1 Introduction

The Secretary-General’s “Chair Summary and Statement of Action on the UN Food Systems Summit” strongly emphasizes the role of science in the transformation of food systems. It states, for instance:

  • “Progress will require local and global communities of practice and stakeholders coming together with national governments... In particular, support to enhance implementation through financing, data, science and innovation, governance and trade.”

  • “Global initiatives to reinforce the ambition of science-based solutions will be key to deliver on the 2030 Agenda.”

  • “Collaborating with the High-level Panel of Experts (HLPE) of the CFS at global level, support strengthening the science-policy capacities and interfacing at local and national levels.”

The purpose of this chapter is to outline a concept for constructive contributions of science towards providing evidence-based insights for national, regional, and global level implementation of the UNFSS Action agenda.Footnote 1

The “Science ecosystem of support” is part of the envisioned support structures for the “FS Follow-Up Coordination Hub” and “Country Level Platforms led by the Government” (see Fig. 1). The science ecosystem of support is understood to be the community of science and knowledge organizations of relevance for food systems. Its support functions include providing evidence for setting coherent national targets of food system transformation; supporting, through science, the translation of targets into action, understood as implementation research; and strengthening related capacity-building for national systems when needed. While we note the terminology of “Science ecosystem of support,” in this chapter we refer simply to the food systems-relevant science landscape (FSSL).

Fig. 1
A model diagram depicts a food system that contains E O S G, U N S D G, R B A, an ecosystem of support, F S follow-up coordination hub, stakeholder advisory, and country-level platforms led by the government.

The Deputy Secretary-General’s presentation to the UNFSS Advisory Group in October 2021 on Summit follow-up

Full size image

Food systems embrace the entire range of actors and their interlinked value-adding activities involved in the production, aggregation, processing, distribution, consumption, and disposal (loss or waste) of food products that originate from agriculture (incl. livestock), forestry, fisheries, and food industries, and the broader economic, societal and natural environments in which they are embedded (building on definitions by FAO (2018), HLPE (2014) and others) (von Braun et al. 2021a). Production includes, of course, farming communities, but also pre-production actors, for example, input industries that produce fertilizers or seeds. The range of actors importantly includes science, technology, data, and innovation actors. They are partly integral to food systems, and partly outside, but hold strong influence, for instance, being embedded in life science and health systems research. In food industries’ processing, foods and non-foods result from interlinked value chains. Other relevant food system actors include, for example, public and private quality and safety control organisations.

2 Mobilizing the Science and Knowledge Community for Implementation of UNFSS Actions

The Scientific Group has developed a set of seven science-driven priorities of innovations to support the transformation of food systems to achieve the Food Systems Summit goals (von Braun et al. 2021b, c):

  1. 1.

    Innovations to end hunger and increase the availability and affordability of healthy diets and nutritious foods: this bundle partly draws on the six science and innovation actions below.

  2. 2.

    Innovations to de-risk food systems and strengthen resilience, in particular, for negative emission farming, drawing on both advanced science and traditional food system knowledge.

  3. 3.

    Innovations to overcome inefficient and unfair land, credit, labor, and natural resource use arrangements, and facilitate the inclusion, empowerment and rights of women, youths and Indigenous Peoples.

  4. 4.

    Bio-science and digital innovations for improving people’s health, enhancing systems’ productivity, and restoring ecological well-being.

  5. 5.

    Innovations to maintain – and, where needed, regenerate – productive soils, water and landscapes, and protect diversity of the agricultural genetic base and biodiversity.

  6. 6.

    Innovations for sustainable fisheries, aquaculture, and the protection of coastal areas and oceans.

  7. 7.

    Engineering and digital innovations for the efficiency and inclusiveness of food systems and the empowerment of youths and rural communities.

Furthermore, the Science Group and its partners have published the set of strategic papers of relevance for national and global level UNFSS actions, assembled in the “Science Reader for the UNFSS.”Footnote 2 All of these together provide insights into the actions required to enable food system transformation to achieve the UNFSS goals.

