food safety policy-making be both scientifically and democratically legitimated? If so, how?’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2007, Vol. 20, pp. 483-508; DOI: 10.1007/s10806- 007-9045-x

9 D Ibarreta Ruiz, E Millstone, P van Zwanenberg, L Levidow, A Spök, H Hirakawa & M Matsuo, Risk- assessment policies: differences across jurisdictions, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, Spain, EUR Number: 23259 EN, April 2008, available at https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC37719; The topics were 1) the environmental impact of cultivating GM crops, 2) the safety of GM foods for human consumers, 3) food chemical risks where thresholds are known or assumed to exist and 4) food chemical risks for which no dose threshold is presumed. The institution settings were 1) the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its scientific advisory bodies, the UK, Germany, the USA, Japan and Argentina.

10 S Naimi, E Viennois, A T Gewirtz & B Chassaing, ‘Direct impact of commonly used dietary

emulsifiers on human gut microbiota’, Microbiome, 2021, 9:66, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-020-00996-6 ; B Chassaing et al, ‘Randomized Controlled-Feeding Study of Dietary Emulsifier Carboxymethylcellulose Reveals Detrimental Impacts on the Gut Microbiota and Metabolome’, Gastroenterology 2022;162:743–756; D Franssen & A-S Parent, ‘Emulsifiers during gestation: The risks of ultra-processed food revealed in mice’, PLOS Biology, 2023, 21(8):e3002265. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002265; M Milà-Guasch et al, ‘Maternal emulsifier consumption programs offspring metabolic and neuropsychological health in mice’, PLOS Biology 2023, 21(8): e3002171. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002171; K Whelan, ‘Ultra-processed foods and food additives in gut health and disease’, Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 22 Feb. 2024, Pp 1-22; C Salame et al, ‘Food additive emulsifiers and the risk of type 2 diabetes: analysis of data from the NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort study’, Lancet Diabetes Endocrinology, 2024; 12: 339–349

11 E Millstone & E Dawson, ‘EFSA’s toxicological assessment of aspartame: was it even-handedly trying to identify possible unreliable positives and unreliable negatives?’, Archives of Public Health, 15 July 2019, 77:34, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-019-0355-z and https://rdcu.be/bKpOq

12 E Millstone, ‘Science, risk and governance: radical rhetorics and the realities of reform’, Research Policy, Vol 38, No 4, May 2009, pp 624-636, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.01.012

13 E Millstone, ‘Can food safety policy-making be both scientifically and democratically legitimated? If so, how?’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2007, Vol. 20, pp. 483-508; DOI: 10.1007/s10806- 007-9045-x

14 E Millstone, ‘Science, risk and governance: radical rhetorics and the realities of reform’, Research Policy, Vol 38, No 4, May 2009, pp 624-636, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.01.012

15 E Millstone & T Lang, ‘An approach to conflicts of interest in UK food regulatory institutions’, Nature Food, 30 December 2022, DOI 10.1038/s43016-022-00666-w

16 See eg P van Zwanenberg & E Millstone, BSE: Risk, Science and Governance, Oxford University Press, 2005, Chapter 9

17 UN Human Rights Council. Right to science in the context of toxic substances, 26 July 2021, Document Id A/HRC/48/61, available at https://undocs.org/A/HRC/48/61) (United Nations Human Rights Council, Geneva, 2021)

Question 3

I share my experience of influencing policy and practice using SPI under the research consortium programme on Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in South Asia (LANSA). The research uptake strategy was formulated through stakeholder engagements that identified priority issues to be addressed and related challenges. The Farming System for Nutrition (FSN) study under LANSA in India engaged in participatory research involving farm men and women at the community level, formed technology platform of research institutions to guide the agriculture interventions and stakeholder platform of civil society organisations, local government agencies, banks, and progressive farmers, for feedback/suggestions and dissemination. Government agencies and staff at the village, sub-district and district levels were informed and sensitized about the relevance of nutrition sensitive agriculture. Evidence emerging from the study was shared with officials at the district, state and central levels and with research institutions as part of the research uptake strategy for policy influence. There were encouraging results at the household community level (with changes in dietary pattern observed and more villages coming forward to adopt nutrition sensitive agriculture after the project ended) and at the policy level (support for nutrition-sensitive agriculture at both the state and national levels) - https://www.mssrf.org/our-stories/the-project-lansa-results-in-multiple-level-uptake/ 

Related Links: 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0248698

http://59.160.153.187/blog/taking-farming-system-nutrition-approach-scale 

http://59.160.153.187/content/lansa-workshop-nutrition-gardens-and-nutrition-awareness-address-malnutrition 

http://59.160.153.187/sites/default/files/IndiaImpact%20brief%20NSA-4pg-online.pdf 

http://59.160.153.187/sites/default/files/IndiaImpact%20brief%20NA-2pg-online.pdf

Advocacy for a Farming Systems for Nutrition Approach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN2waQI7p54 

(I shall be happy to proved a focused box for inclusion as case study in the report)