Reflecting on the need for a national science–policy interface

This chapter provides guidance on the underlying possible motivations for the reform of an existing SPI or the establishment of a new one, considering the specific situation and context of a given country. The first section helps identify if an SPI for agrifood transformation is needed and what its potential benefits are. The second section offers some insights on how to assess existing gaps in knowledge mobilization for decision-making for agrifood systems and helps map and assess the science–policy advisory landscape.

2.1 Analysis of the potential benefits of an SPI regarding the country-specific agrifood systems challenges

An agrifood system covers the journey of food from farm to table – including when it is grown, fished, harvested, processed, packaged, transported, distributed, traded, bought, prepared, eaten and disposed of. It also encompasses non-food products that constitute livelihoods and all of the people, as well as the activities, investments and choices, that play a part in getting us these food and agricultural products (FAO, 2022). Central to these systems are various actors and functions that operate at different levels, influenced by determinants or drivers such as governance structures, technological advancements, environmental factors and socioeconomic conditions (Figure 5). Agrifood systems primarily focus on food security,³ the situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. However, long-term impacts extend to broader and more diverse areas (Ericksen, 2008; Ingram, 2011; Van Berkum, Dengerink and Ruben, 2018; Caron et al., 2018; Dekeyser et al., 2020). These include (i) food security, nutrition, and health; (ii) inclusive economic growth, employment and livelihoods; (iii) sustainable resource utilization and environmental preservation; and (iv) territorial balance and equity (David-Benz et al., 2022).

Figure 5. Agrifood systems: key drivers, outcomes and triggers for transformation

Source: Adapted from FAO. 2022. The future of food and agriculture - Drivers and triggers for transformation. The Future of Food and Agriculture, no. 3. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0959en

Furthermore, agrifood systems are characterized by significant power and resource disparities and encompass a broad range of actors, from individual consumers and small-scale producers to multinational corporations. Additionally, food is deeply intertwined with culture and spiritual beliefs, serving not only as a vital sustenance but also as a fundamental aspect of the social fabric in most societies.

Before considering the creation or reform of an agrifood SPI, it is crucial to understand the current state and functioning/performance of agrifood systems within the country, the capacities of the existing institutional setting for a systemic approach to planning, decision-making and implementation, the way data and evidence are used in policymaking processes, and what potential benefits to expect from a better knowledge mobilization environment (see Box 2). At the same time, in order to navigate the intricacies of agrifood systems without feeling overwhelmed, it can be beneficial to initiate the analysis by concentrating on a specific and manageable problem.

Box 2. Science–policy interfaces related to food and nutrition in Brazil

Figure 6. A worker carries fillets of pirarucu fish (Arapaima gigas) to be sold in Tefe city market, Brazil. Sustainable fishery management of the piracucu fish is crucial for the livelihoods of the riverside communities in this region. SPIs that involve representatives from Indigenous Peoples and other civil society organizations in policy formulation report more inclusive policies and programmes tuned to the concerns of family farming and local fishing communities.

© FAO/Lalo de Almeida

Different agrifood systems assessment methods exist in the academic and grey literature, with various entry points, ranging from national or regional scale to local systems and households. Some studies target the agricultural value chain, exploring its components and governing institutions. Recent literature stresses the need for a systemic view of these aspects. Most discussions about translating agrifood systems thinking into practical actions have primarily taken place at the macro-level. However, there is an increasing emphasis on the territorial level as a pathway to practical implementation (David-Benz et al., 2022). The Food Systems Countdown to 2030 Initiative (FSCI) offers a robust foundation for assessing food systems challenges and opportunities, together with identifying gaps and developing national monitoring systems adapted to country needs (see Box 3).

2.2 Mapping and assessing the science–policy advisory ecosystem

Before engaging in reforming an existing SPI or establishing a new one, it is important to take stock of existing organizations/actors involved in science–policy interface activities and structures/processes in place that could qualify as an SPI. This mapping of potential elements of a science–policy interface ecosystem⁴ should be done from a descriptive as well as evaluative standpoint, i.e. what works and what does not work, as well as to understand the relationships and influence of different actors. In this regard, the FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia has initiated a regional baseline analysis of national level SPI mechanisms in Europe and Central Asia (see Box 4).

