Scientific Evidence And Public Policy

Our current food production system, with agriculture at its core, is the single largest driver of planetary boundary transgression. The same system, however, can become part of the solution. In our new review in Global Sustainability, we assess the global evidence on Conservation Agriculture, based on 3 principles: no soil disturbance, permanent soil cover, and diversified crop rotations. The evidence is clear: Conservation Agriculture has expanded from ca. 100 to 200 million hectares in just a decade and now covers about 15% of global cropland. It could reach 50% by 2050. Converting cropland to Conservation Agriculture can sequester around 0.5 to 0.9 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year, potentially about 0.4–0.8 gigatonnes of carbon annually at global scale, while cutting fuel use by up to 70%. Healthier soils mean higher water retention, less erosion and greater resilience to droughts and floods. Conservation Agriculture on its own will not solve all food system challenges, but it is difficult to find a more ready-to-scale transformation in land management that addresses climate, biodiversity, freshwater, and soil degradation at once. It can be adopted at scale and speed, i.e., across all agro-ecological zones within the coming 1–2 decades. To operate within planetary boundaries, we need both an energy transition and a soil transition. Healthy soils are foundational to food security and Earth system stability. https://lnkd.in/dUTG3DSi

Impact evaluation is a crucial tool for understanding the effectiveness of development programs, offering insights into how interventions influence their intended beneficiaries. The Handbook on Impact Evaluation: Quantitative Methods and Practices, authored by Shahidur R. Khandker, Gayatri B. Koolwal, and Hussain A. Samad, presents a comprehensive approach to designing and conducting rigorous evaluations in complex environments. With its emphasis on quantitative methods, this guide serves as a vital resource for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners striving to assess and enhance the impact of programs aimed at reducing poverty and fostering development. The handbook delves into a variety of techniques, including randomized controlled trials, propensity score matching, double-difference methods, and regression discontinuity designs, each tailored to address specific evaluation challenges. It bridges theory and practice, offering case studies and practical examples from global programs, such as conditional cash transfers in Mexico and rural electrification in Nepal. By integrating both ex-ante and ex-post evaluation methods, it equips evaluators to not only measure program outcomes but also anticipate potential impacts in diverse settings. This resource transcends technical guidance, emphasizing the strategic value of impact evaluation in informing evidence-based policy decisions and improving resource allocation. Whether for evaluating microcredit programs, infrastructure projects, or social initiatives, the methodologies outlined provide a robust framework for generating actionable insights that can drive sustainable and equitable development worldwide.

Navigating the Divide: The Disconnect Between Urban Priorities and Rural Realities in India's Agricultural Policies!! In the vast and diverse landscape of India, the distinction between 'India' and 'Bharat'—the urbanized centers versus the rural heartlands—reveals significant disparities in policy impacts. This divide is particularly pronounced in the realm of agriculture, where policies often seem tailored more to benefit urban consumers than the rural farmers who form the backbone of the nation's agricultural production. Here's an exploration of this critical issue and some thoughts on how we might begin to bridge this gap. The Urban Consumer Bias in Agricultural Policies The tilt towards urban consumers in agricultural policy-making manifests in several significant ways: 1. Pricing and Subsidies: Government policies that set price and stock controls on essential agricultural products typically aim to keep food prices low for urban consumers. While this benefits consumers by ensuring affordable food, it often does so at the expense of farmers' earning potential. Subsidies even though allocated to farmers eventually help consumers. 2. Infrastructure Development: There is a glaring discrepancy in how infrastructure funds are allocated, with a pronounced emphasis on urban infrastructure over rural necessities directly linked to agriculture. Rural areas suffer from poor road connectivity and insufficient storage facilities, which are critical for farmers. 3. Consumer-Focused Policies: Trade policies mostly prioritize meeting the demand of consumers with a focus on avoiding domestic shortages or increased prices of staple foods within India, the impact of the same on farming communities is overlooked. Banning exports or opening imports at the first sign of a price increase in a commodity or putting trade restrictions like stock limits or restricting private trade as soon as a commodity price breaches MSP is common. This policy direction often overlooks the needs and welfare of local farmers. Bridging the Policy Divide: Steps Toward Inclusion To address these disparities and bring more balance to agricultural policy, we must consider the following steps: - Inclusive Policy-Making: Policymakers need to involve rural stakeholders in the decision-making process. - Balanced Subsidy Allocation: Redefining subsidy schemes to more equitably support small and marginal farmers. - Focused Rural Infrastructure Development: Increasing investment in rural infrastructure specifically tailored to support agricultural productivity and market access is crucial. The gap between India and Bharat in the context of agricultural policy is not just a reflection of economic disparities but a profound challenge to equitable development. By realigning our policies to support not just the consumer but also the producer—particularly those in rural areas—we can foster a more resilient and sustainable agricultural sector that benefits all stakeholders. 

