Executive Summary

National agrifood systems are vast and complex, comprising local and subnational systems that also serve as integral components of regional and global systems. These agrifood systems span multiple economic sectors, highlighting their interconnected and multifaceted nature. While much is known about the countless parts of such systems, knowledge is fragmented among the many parts and players. Consequently, the information available for decision-making can often be partial, incomplete, or biased, impeding a comprehensive understanding of trade-offs and tensions. Science–policy interfaces (SPIs) offer a promising solution by providing a space where knowledge producers, brokers, and users can engage, exchange perspectives, and foster a more integrated approach to addressing these challenges.

Transforming agrifood systems is essential for accelerating progress toward the SDGs, as they bring together, in an integrated manner, socioenvironmental, human health and climate issues. Driving this transformation requires immediate and urgent action, informed by the widest range of science and evidence. Cohesive and systemic solutions are needed, ones that transcend conventional policy boundaries and incorporate diverse experiences, expertise, beliefs, and values. To weave together plural expertise and values, it is critical to address existing power asymmetries: a small number of corporations exert outsized influence, while the voices of vulnerable and marginalized groups often go unheard. Amplifying these voices is key to ensuring equitable and inclusive transformation. A holistic approach that considers these multiple dimensions is vital for ensuring the right people get the right knowledge at the right time.

FAO is well positioned at the nexus of knowledge and policy to develop guidance and practical tools that better connect evidence and decision-making. As a facilitator of intergovernmental processes, FAO further aims to provide a neutral platform and scientific analysis for exchange among countries. Aligned with its Science and Innovation Strategy, FAO is committed to contributing to SPIs at the national, regional and global levels to support organized dialogue among scientists, policymakers and other relevant stakeholders for inclusive science- and evidence-based policymaking.

How to best strengthen or establish an SPI? Through a deliberative research and consultation process, FAO has developed this guidance to strengthen science–policy interfaces for agrifood systems at the national level. First it addresses the “why” – the need for a national SPI. It examines the potential benefits and assesses the existing science–policy advisory landscape. Next, it defines the “what” by clarifying the key aspirational elements, including the SPI’s aims, roles, guiding principles, and three broad models. The final sections focus on the “how.” The third section highlights the structural components, including the SPI’s conveners, stakeholders, scale, scope, and governance. The fourth section addresses codifying its operations, activities, capacity development, and the importance of learning and reflexivity to ensure timely evidence delivery to policymakers in useful and actionable formats. When considered collectively, this guidance enables the design and development of an interface where effective policy decisions can be made based upon credible, legitimate and relevant knowledge.

1. Reflect on the need for a national science–policy interface

Before initiating efforts to strengthen or establish an SPI for agrifood systems, it is essential to reflect on its necessity and potential impact. Key questions include: What is the current state of the country’s agrifood system? What capacities exist for a systemic approach to planning, decision-making and implementation? How are data and evidence used in policymaking? And what benefits are expected from a better knowledge mobilization environment? Answering these questions in the context of a specific, manageable challenge is a helpful first exercise.

An essential early step is to map the existing SPI ecosystem, taking stock of the organizations, initiatives, and actors already engaged in SPI-related structures, activities, and processes. The mapping should be both descriptive and evaluative, identifying what works, what doesn’t, and why, as well as to understand the relationships and influence of different actors. Based on this mapping, it is crucial to determine whether an existing agrifood-related SPI can be strengthened or if establishing a new one is necessary. If a relevant SPI is already addressing agrifood system challenges, building on this foundation should likely be the preferred approach. This involves assessing its performance and effectiveness, particularly its influence on policymaking, and identifying areas needing improvement. When creating a new SPI, careful planning and deliberation are needed, including considering governance structures, stakeholder engagement strategies, and resource allocation. In both scenarios – strengthening an existing SPI or establishing a new one – it is vital to ensure long-term, stable commitments of financial and human resources. Underestimating these requirements risks undermining the SPI’s potential to drive meaningful change.