Box 3. The Food Systems Countdown Initiative

Box 4. Status of SPIs in the environment and agrifood sectors in the Republic of Moldova

In mapping organizations and actors, a first approximation to make this exercise easier, is to differentiate between actors/organizations that could be (mainly) categorized as knowledge or evidence producers, knowledge or evidence users, knowledge or evidence brokers and science communicators (as an example, see Figure 7, focusing on actors within science advisory ecosystems, excluding knowledge or evidence users). Such a broad categorization tends to reinforce a linear model perception, but it should only be conceived as a heuristic to position conceptually where organizations/actors put most of their efforts (even if they may have activities in the four categories), prioritizing knowledge from those most directly affected.

Figure 7. Roles of different knowledge activities within national science advisory ecosystems

Source: Adapted from Gluckman, P.D., Bardsley, A. & Kaiser, M. 2021. Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1): 84. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00756-3

Under the project Building capacity for evidence-informed policy in governance and public administration in a post-pandemic Europe,⁵ funded by the European Union and implemented with the support of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a knowledge gap self-assessment framework has been established. This framework serves to assess relevant knowledge areas, providing insights into the capacity for science-for-policy and identifying potential areas for capacity building. It allows stocktaking and evaluation of the current state of affairs in terms of individuals, organizations, collaborations among organizations and systems and policy frameworks. It also includes a dynamic component on the evolution of this science for policy ecosystem as well as an analysis of what has been and factors driving/impeding change. It is partially reproduced in Annex 2 (personal communication).⁶

In any given country, it will be necessary to assess whether an existing agrifood-related SPI can be strengthened or if a new one needs to be set up (see Box 5 on the creation of an SPI mechanism for the global instrument on plastic pollution). Generally, if an SPI exists that is already addressing, or is closely related to, agrifood systems topics, engaging with this SPI should be the preferred approach. Nonetheless, certain aspects may need strengthening – it seems that many SPIs could improve or align with most recent insights on SPI functioning and effectiveness. Many SPIs operating at the global level, for instance, are known to have room for improvement in relation to the existing evidence/literature on SPIs (e.g. Stevance et al., 2020; Welch et al., 2024). At the national level, 70 percent of countries are making efforts to establish or strengthen food systems governance (UN, 2023). This trend is particularly pronounced in low and low-middle-income countries. Usually, these governance efforts focus on cross-sectoral collaboration and aim at engaging multiple stakeholders at various scales, including local, subnational, and national for collective action.

For an existing SPI in a given national context, it is important to assess its performance and functioning, its effectiveness in terms of influencing policymaking, and to consider and analyse what should change, the reason for the change, and the mechanisms to address key barriers and bring about that change. With an existing SPI, there may be different reasons for strengthening or revitalization. Coordination mechanisms, for instance, might be weak and need to be revitalized after changing governments. Furthermore, work might be facing obstacles and happening in silos due to bureaucratic barriers and budget accountability by sectors (UN, 2023).

It is critical to understand clearly the extent and quality of the engagement between science and policy by structure and actors already in place. A theory of change guiding improvement activities and with a clear purpose is helpful (Oliver, 2022). In some cases, if no SPI can be found, it may be necessary to create a new national-level SPI on agrifood systems.

The need for resources, competencies, long-term fund-raising efforts for establishing and then maintaining continuity can sometimes be underestimated. Therefore a serious consideration of whether the topic can be included in an existing and, ideally, well-functioning SPI (which would then still need additional resources to cover the increased scope) is important. A whole suite of considerations would be required for the establishment of a new SPI. These include determining who holds the authority, where the SPI could be situated, what needs would be addressed, and how to attract and train competent staff, among other issues.

Box 5. Developing a strong SPI for the global instrument on plastic pollution