68% of Europeans believe scientists should intervene in political debates to ensure decisions are evidence-based (Eurobarometer 557). Yet, too often, the bridge between research results and policymaking remains underused. The European Research Executive Agency (REA) Agency has published a kit for EU-funded projects on how to share scientific evidence with policymakers. Its logic is simple but powerful: if research is publicly funded, it should not only advance knowledge but also inform policy choices. What this means The document outlines three principles for achieving policy impact: • Understand the policy context – track priorities, identify the right timing, and make results relevant. • Join forces with stakeholders – academics, industry, civil society, and other EU projects. • Plan for impact from the start – define audiences, key messages, and the right channels. It also lists the most effective formats to reach policymakers: policy briefs, consultations, workshops, and direct reporting. Interestingly, it stresses that researchers’ own social media accounts can also play a role in authenticity and engagement. Why this is interesting and for whom • For researchers: the kit provides 10 concrete steps and links to EU tools such as CORDIS, Horizon Dashboard, and the Horizon Results Platform, turning evidence into actionable insights. • For policymakers: it offers a structured way to receive scientific input in real time, aligned with the EU policy cycle. • For citizens: it strengthens the expectation that public policies are backed by evidence, not just political negotiation. The message is clear: EU-funded research is not complete until its results have reached the people shaping Europe’s future laws and strategies.

Evidence in public health isn’t a single brick, it’s a dry stone wall. Ogilvie et al. used this metaphor to describe how different pieces of evidence fit together to form something strong, flexible, and grounded in the real world. Instead of treating health problems as linear and isolated, they suggest evidence must speak to three dimensions of complex systems: 1️⃣ Mechanisms — the interconnected causes behind health problems. 2️⃣ Dynamics — how these causes evolve over time through feedback and adaptation. 3️⃣ Patterns — the emergent outcomes we see at the population level. And across these, three types of evidence are needed: 1️⃣ Causal (understanding why health problems occur), 2️⃣ Intervention (what actions can modify them), and 3️⃣ Implementation (how systems adapt and sustain change). Together, these form nine types of evidence. A practical map for researchers, policymakers and practitioners who want to act systemically, not simplistically. It’s a brilliant and thought-provoking read - one that challenges us to see evidence not as something to “prove what works,” but as something to help us understand, adapt, and evolve within the systems we seek to change. Paper by Karien Stronks et al.

We always told people that if we took care of the #farms, the #SmallTowns would be fine. What we've learned is that if you don't take care of the small towns, the farms won't be fine. Steven Deller and Mckenzie Boyce (Carvalho) just published a must-read AAEA - Agricultural & Applied Economics Association #ChoicesArticle that empirically digs into this notion. Their analysis highlights how the relationship between agriculture and rural communities has flipped. For generations, the assumption was that strong farms created strong rural economies. But the data often show the reverse: farms increasingly depend on vibrant rural economies for their #viability. For example, approximately four out of every five dollars of farm household income comes from off-farm sources, even for many mid-sized farms!!! #RuralDevelopment is #AgriculturalPolicy. You could even make the argument that investments in small-town #infrastructure, #broadband, #healthcare, and #EntrepreneurialEcosystems are literally farm survival strategies. This piece is an important reminder that the #FutureOfAgriculture and #RuralAmerica are inseparable, and that policy needs to treat them as such. https://lnkd.in/dPFZkpvd