2. Clarify aspirations: identify the aims, guiding principles and models

Aims and roles

The SPI’s primary aim should ideally be stated in a single understandable sentence. A suitable example might be: The overall aim of an agrifood system SPI (focused on food security, nutrition and livelihoods of those who are most marginalized) is to strengthen public policy decision-making processes for the just and equitable transformation of agrifood systems, leaving no one behind, through the provision of diverse, inclusively sourced actionable knowledge on the different dimensions of agrifood systems. Clarity of purpose and objective is critical to long-term success given the complexity and number of actors in the agrifood ecosystem.

Details about how the SPI functions or intends to function to achieve that aim (e.g. the types of activities it undertakes and for what kinds of outputs) can be outlined after the aim is introduced. While SPIs can have different objectives depending on their individual activities, most SPIs cover at least two core functions: (i) brokering, and (ii) knowledge synthesis. The brokering function focuses on building, nurturing and growing the necessary relationships between knowledge producers and policy actors. Effective brokering supports strong, active and trusted connections necessary for constructively addressing conflicts and complexities in ways that strengthen, rather than strain relationships. The knowledge synthesis function is a fit-for-purpose process by which relevant research is identified, packaged, promoted and conveyed to decision-makers. Effective synthesis improves policy design and implementation. Based on the particular need or circumstance, SPIs that are well functioning and properly equipped could also help co-create knowledge by facilitating research and evidence gathering, especially at the country level.

Beyond these core functions, SPIs can fulfil other complementary roles necessary to ensure objectives are met, including outreach (disseminating knowledge to relevant audiences), capacity building (training and support of the actors involved), and monitoring and evaluation (measuring impact of policies and processes).

Guiding principles

Alongside identifying the proper aims and roles, effective SPIs must also adhere to and embrace key guiding principles. Such principles should relate both to the SPI itself and to agrifood systems. They should be shared by stakeholders and be adaptable to national contexts. Based on existing research and analysis, the main factors for success of SPIs relate to the principles of (i) credibility, (ii) relevance, (iii) legitimacy, and (iv) iterativity.

Credibility refers to the perceived quality, validity and scientific adequacy of knowledge – in other words, the level at which someone considers knowledge to be accurate, or believable. Relevance pertains to the perceived responsiveness of the SPI to societal or policy needs – it can include various components such as scope, scale and timing in relation to decision-making. Legitimacy relates to the perceived fairness of the SPI process and to the transparency, inclusion and equitable handling of different conflicts of interest, values and beliefs. Legitimacy also encompasses the tension inherent in deciding among policy options – watching out for winners and losers of particular decisions and the process by which those decisions were reached. Lastly, iterativity refers to the ongoing interactions between science, policy and society. But it slightly differs from the first three principles, which represent the normative commitments of SPIs. Iterativity guides the ways in which SPI processes are carried out.

These principles can be invoked in different ways that, as stated, best fit the national context and prevailing issues or sectors within that context. However, just as there are ways in which the principles can work together – including relevant stakeholders in an SPI process for reasons of legitimacy may also increase the relevance of the outputs – there are also ways in which they can be at odds. In those cases, trade-offs must be considered and accounted for. Examples include natural trade-offs between clarity and complexity, speed and quality, consensus and plurality and which “side” is driving the work, the science/knowledge producer side, or the policy/decision-maker side.

The balance between these principles will vary according to policy cycles, actor dynamics, issue relevance, and more. And they will evolve according to the specific needs of the SPI and the chosen model of operation, as described below.

SPI models

Making the underlying science–policy models explicit early in the design phase of SPIs can significantly improve eventual operations. Three broad SPI models can be identified, each with its own strengths and weaknesses: (i) policy-oriented, (ii) production-focused, and (iii) integrated.

Policy-oriented models prioritize the users of evidence. They place a high value on the autonomy of political and other decision-makers, stressing that they should not be pressured by scientists to take certain courses of action. Production-focused models focus on the providers of evidence. They emphasize evidence-based decision-making, arguing that decision quality is a function of the weight given to science in the policy process. Integrated models focus on the interaction between evidence users and evidence providers. They emphasize procedural equality and openness, highlighting the importance of continued, ongoing exchange between scientists, decision-makers and stakeholders during the entire policy cycle.

In recent times, the integrated model has gained traction among scholars and even some practicing SPIs. Yet it is important to recognize that each model represents a conceptualized ideal – a theoretical framing to help underpin the operational principles and design of an effective SPI.