Science–policy interfaces that serve national, regional and global implementation activities to enable food system transformation should be further explored (von Braun et al. 2021b; Hainzelin et al. 2021). A roundtable format with representatives of the main sets of organizations from the science landscapes could initiate this exploration.

Merely mobilizing science and pushing a supply of scientific findings will not be sufficient for science to play its conducive role in the design of food system transformations. The policy and stakeholder communities need to articulate the demand for science-based insights, and even respect uncomfortable findings that may contradict conventional wisdom. It is greatly helpful when government departments cooperate with each other in policymaking for food system innovations, and when they, along with stakeholders from the private sector and civil society, agree to be guided by factual information. Taking the time and effort to consider complex analyses and findings from modelling is part of mutually constructive engagement between policy and science.

  1. 1.

    Mobilizing the science and knowledge communities at the country level

We applaud the active participation of UN member states in the Summit: 165 countries participated, with almost 100 of these represented by heads of state. Furthermore, 69 member states noted the salience of science and innovation in the transformation of food systems. About 230 commitments were registered in regard to action areas, made by a diverse group of players ranging from small NGOs to multinational institutions to member-states. A number of coalitions have emerged from the Action Tracks, and member states have the opportunity to engage with coalitions.

The science and knowledge communities must continue to mobilize in each country for national-level implementation of the UNFSS action proposals (Webb et al. 2021). In this context, the fields of science and the scientific and innovative priorities that are critical for shaping sustainable food systems are important to consider. Accordingly, the landscape would comprise, among others:

  • Universities’ related institutes

  • Academies of sciences

  • Agricultural, forestry, land, water, and climate research institutions,

  • Health and nutrition research centers,

  • Indigenous and traditional knowledge carriers,

  • Others (incl. Corporate and start-up research and innovation communities, National think-tanks, private sector research institutions, etc.)

The national-level science landscape would engage in national level implementation under the leadership of national governments, and the UN, where applicable (in some countries, possibly augmented by regional science organizations), and in consultation with other stakeholders (corporate, civil society, farmer and consumer orgs). Figure 2 below depicts this science support framework in national contexts.

Fig. 2
A pie chart depicts U N agencies, ministries, national governments, global science bodies, regional science bodies, and national science bodies, where the national governments occupy most area.

Science support framework in national governance contexts

Full size image

The key initial task would be to design details and typologies for countries’ science landscapes and science-policy interfaces. This would entail mapping the FSSL in all countries, considering its regional and international linkages, and communicating it to national implementation actors. Such a mapping exercise mandates action from both the government and the scientific communities, who should jointly map out this landscape (see Fig. 2).

The table in Annex 1a can serve as a guideline in this regard.

As a service, mapping of all of the materials from the Scientific Group and partners that may be of relevance for national concerns can be considered (i.e., relate all of the papers and briefs from the Scientific Group’s website to countries’ and regional contexts). An important early task could be modelling national issues in regional and global contexts: thematic areas of focus could include trade, hunger, healthy diets, ecology, climate, food safety and health, innovations, etc.

In cases when the science and knowledge community may not have critical mass at the country level, systems of scientific support can be considered at the sub-regional level.

  1. 2.

    Mobilizing the science and knowledge communities at regional levels

To operationalize the task, national UNFSS focal points need to be made aware of related regional and international organization scientific bodies that could serve their purpose, with information and analyses as input for options on implementation of the UNFSS Action Agenda. Thus, at regional levels, the food system-related organizations of sciences that could be mobilized to address trans-national issues could include, among others:

  • Regional academies of sciences

  • Regional research and innovation institutes

  • Regional think-tanks

  • Regional scientific bodies and forums

  • Regional private research organizations

A tabulated presentation is presented in Annex 1b.

  1. 3.

