Overcoming evidence gaps on food systems

To transform food systems, sound evidence is needed as the basis for effective policy action. Evidence is needed on the extent, characteristics and drivers of issues; on the effectiveness of different policy instruments (including synergies and trade-offs); and on how policy proposals affect stakeholders, including impacts on citizens’ values and preferences.

To explore this topic, three deep dives across OECD countries were undertaken focussing on food insecurity and food assistance programmes, gender and food systems, and environmental impacts along food supply chains. These studies demonstrated considerable evidence gaps, but also identified roadmaps to overcome these.

Across the deep dives, some common lessons emerge. Governments should be proactive about investing in evidence, especially since public data often has an added value over private alternatives. However, evidence-gathering should ideally focus on what is needed to inform more targeted and more effective policies. In particular, rigorous evaluation is essential to adjust policies over time and enable cross-country learning.

What’s the issue?

There is broad agreement on the need to transform food systems to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. At the same time, effective policy action is hampered by evidence gaps, which are defined here as the gap between the evidence policy makers need to decide on a course of action, and the actual evidence available to them. Such gaps may exist regarding the extent, characteristics and drivers of issues; these gaps make it difficult to know how serious problems are or their cause. For example, gender data is often not collected, making it hard to assess the contribution of women to farming, food manufacturing, and food services businesses, as well as the challenges they face.

In many cases, the problem is not an absolute lack of evidence, but rather that available evidence is not sufficiently detailed. For example, evidence might have insufficient geospatial granularity, may not be disaggregated across socio-economic groups, or may not have the right frequency or time horizon. Similarly, evidence may exist but may be fragmented across different public or private actors. Another problem can be that evidence is generated using different methodologies, making it difficult to compare across countries, across different groups of people, or over time. Studying the impact of nutrition policy, for example, is made complicated by the lack of disaggregated data by socio-economic groups.

There are also evidence gaps regarding the effectiveness of different policy instruments and their synergies and trade-offs. This, in turn, makes it difficult to know how ambitious policy makers can be, which initiatives can be undertaken, and what the likely effects on other policy objectives will be. For example, while it is well understood that a sizeable share of global food production is either lost in the supply chain or wasted at the household level, surprisingly little is known about the effectiveness of possible policy interventions to address food loss and waste, as well as about possible synergies and trade-offs with other objectives.

There may be evidence gaps around interests and values, e.g. on how a proposed initiative affects different stakeholders, or which food systems objectives citizens value most.

Policy makers will never have perfect information. Collecting further data and evidence comes at a cost, takes time, and requires technical expertise that may not always be available. Postponing a policy decision until more information is available can also be costly. Pragmatism is needed.

Overcoming evidence gaps on food systems

What should policy makers do?

Identifying the evidence gaps where additional efforts can make the biggest impact, and finding effective ways to reduce these would give policy makers the means to better decide on a course of action.

Invest in gathering evidence

• Take the time to harmonise methodologies and to set up data collection methods at an early stage.

• Prioritise data collection efforts, e.g. through foresighting and Evidence Gap Maps (EGM).

• Extend existing surveys, link evidence to existing databases, and leverage digital tools to reduce costs.

Maximise the added value of public data

• Public sector data has the benefit of adhering to strict quality and privacy protection standards, and preventing a fragmentation of methodologies.

• It is crucial to harmonise data standards internationally.

• Make data available to the public by default so that others can use it in creative ways.

Food insecurity and food assistance programmes across OECD countries: A roadmap to address evidence gaps

Step 1. Measure food insecurity. Existing data on food insecurity is often outdated, or not comparable across countries. Develop routine measurement processes for food insecurity, standardised across countries.

Step 2: Develop evidence on policy responses. At present, gaps exist on how programmes are organised, how much is spent on them, and the actual participation of eligible households. Comparable evidence across countries is especially lacking.

Step 3: Monitor and evaluate policy impacts and effectiveness. Do programmes actually reduce food insecurity? What are their effects on wellbeing and health?

