Marta Santamaria’s scientific contributions

Chapter 2 makes the case for using systems thinking as a guiding perspective for TEEBAgriFood’s development of a comprehensive Evaluation Framework for the eco-agri-food system. Many dimensions of the eco-agri-food system create complex analytical and policy challenges. Systems thinking allows better understanding and forecasting of the outcomes of policy decisions by illuminating how the components of a system are interconnected with one another and how the drivers of change are determined and impacted by feedback loops, delays and non-linear relationships. To establish the building blocks of a theory of change, systems thinking empowers us to move beyond technical analysis and decision-tool toward more integrated approaches that can aid in the forming of a common ground for cultural changes

KEY MESSAGES • Information alone often fails to motivate change. Manipulation of data has led consumers to doubt scientific results, serving special interests at the expense of public benefit. Information overload implies the need for synthesis to enable better access and impact. • Rationalizations against the need for change include: fatalism, arguing that business is already changing of its own accord, that cheap food is more important than good food, and that the marketplace will adjust for externalities. • These views do not address the long-term systemic consequences of the global corporate model of food systems in a society that derives calories from corn syrup and protein from hamburger resulting in obesity and disease. • Free market, neoliberal policies are incapable of resolving externalities that affect public goods such as ecosystem services. Faith in the infallibility of the market is a shortcoming of mainstream economics. • Path dependency is a key barrier to change in food systems, causing inertia, but may also lock-in positive systemic change. A science of intentional systemic change is arising, grounded in better understanding of human economic behavior as the basis for collective action. • We espouse not one theory but rather a range of actor-relevant theories of change. • Consumer advocacy can bring businesses to assume greater responsibility for the effects of their actions. This theory of change has found expression in the threat of boycotts and reputational risk. • Certification has led to improvement in production practice within market niches but its true success begins when it pressures change in policy and practice throughout supply chains. • Governance of intentional transformation in food systems requires knowledge of political pressure points, and systematic efforts to shape narratives of principal actors, to redirect financial resources and to promote institutional and societal learning and adaptation. • We address the potential of multilateral organizations and agreements, national governments, the financial industry, agribusiness, producers and consumer groups to respond to the need for change. The roles of different actors are interlocking: there is no single point of entry for a theory of change. • The roles of principal actors are drawn along a continuum of change, suggesting specific roles and types of actions to be addressed in evaluation and intervention. Given societal concern, agents for change may persevere within government, agribusiness or civil society organizations; their ability to bring change is dynamic and opportunistic, and driven by strategic alliances. As levers of agrifood system transformation, it is crucial to engage influential governmental actors as change agents. • Actors’ respective ability to adopt the results of TEEBAgriFood studies as a tool to direct change will depend on how well those results are communicated and adopted as narratives by influential actors and as entry points for education and consumer consciousness.