TWN Info Service on UN Sustainable Development (Jul21/07)
12 July 2021
Third World Network

Dear friends and colleagues,

Proposal for new science-policy body for food systems highly flawed

The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) warns, in a briefing note, that the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) is being used to advance a new mode of decision-making that could exclude many voices in food systems.

A small but influential group of actors has long been demanding the creation of a new panel — an ‘IPCC for Food’ — to streamline decisions on the future of food systems.

However, the briefing note warns that the new panel – as planned – risks imposing a narrow view of science, and shutting down democratic debate.

The new panel could also undermine the High-Level Panel on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE), which already provides scientific guidance to governments, taking into account diverse knowledge and perspectives from across the food system.

We reproduce below the Summary of the briefing note.

A related open letter from independent scientists raises concerns that the new panel, with its one-dimensional focus on modern science as the gatekeeper of ‘truth,’ is in fact designed to exclude many of the knowledges that are needed to deal with uncertainty and co-create more just and sustainable food, farming, and land use systems. It instead risks favouring science that reflects and reinforces the economic and political interests of an elite network of governments, researchers, and foundations with strong business ties.

With best wishes,
Third World Network

——————————————————————————————————–

http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/GovBrief.pdf

Briefing Note 1 on the Governance of Food Systems

An ‘IPCC for Food’?
How the UN Food Systems Summit is being used to advance a problematic new science-policy agenda

J.Clapp, M. Anderson, M. Rahmanian, S. Monsalve Suárez
July 2021

SUMMARY

This brief demonstrates that:

• The calls for a new ‘IPCC for Food’ originated from a small group of actors whose views have been amplified by a powerful network of organizations, many of which are closely aligned with business and industry. These groups are using the UN Food Systems Summit to promote their ‘game-changing’ proposal.
• Many of the functions of the proposed science-policy interface for food systems are already fulfilled by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition in its role vis-à-vis the UN Committee on World Food Security.
• Several of the roles envisaged for an ‘IPCC for Food’ – such as conducting new research with the goal of resolving controversies – could actually undermine a serious and fair consideration of complex issues that must be seen from multiple perspectives.
• Unlike the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition, plans for a new science-policy interface do not appear to involve broad stakeholder consultation and incorporation of different forms of knowledge – elements that should be a fundamental part of good food systems science and are important for legitimacy.
• It is unclear to which intergovernmental body the new panel would provide policy advice. This raises important questions about the underlying political ambition of this proposal and its implications for food systems governance.
• The Scientific Group of the UN Food Systems Summit, which serves as an ‘early experiment’ for the new science-policy interface, falls short in several respects: it is non-transparent; is imbalanced in its composition and biased in its perspectives and sources of knowledge; is unreflexive about the relationships between food systems and society; and is pursuing a business-oriented ‘technology and innovation’ agenda.