Independiente Diálogo
Enfoque geográfico:
Sin fronteras
Discussion topic outcome
Main insights by Action Track on evidence gaps In the Action Track 1 discussion, a distinction was made between data, evidence, and what we can do. There are considerable data gaps on many issues relevant to food security and nutrition. For example, much of the data on food safety issues is fairly old; there is a lack of accurate data on the burden of foodborne disease. In other cases, estimates are not sufficiently granular; e.g. food waste estimates tend to be at the global level; on many issues, data is not disaggregated by gender. There is also a gap in basic data on diet quality (e.g. wha
... Leer mást people are actually eating), or which food environment they face. Tracking along food value chains is similarly limited. An important gap is around the question of “agency” – i.e. what influence people have themselves. Evidence is missing on policy effectiveness – for example, how could nutrient gaps be filled? How could we influence food environments, and how would this in turn shape consumer behaviour? There is also not enough evidence on how to make healthy food more affordable. Faced with these gaps, we also need to have better insights on what we can do concretely. Evidence mapping could be a good place to start. In the Action Track 2 discussion, a number of similar issues came up, including the lack of information on what people eat and why (consumer psychology, values, culture, and the role of policies in shaping demand). An important question is how far progress on healthy diets will get us (e.g. in terms of reaching sustainability objectives), which touches on the broader point of synergies and trade-offs of different policy instruments. On the one hand, it feels as if enough is known about what constitutes a healthy and sustainable diet to start moving policy; on the other hand, we don’t always know specifics of current dietary patterns, drivers, and policy effectiveness. In the Action Track 3 discussion, five main themes were raised. A first point is that we do not always understand the effects of (current or proposed) policies, and their synergies or trade-offs. A second and related point is that assessments of policies sometimes overlook the social and/or the environmental dimension, but both are needed to identify solutions which can be adopted and scaled. Third, knowledge can come from different sources, and the role of traditional and indigenous knowledge has often been overlooked. A fourth issue is that it is not always clear when trade-offs are real, and when they are simply a narrative – i.e. distinguishing facts versus myths. A final point is that more knowledge is needed on how to drive long-term trends to stimulate positive change. In the Action Track 4 discussion, recurring and intersecting themes were the role of data, the role of structures and localisation, and the role of agency. For example, information is often sparse on the number of people working in food supply chains, and their vulnerability, as well as on the different pathways taken by different households. The role of agency (i.e. how much influence people themselves have over their own lives) is key to the work of Action Track 4, but very little is currently known about how much agency people have, and it is not obvious how this should be measured, nor is there much evidence on how various policies would affect agency and what their costs and benefits would be. There are also numerous open questions on structural and local aspects, e.g. the role of land rights, the impact of small-scale versus large-scale farming, etc. In the Action Track 5 discussion, a central concern was the link between the social and environmental aspects of systems. Information is often missing on the social aspects of systems, as well as on “tipping points” for both social and environmental systems. Cost benefit analysis is also missing on the impact of various possible initiatives to build resilience. Leer menos
Línea(s) de Acción: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Palabras clave: Data & Evidence, Governance, Policy, Trade-offs