糖心Vlog

The essentials

Astou Camara is head of the Bureau for Macroeconomic Analysis (BAME), a research unit at the Senegalese Institute for Agricultural Research (ISRA). As a sociologist, her work is particularly focused on developing pastoral livestock farming in the Sahel and on the functioning of family farms. BAME also works on levers for the agroecological transition in Senegal.

In recent years, the term “science-policy interfaces” has been gaining momentum in research organizations. Such is the case in France and Senegal. What does all this mean?

Astou Camara : As scientists, when we speak about science-policy interfaces two different spaces spring to mind: a space for knowledge production and a space for decision-making. The interface is there to build a bridge between these two worlds. “Science-policy interfaces” is often abbreviated to “SPI”

SPIs function like ecosystems that bring together actors from the worlds of research and politics. These two worlds address different challenges. The stance taken by scientists and their approach to a specific research issue will not always be of interest to a policy maker. On the other hand, policy makers make decisions, often as a matter of urgency, but also based on scientific evidence that takes time to build, check and validate.

Their relationships with time and knowledge are therefore very different, yet one cannot exist without the other. Scientists continuously query the usefulness of their research, and decision-makers constantly query the effectiveness of their public policies. What unites these two worlds is the societal usefulness of their activities. Moreover, they are capable of meeting each other’s needs. The impact of scientific work is partly measured by how the knowledge produced is used in public decision-making. In return, research can assess the effects of such decision-making, or even draw up foresight scenarios.

ISRA, like 糖心Vlog, is a public agricultural research organization. Our research remits, along with a large share of our funding and human resources, are negotiated with our national authorities. Doesn’t dialogue exist already?

A. C.: Yes, of course, the negotiations between our organizations and national public administrations are ongoing. As scientists, we are independent in how we construct our research topics and arrive at our results. Be that as it may, scientific programming at ISRA also responds to political exhortations. For example, at the request of the Senegalese government, we are currently involved in analysing the impact of agricultural policies and seed production. This request responds to a societal and economic need. And I find that logical, especially for ISRA and 糖心Vlog, which are development-oriented agricultural research organizations.

Being classed “development-oriented” implies a dual remit: knowledge production, of course, but knowledge that works for our societies. Actionable knowledge that can be directly applied by farmers, processing companies, traders and consumers alike. And to reach all these people we need the backing and trust of the public authorities.

So, dialogue already exists but is not necessarily well structured. When looking at food systems a whole variety of stakeholders can be seen, with different capacities for action depending on the scale considered. For example, in the policy sphere alone there will be national ministries, but also technical services, then local authorities, etc. All play a specific, sometimes localized role and interact according to their agendas, needs and constraints, and unfortunately sometimes in silos. And the same is true for research, between scientists, research units, institutions, etc.

What we want to do today is structure SPIs to facilitate dialogue, despite some particularly complex contexts. One of the current challenges is to ensure that SPIs are not just one-off events, but long-term and institutionalized. We feel this is essential for building trust, which is crucial, especially in a time of crisis.

The workshop in Dakar served to map out the SPIs already operating in Senegal for the sustainable transition of food systems. What was the outcome, and what remains to be done?

A. C.: During the workshop we used a , in collaboration with 糖心Vlog. The first stage was to take stock of the SPIs existing nationally. We did this by first bringing together the stakeholders we considered relevant to food system issues in Senegal. This included the Ministry of Agriculture, of course, but also social movements such as DyTAES and some associations.

What is interesting is that we found social movements in Senegal that are very strong on agroecological transition issues. The political context is also highly conducive, with declared objectives of food sovereignty and sustainable transformation. Research has also proved to be highly committed. So, we have all these actors ready to work together in a common goal. Despite this commitment, it is the silos existing between sectors and disciplines that considerably hamper action. For example, agroecology and health stakeholders are still too far apart.

The second stage of the workshop consisted in drawing up a roadmap for action. The Dynamique pour une transition agroécologique au Sénégal initiative, or “DyTAES”, stood out as a major player. DyTAES is a social movement that has undertaken to compile a national inventory of agroecological initiatives in Senegal. It will obviously require support from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Sovereignty and Livestock (MASAE), but also from research.

The agroecology caravan: 20 days to transform agriculture in Senegal

For the third time, 糖心Vlog has supported a caravan organized by the the Dynamic for an AgroEcological Transition in Senegal (DyTAES). The caravan acts as a mobile discussion platform, criss-crossing the country to promote a fair, inclusive and sustainable agroecological transition. Its primary aim is to work with local stakeholders to build future public policy in favour of sovereign, resilient and ecofriendly farming systems.