The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) of the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) FSN Forum Workshop Rome, 10 December 2015

The HLPE, the science-policy interface for the CFS I)What is the HLPE? Functions, structure II) How does it work? The HLPE process as a dialogue

>> New, informed and inclusive, international governance >> inclusiveness goes hand in hand with evidence-based They are complementary. Importance to organize the openness and transparency of the processes. CFS : 2 key elements

Many analyses, need for a synthesis that confronts them Need of a starting point for analysis and advice (HLPE recommendations to kick- start CFS policy process) Crisis has revealed the need of a watchman a sentinel that looks at problems ahead or overlooked problems >> 3 functions of the HLPE (CFS 2009) Why the HLPE ?

Common evidence-basis before discussions to progress to common understanding Factor of level playing field between countries and categories of actors Understanding why people disagree with each other Why the HLPE ?

Created, appointed, mandated by the CFS Working independently: clear separation of mandates o elaboration of scientific evidence and background knowledge (HLPE) o Negotiations on positions or interests on issues (CFS) The HLPE has to address the multidisciplinary complexity of food security: (i) many possible related topics, and (ii) none of each can be addressed within a single discipline Demand-driven, tight agenda, present status of knowledge Works in a transparent and open way, in particular openness to various forms of knowledge. Key attributes of the HLPE

How to generate / organize / present knowledge so that all actors are in position to understand and make progress on such kind of (difficult) issues? A key question for the HLPE The question on “how to handle knowledge” was central in the debates that led to the reform of CFS and governance of FS Methodo rapports, conceptualisation, exs, diversité ; openeness…

Five Knowledge Challenges 1)Diversity and complexity of issues; the variety of their relations with food security and nutrition in its four dimensions 2)Multi-stakeholder character of the food system 3)Multi knowledge holder character 4)Multi-context: Tension between universality of issues and specificity of context. 5)Knowledge for action, given tension between broadly shared objectives and specificities (and multiplicity) of concerns and priorities of actors

From other scientific reports - Demand driven - Answering a political question, often a “burning” issue (urgency) - Has to provide information, no “need more research” - Has to provide recommendations - Need to serve as a shared starting point for a discussion. - What makes HLPE’s reports different

Functions of HLPE reports Documents to serve as a base to policy discussions in CFS >> have to be recognized and accepted as a credible base, by members (Governments) and participants (civil society, private sector, international organizations) in CFS. >> a very broad and diverse range of publics: academics and specialists of food security, academics and specialists of the topic treated (most of whom are not food security specialists), governments officials in various ministries, diplomats, but also staff of various international and national agencies, NGOs, local authorities,… >> different from other documents produced by international organizations - Do not avoid controversies - Do not avoid difficult topics (no “political” review) - Not limited by the mandate of the organization

II) How does the HLPE work? The HLPE process as an interface for dialogue

The HLPE and the CFS

Preparation of the reports The HLPE as an interface for dialogue on knowledge and to prepare a political dialogue

Critical importance of scoping and V0 consultations

What do the consultations bring? 1)Receive from stake-holders expectations, concerns, points of interests, priorities, perspectives, main questions to be addressed. Help identify linkages between perspectives and issues. 2) Receive from actors’ knowledge: inputs, resulting. Evidence based. Stakeholders as knowledge-holders. Knowledge from social actors. 3) Feedback, perception and critics on a draft Address the concerns of the various stakeholders

E-consultations participation

Focus: Water partecipation

Focus: SADL partecipation

Participation Multifaceted interest to participate CFS stakeholders (members, participants) -> Outcome - CFS Academia – research - universities - > Knowledge product Specific communities of practice (topic – related) -> advocacy, links to Food security Growing importance of corporate / collective replies. Many constituencies have put in place internal collective processes to elaborate and bring forward contributions: UN organizations (FAO), members (USA, France, Brazil, etc), CSM, PSM, etc.

How are e-consultations concretely used? 1) Identification and better delineation of the main areas of controversies/contentious issues, underlying narratives, competing approaches 2) Source of evidence : listing examples, case studies, references. 3) systematic, line-by-line examination of each comment. In practice >> Synthesis (made by HLPE Secretariat) >> list of evidence suggested (list made by HLPE Secretariat) >> line-by line examination (list made by the HLPE Sec)

Consultations as a way to enrich the evidence-base of reports The HLPE uses them to improve the substantive criteria HLPE reports must meet: global in scope (various stakeholders; regional balance, local, national, types of productions…) often a global, conceptual description (framework, typology, in a figure). extent and diversity of the knowledge base diversity of examples “speak to” both specialists and non specialists of food security and of the specific topic. expose the various points of view, including controversies more vulnerable populations and on gender issues. nutrition and of malnutrition

 Disentangle its rationales and explain to the policy makers where the main uncertainties or pivotal points are either in data or reasoning.  Reports need to be carefully balanced and position references in relation to debates, controversies and different points of view (intradisciplinary controversies, or different disciplinary approaches, or different stakeholders perspectives and points of view).  Fight the tendency to avoid difficult issues : importance of evidence behind controversial topics, to force a discussion, to show the importance of such issues. Fight stakeholders’ intentional blindness to issues (~IPCC). Such a treatment of controversies or of contentious issues is central to the HLPE process. Help to treat controversial issues?

According to CFS Reform Document “This effort should help create synergies between world class academic/scientific knowledge, field experience, knowledge from social actors and practical application in various settings.”

HLPE Reports