Presentation given by Alex De Pinto, of the Environment and Production Technology Division of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), at the Global Landscapes Forum on 16 November 2016 in Marrakesh, Morocco. http://www.landscapes.org/

1. Informing the policymaking
landscape
From research to action in the fight against climate
change and hunger
Alex De Pinto
Environment and Production Technology Division,
International Food Policy Research Institute

2. The need for better interaction between science and
policy
 Calls are growing for scientists to provide ‘‘usable’’ information
and research funds to be allocated to projects that will inform
policy making.
 There is also increasing recognition of the importance of close
collaboration, among scientists, end-users, and stakeholders
particularly on issues related to climate change.

3. The need for better interaction between science and
policy
 As policy makers implement their plans and scientists become
more engaged in government planning, it is essential that both
know what is needed in terms of collaboration, data, and
resources.
 There are now examples of successful collaboration among
scientists, governmental and private institutions though novel
research and new forms of collaboration among institutions.

4. The global-to-local approach
 From the 2015 Global Landscapes Forum
 We have developed some useful tools that connect various scales.
 There is more work to be done if we are to
• answer the questions most relevant to policymakers, and
• identify the next set of problems.

5. Cool new findings
and research tools
are not enough

6. Linear model of research

7. Co-production of knowledge
 Research indicates that co-production of knowledge
generates information that will better support
management decisions (O’Mahony and Bechky, 2008,
McKinley et al., 2012, Lemos et al., 2012).
 Co-production of knowledge also facilitates a greater
accord between end-users’ needs and what scientists
can offer and opens dialog that foster creative solutions
(Gough, 2003 and Guston, 1999).

8. A successful example of interactive
research from Colombia
De Pinto et al. (under review)

9. Some takeaway lessons
 Our experience confirms the importance of:
• sustained stakeholder interaction,
• transparency and openness in the engagement
process, and
• willingness to break disciplinary and institutional
barriers.
 It is also helpful to have:
• a local institution act as champion and
• greater-than-usual flexibility in the use of funds and
assessment of project outcomes.
 Models provide an objective base for discussion among
stakeholders

10. What’s next?
New modeling tools and insights from the global-
to-local approach will help to identify both
climate constraints and climate opportunities
What information do policy makers need to
implement plans based on solid science?
What information will facilitate dialogue among
those implementing the plans and those who
must live with the outcomes?

11. Thank you
a.depinto@cigar.org