    Mobilizing the science and knowledge communities at the global level

Similarly, the international science and knowledge communities spanning all of the sciences relevant to food system transformation need to continue to mobilize and engage in international public goods issues that impact the implementation of the UNFSS actions, such as trade, food safety, climate resilience, peace and security, trans-boundary water, equity and inclusion, science and knowledge transfers, and many others. Food system-related organizations of sciences that could be mobilized at the global level could include, among others:

  • Academies (InterAcademy Partnership, IAP)

  • International food, agricultural, health and food system-related research institutes (Incl. CGIAR, HLPE of CFS, Science and research entities in food system-related UN agencies, etc.)

  • Think-tanks

  • Scientific associations (incl. associations related to soil science, agronomy, food technology, agricultural economics, etc., the International Advisory Council on Global Bioeconomy (IACGB), the Inter-American institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA),

  • Others (incl. private sector research institutions, civil society organizations, Indigenous peoples/traditional knowledge carriers, etc.)

A tabulated presentation is presented in Annex 1c.

We acknowledge the InterAcademy Partnership’s recommendation and others that further consideration be given to options for strengthening the science-policy interface,Footnote 3 and, in particular, we suggest that an exploration be undertaken for options for an inclusive global science-policy interface, serving a sustainable food system and evidence-based follow-up to the Summit (Fears and Canales 2021). This exploration can draw on experiences with the comparable national and international science processes, e.g., the IPCC Science Policy Interface model and related considerations about an “IPFood,” as discussed in various fora, such as the InterAcademy Partnership (IAP) and the Science Days of the Scientific Group with FAO in 2021.

3 Pathways for Broadly Engaging Networks of the Science and Knowledge Communities

Science systems in many countries are weak, and particular attention will need to be paid to strengthening local research capacities, as well as improving data, methods, models and tools. Modalities for expanding collaboration among public and private research and indigenous systems will need to be explored, along with modalities for building or sharing research infrastructure (FAO 2021). Beyond investing in capacities to undertake research, it will also be important to invest in the capacities of policymakers and practitioners to demand, use and act upon research.

Networking among national, regional and global science bodies will be critical for this task. The current level of such networking capacities is deficient. Investing in that capacity at national levels will be of tremendous benefit for many countries’ efforts to build their evidence-based priority-setting tools and mechanisms, considering synergies and trade-offs of actions and implementation. This would help to achieve two goals:

  1. 1.

    Raise the engagement of science and knowledge communities at national, regional and global levels for food system transformation in the five action areas as identified by the UN SG in his UNFSS statement.

  2. 2.

    Connect national science and knowledge communities with regional and global communities to also address the above-mentioned international public goods issues that are critical for food systems’ functioning.

To fully tap the potentials of science, funding mechanisms (Díaz-Bonilla 2021) for the science ecosystems of support at national, regional and global levels should be developed. The public funding of food systems science in particular needs to expand, and we reiterate our call for governments to allocate at least 1% of their food systems-related GDP to food systems science and innovation. Private sector science also has important new opportunities to scale up its engagement, particularly in partnership with the public sector, to address public goods in food system innovations. There must be room to develop innovative finance approaches to not only support science at scale, but also to contribute to an overall sustainable financing of food system transformation.

4 Concluding Remarks

The Scientific Group for the UN FSS completed its mandate by the end of 2021. Thereafter, the Hub will handle any follow-up tasks with mechanisms to be defined. Consideration may be given to holding a series of consultations, under the auspices of the Hub, with and among the science and knowledge institutions mentioned above with regard to fostering science-policy interfaces at national, regional, and global levels to develop effective science-policy interfaces.

Consideration may also be given to continuing with Science Days for follow-up. It will be important to continue to include diverse food system-related science and knowledge communities at the country, regional and global levels in scientific discourses informing the evidence base for implementation of actions to achieve the FSS goals. Science Days should remain in the format of the independent science community partnering with FAO, which has shown its value in the Food Systems Summit processes. This format may be considered for future follow-up activities to the UNFSS 2021, possibly before assessments of progress that the UN Secretary General envisages.

Science has an important role to play in the appropriate and effective implementation of the action agenda of the UNFSS at national, regional, and global levels, and it is important to continue to invest in undertaking and using science and knowledge at all of these levels.