opportunities and for avoidance of emerging risks related to progress in the SDG on end hunger and improved nutrition. Potential contribution to enhance the achievement of the FN related SDG effectively and efficiently: significant potential; also potential to overcome controversies that paralyze decision-making. Political and organizational feasibility on both sides, the science component and the political / organizational component of an International Panel type mechanism: political feasibility may be constrained by international organizations’ turf interests. Political organizations such as G20 with EU could play a catalytic role for initiation (EU experience with JPIs on food security and on nutrition, etc.). Some private sector and NGOs might oppose the process because of formal rules based on scientific principles; other might support the process (depending on their expectations on the outcome of the assessments). Scientists willing to contribute if demanded by international community, academic quality is good and report has impact. Costs, including transactions costs, of implementation and of management of mechanisms: cost of similar to option 2, plus indirect costs of political coordination (full plenary UN-type meetings, additional coordination requirements within national governments & ministries); rigorous transparency and review rules increase time and burden researchers have to spend for contributing to assessments. Much reduced transactions costs due to less uncoordinated and duplicated science on specified themes. Implementation action: Starting the mechanism simultaneously on the science and political side. Positioning with UN Agencies (possibly WHO and /or FAO) sharing lead could facilitate more global legitimacy on the policy sides, but probably entail a lengthy process. Feedback to the science body’s findings are encouraged beyond government by civil society. To enhance knowledge transfer, a first assessment report by IPFN could include climate-change related FNS topics with some former authors / co-chairs of IPCC reports to benefit from their experience. The Recommendation: toward action The food and nutrition security issues loom large and need action. Science needs to play a key role to offer global and context specific local solutions. If steps in the direction of improved science policy interaction are not taken, incoherent and uncoordinated actions – for food and nutrition security, often lacking scientific evidence base, will continue to hamper needed progress toward a world to hunger, achieve food security and “end improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”(SDG 2). The IPCC can as a useful role model and reference point, but its strong emphasis on consensus is owed to the global public good characteristic of the climate problem which
opportunities and for avoidance of emerging risks related to progress in the SDG on end hunger and improved nutrition. Potential contribution to enhance the achievement of the FN related SDG effectively and efficiently: significant potential; also potential to overcome controversies that paralyze decision-making. Political and organizational feasibility on both sides, the science component and the political / organizational component of an International Panel type mechanism: political feasibility may be constrained by international organizations’ turf interests. Political organizations such as G20 with EU could play a catalytic role for initiation (EU experience with JPIs on food security and on nutrition, etc.). Some private sector and NGOs might oppose the process because of formal rules based on scientific principles; other might support the process (depending on their expectations on the outcome of the assessments). Scientists willing to contribute if demanded by international community, academic quality is good and report has impact. Costs, including transactions costs, of implementation and of management of mechanisms: cost of similar to option 2, plus indirect costs of political coordination (full plenary UN-type meetings, additional coordination requirements within national governments & ministries); rigorous transparency and review rules increase time and burden researchers have to spend for contributing to assessments. Much reduced transactions costs due to less uncoordinated and duplicated science on specified themes. Implementation action: Starting the mechanism simultaneously on the science and political side. Positioning with UN Agencies (possibly WHO and /or FAO) sharing lead could facilitate more global legitimacy on the policy sides, but probably entail a lengthy process. Feedback to the science body’s findings are encouraged beyond government by civil society. To enhance knowledge transfer, a first assessment report by IPFN could include climate-change related FNS topics with some former authors / co-chairs of IPCC reports to benefit from their experience. The Recommendation: toward action The food and nutrition security issues loom large and need action. Science needs to play a key role to offer global and context specific local solutions. If steps in the direction of improved science – policy interaction are not taken, incoherent and uncoordinated actions for food and nutrition security, often lacking scientific evidence base, will continue to hamper needed progress toward a world to “end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture”(SDG 2). The IPCC can as a useful role model and reference point, but its strong emphasis on consensus is owed to the global public good characteristic of the climate problem which
Recommendation%20Document_pre%20conference%20version-NS(1).docx