Learning from failure at the science–policy interface for climate action in agriculture

Abstract

Science–policy engagement efforts to accelerate climate action in agricultural systems are key to enable the sector to contribute to climate and food security goals. However, lessons to improve science–policy engagement efforts in this context mostly come from successful efforts and are limited in terms of empirical scope. Moreover, lessons have not been generated systematically from failed science–policy engagement efforts. Such analysis using lessons from failure management can improve or even transform the efficacy of efforts. To address this knowledge gap, we examined challenges and failures faced in science–policy engagement efforts of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). We developed an explanatory framework inspired by Cash et al.’s criteria for successful knowledge systems for sustainable development: credibility, salience, and legitimacy, complemented with insights from the wider literature. Using this framework in a survey, we identified factors which explain failure. To effectively manage these factors, we propose a novel approach for researchers working at the science–policy interface to fail intelligently, which involves planning for failure, minimizing risks, effective design, making failures visible, and learning from failures. This approach needs to be complemented by actions at the knowledge system level to create an enabling environment for science–policy interfaces.

Strengthening decision-making on sustainable agricultural intensification through multi-stakeholder social learning in sub-Saharan Africa

“…Further, we note that research is more likely to be appropriate and of high quality if it draws on diverse epistemologies and ontologies through MSL processes in which diverse stakeholder participation is facilitated in the co-production of knowledge. Our findings also highlight that experiential learning is core to the MSL process, but this is not foregrounded in the work of Parkhurst (2017), Cash (2003) or Dinesh et al (2021). Experiential learning can enable different actors to bring their own perspectives, the learning process is embedded in action and there may be more opportunities to address different settings, cultures of communication and emotional attachments (Cheyns, 2011).…”

“…However, failures continue to abound in such engagement. In a recent review of the literature, Dinesh et al (2021) find science-policy engagement outcome failures, because research lacks credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of policy-makers and is not always salient to their needs. There are often insufficient knowledge brokers for iterative engagement processes, adverse power dynamics and weaknesses in institutional capacity to absorb new policy ideas.…”

“…Cash (2003) posit that research should have saliency, legitimacy and credibility to be useful to policy-makers. Dinesh et al (2021) argue that greater awareness is needed of imbalances in power dynamics, the importance of intermediaries and the institutional capacity gaps in science-policy engagement.…”

“…Power dynamics infuse all policy processes; powerful actors may open policy spaces for wider participation, often in response to civil society pressure, but also use their power to close them down (Gaventa, 2009). While Dinesh et al (2021) focus upon factors influencing researcher-policy-maker engagement, they do not dwell on civic engagement. In contrast, Gauvin (2009) highlights two converging trends in relation to deliberation and public policy: (a) efforts to enhance civic engagement in policy decisionmaking as part of democratic governance, and (b) improved science-policy engagement through both the co-production and co-interpretation of researchbased knowledge.…”

Has process hijacked purpose? Outlook on food systems transformation in the global climate change processes

“…This failure reflects the prevailing culture in international cooperation, where it is easier to organize meetings about solving the problem than actually solving it. There is a need to learn from the failure and create something better; literature on failure management and learning from failed examples of science-policy engagement can help rethink this approach (Dinesh et al, 2021). Previous heads of the UNFCCC themselves have been critical of countries not delivering the change promised and called it ‘unthinkable’ to continue at the pace of the past three decades (Kinley et al, 2021).…”