Earlier this week, Jesuit Social Services released a paper to coincide with the Federal Government’s rapid review of evidence-based approaches to prevent gender-based violence.    Thanks to Steve Cannane and ABC Radio National for their interest - full interview linked below.   Our recommendations, while not exhaustive, relate to seven areas outlined below - link to paper included too:   - investment in the collection of more and better data on the extent of perpetration, and its dynamics and drivers; - identification of emerging opportunities to intervene early to prevent violence against women and children including investment in healing and recovery for children who have witnessed or experienced violence;   - a “stocktake” of existing prevention and early intervention work taking place across the country, including consideration of evidence where it exists, to promote more specific discussions regarding the merits of various practice approaches;   - development of an evidence framework for prevention and early intervention, including more consistent application of standards of evidence;   - a workforce capability building approach which views a range of work as prevention, including work with people of all genders who can influence men and boys across settings;   - an online deterrence/early intervention campaign which draws on international best practice and investment in digital tools to support parents and critical workforces to confidently foster discussions with men and boys about gender norms and use of violence, and to counter negative influences; and   - exploring in-prison behaviour change approaches, in parallel with changes to prison conditions and culture. https://lnkd.in/gA_zgyC9 https://lnkd.in/gjBftyam

Here is an example of science shaping policy for a more sustainable future 👇  As of today, smartphones and tablets in the EU must display a score showing how easily they can be repaired. This is a strong step forward for the circular economy. Behind these scores is the rigorous work of our scientific team at JRC. They developed the evidence-based methodology that informs these scores, ensuring they are transparent, and harmonised across the EU. This is an example of how science directly informs policy, empowering millions of consumers to make more sustainable choices. Learn more here: https://europa.eu/!WQW4J8

I’m happy to share my latest policy paper "Born Poor, Die Poor: Breaking the Economic Traps of Smallholder Farmers" Smallholder farmers produce around one-third of the world’s food, yet millions remain trapped in poverty across generations. This is not a failure of effort, knowledge, or productivity. It is the result of systems designed to extract value, push risk downward, and deny farmers power and control. Despite decades of agricultural aid, most smallholders still capture less than 10 percent of retail value in global supply chains. Women contribute nearly half of agricultural labor worldwide yet own a fraction of land and receive minimal access to finance. Climate finance, meanwhile, largely bypasses those who are most exposed to climate shocks, leaving farming households to absorb losses alone. These patterns reveal a hard truth: rural poverty is not accidental. It is structural. This policy paper challenges dominant development approaches that focus on yields, training, and digital tools while avoiding harder political questions. Productivity gains without power shifts leave farmers selling more but earning less. Gender programs that count participation without measuring control fail to change outcomes. Digital solutions cannot compensate for unfair markets, weak land rights, or procurement systems that exclude small producers. The paper calls for a fundamental shift in how agricultural development is designed and measured. Success must be judged by whether farmers earn more and face less risk, not by the number of trainings delivered. Public procurement should buy directly from smallholders at fair, living income prices. Climate support must function as an entitlement with rapid, predictable payouts after shocks. Finance and de-risking mechanisms should serve farmers, not only banks. Land rights must be enforced, especially for women, with real consequences when violated. Gender equality must be measured through income control, asset ownership, and decision-making power. The message is simple but uncomfortable. The system is not broken. It is working as designed. Ending smallholder poverty requires shifting value upward, shifting risk upward, and shifting control downward to those who feed the world. This work was made stronger by the insights, critique, and grounded experience of practitioners and researchers from the Global South who challenged assumptions and anchored the analysis in lived realities. My sincere thanks to Jawad Bou Ghanem, Farooq Ahmad, Atif KHAN, Nadine Moharram,Ismail JAHJOOH,Mariam J.,Nadine Najdi,Youmna Maghraby, and Ayesha Iftiikhar. Their contributions across agriculture, climate resilience, innovation, humanitarian response, and evidence generation were invaluable. This paper reflects a shared commitment to justice, dignity, and structural change in global food systems.

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐟 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞, 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭? As the shift toward evidence-based decision-making accelerates, we need more than good intentions. We need evidence, structure, and reliable data to design, monitor, and evaluate programs that create sustainable impact. This resource on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E): Methods and Tools offers practical approaches used globally to strengthen accountability and reduce poverty and inequality. It introduces proven methods such as cost-benefit analysis, causality frameworks, benchmarking, process and impact evaluations, all backed by real-world case studies. These tools help ensure that projects are not only well-designed but also deliver meaningful results. This document is especially valuable for: ✅ Civil society leaders designing impactful projects ✅ Policy makers & donors demanding accountability ✅ M&E professionals refining their evaluation toolbox ✅ Students & researchers deepening their knowledge of results-based management #MonitoringAndEvaluation #PME #ResultsBasedManagement #Accountability #EvidenceBasedPolicy #CivilSociety #ImpactEvaluation #DevelopmentTools