3. Determine the structure: specify stakeholders, scope and governance

Convenors and stakeholders

The convenor of an SPI refers to the individual, group, organization, agency or network that calls together the different stakeholders who take part in the SPI. The range of responsibilities held by a convenor can vary, as can the level of leadership. Beyond the convenor role, SPIs typically consist of three main categories of stakeholders: (i) knowledge producers, (ii) knowledge intermediaries, and (iii) knowledge users.

Knowledge producers are not limited to the formal knowledge sector, but also encompass actors from civil society and practitioners (such as small-scale producers and Indigenous Peoples) working and living in particular locations or systems. Knowledge brokers can come from a variety of institutions on both the knowledge production and use sides, but they may also be self-employed or working for think tanks. Knowledge users include government officials in ministries, agencies or other government organizations, as well as senior executives and managers of non-governmental institutions whose decisions affect agrifood systems and consumers. This diversity among knowledge producers, brokers and users underscores the need to design the SPI in inclusive ways and consider how governance serves all stakeholders.

It is important to note that the stakeholder categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, civil society organizations are stakeholders in both the knowledge producer and knowledge user categories.

Scale and scope

Agrifood systems span geographic, economic, cultural and political boundaries. The challenges inherent in the transformation of agrifood systems, therefore, necessitate knowledge sharing across diverse stakeholders and sectors in the country and beyond. While a national-level agrifood system SPI primarily focuses on national priorities, grounded in territorial and national sovereignty, it is important to recognize that agrifood system transformation is also dependent on cross-scale evidence. Thus, ideally, national SPIs would involve cross-sectoral mechanisms that engage a wide range of stakeholders operating at local, regional, and global levels. The local scale constitutes subnational entities that are local, provincial or territorial. The regional scale includes other SPIs in neighbouring countries, especially those countries that strongly influence the national agrifood system. The global scale comprises SPIs that undertake similar knowledge brokerage missions but at the supranational level, such as the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition.

Beyond the cross-scale aspects, the scope of the national SPI must include the relevant national institutions, evidence and knowledge sources, decision contexts, values and interests in the country. Cross-sectoral design enhances the likelihood that the impacts of planned initiatives in one sector can be understood and anticipated by other sectors. Additionally, cross-sectoral knowledge sharing can foster the integrated co-design of initiatives to transform agrifood systems.

Finally, the temporal scope should also be considered. Agrifood systems evolve over time due to natural and social dynamics. SPIs can help make sense of the causes and consequences of these changes, which are often shaped by past trends as well as sudden events and crises. SPIs can bring important anticipatory tools such as forecasting, and catalyse forward-looking efforts.

Governance and responsibilities

An SPI governance structure refers to how the SPI is organized as well as to how decision-making occurs. It covers the committees, groups and other units that guide and direct the SPI system and are capable of interacting with relevant arenas of decision-making. The governance could vary from highly formalized/centralized and streamlined to an informal network approach with a flexible structure. This could differ according to the subject matter and its characteristics in the country, the level of openness in terms of actors, the level of inclusiveness of knowledge types involved and the organizations/actors already involved in science–policy interface activities and processes.

A prioritization of issues related to governance aspects to consider can be addressed sequentially. For instance, where could a national SPI for agrifood systems best be located/hosted? How can the SPI independence be ensured or best supported? What is the basis for decisions, what is the level of influence of members, and what is the decision process structure? What is the timeframe for the SPI’s existence, if known/planned? And what are the financial resources allocated?

These elements should be agreed upon and formalized in the sense that they are written down (rules of procedure) and made transparent. Deliberate reflection is required on how exactly to govern the SPI. The challenge facing SPIs is to determine who participates and how the work processes are governed such that both adhere to the guiding principles, align with established rules, ensure iteration, and allow the SPI to evolve and stay relevant over time.

In general, a viable SPI requires permanent and secure funding that minimizes reliance on short-term political agendas and ensures sustainability. It should cultivate diverse sources of financial support to prevent potential conflicts of interest and reduce system dependency on a narrow set of funding streams. Clear funding agreements with external donors, outlining the terms and conditions and defining expectations, can protect the SPI’s independence. Allocating resources to an SPI entails a careful balance between leveraging the capabilities of existing organizations and in-kind contributions versus specific budgetary allocations.