Step 4: Adjust policy responses. Different instruments and approaches can be used, such as cash transfers, as part of universal social protection schemes, school meal programmes, food vouchers, and support to food banks.

Focus on what is needed for targeted,more effective policies

• Invest in collecting granular evidence for better targeted policies.

• Study trade-offs and synergies, including across spatial scales and through trade and market linkages.

• Pay attention to interests and values, which determine acceptability of trade-offs for society.

Employ rigorous evaluations to adjust policies over time and enable cross-country learning

• Rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of policy instruments, including those of existing policies.

• Use Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) for new policies, and stocktaking for existing ones.

• Share policy evaluations with other countries so that best practices can be shared.

In line with these overall findings, three deep dives identified roadmaps to overcome evidence gaps on food insecurity and food assistance, on the role of gender in food systems, and on environmental impacts along food supply chains.

Gender and food systems: A roadmap to address evidence gaps

Step 1: Highlight gender issues in food systems policies. Major evidence gaps exist on the role and contribution of women in food systems. Applying a gender lens in developing food systems policies is an important first step to reduce these gaps.

Step 2: Identify and close evidence gaps. Collect gender-disaggregated data to better understand the contribution of women to food systems, the benefits greater gender equality would bring, as well as the barriers women face today.

Step 3: Develop and implement policies to address gender inequality. Policy instruments should be selected according to their capacity to help women overcome identified barriers, or to support identified benefits of greater gender equality.

Step 4: Monitor and evaluate policy impacts and their effectiveness. This must be done at the national and international levels to track progress and compare performance across countries. Both ex ante and ex post gender impact assessment are useful.

Step 5: Adjust policy responses. Better evidence should lead to improved policy responses. Policy adjustments should consider ethical, organisational, budgetary aspects in addition to effectiveness.

Overcoming evidence gaps on food systems

Environmental impacts along food supply chains: A roadmap to address evidence gaps

Step 1: Create baselines at product, company, and country levels. Recent advances make it possible to create baseline information on environmental impacts. At the product level, this would rely on life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies; governments could, for example, create harmonised LCA databases. At the company level, governments could promote harmonised reporting standards and consider mandatory reporting at Scope 3 (supply chain) level. At the country level, consumption-based indicators could complement existing production-based indicators.

Step 2: Experiment with voluntary and mandatory supply chain initiatives. Many new initiatives take a supply chain lens to improve the environmental impact on food systems. This includes public actions such as mandatory approaches and private actions. Pilot projects could be used to explore the potential of different approaches, and governments could use their convening power to stimulate promising approaches. Baseline data from Step 1 could also be used as basis for new initiatives (e.g. green procurement).

Step 3: Monitor and evaluate policy impacts and effectiveness. This should be embedded in the policy process from the very beginning. A variety of analytical approaches could be used: baseline data from Step 1, CGE analysis and global trade data, and targeted analysis for specific initiatives (e.g. randomised control trials).

Step 4: Adjust policy responses. Use the available evidence to adjust policies over time. Share insights with other countries and identify remaining evidence gaps.

• Deconinck, K., C. Giner, L.A. Jackson and L. Toyama (2021), “Overcoming evidence gaps on food systems”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 163, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/44ba7574-en.

• Giner, C. and O. Placzek (2022), “Food insecurity and food assistance programmes across OECD countries: Overcoming evidence gaps”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 183, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/42b4a7fa-en

• Giner, C., M. Hobeika and C. Fischetti (2022), “Gender and food systems: Overcoming evidence gaps”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 184, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/355ba4ee-en

• Deconinck, K. and L. Toyama (2022), “Environmental impacts along food supply chains: Methods, findings, and evidence gaps”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 185, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/48232173-en

• Deconinck, K. and M. Hobeika (2022), “Improving environmental outcomes along food supply chains: A review of initiatives and their effectiveness”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 186, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d549eb43-en

• OECD (2021), Making Better Policies for Food Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ddfba4de-en