Civil Society Leadership and Policy

Engagement Process Training: Improving the Nile Basin

Discourse Policy Engagement

Silver Springs Hotel, Nairobi 22nd – 27th April 2007

Naved Chowdhury, Nicola Jones, Allan Nicol Overseas Development Institute

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary............................................................................. 2 Introductions...................................................................................... 2 Workshop Expectations....................................................................... 2 The thematic area sessions................................................................. 3 Closing Remarks................................................................................. 6 Annex A: Presentation Slides............................................................... 7 Annex B: Workshop Agenda............................................................... 25 Annex C: Workshop Participants........................................................ 28

1

1. Executive Summary

This report is on the second part1 of a six-day training workshop held for Nile Discourse Forums’ (NDFs) representatives of the ten riparian countries that share the Nile basin. It was facilitated by a team from Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and was structured in three thematic areas. That is:

a) Basis of policy influence: CSOs, evidence and policy processes b) Tools for policy impact c) How to develop a policy influencing strategy

2. Introductions Alan Nicol gave introductory remarks as well as a presentation in which he highlighted the increasing importance of the Nile Basin Discourse (NBD) with regard to policy engagement even at the international level. He posited that the work relationship of the desk and National Discourse Forums (NDFs) is vital to the realisation of the objectives of the NBD - which prompt/inform policy debates on the Nile basin, and for which a strategic approach is required in order to facilitate interaction with and influence governments (of the riparian countries). He further outlined two key objectives that underscored these issues. These are:

▪ Strengthen understanding of the policy environment surrounding the Nile basin and the Nile Basin Initiative.

▪ Need to develop policy tools to map the engagement of policy. For this, there is further need to:

o Draw strategy on how to do so o Focus on broader areas of policy mapping o Identify the particular policy issues/needs and develop specific action

plans To achieve the objectives, Alan outlined a pragmatic approach that examines the policy environment along the regional and local axis along with the crosscutting sector specific (national and sub-national water policies) and non-sector specific (PRSPs, national processes) issues.

3. Workshop Expectations Following the opening presentation, participants had an opportunity to express what they hoped to get out of this second part of the workshop. The popular expectations were on policymaking and policy engagement strategies with policy makers and NBD. Other expectations included strategies for engaging in trans-boundary water management initiatives.

1 25th – 27th April

2

4. The thematic area sessions

a) Basis of policy influence: CSOs, evidence and policy processes Presentations: ‘Background on ODI’ and on the ‘Civil Society Partnership Programme’ – Naved Chowdhury and Nicola Jones Group activity - 1 The presentations drew the following discussion points from the participants: ▪ The relationship between ODI and NDF. This was with regard to what most perceived as

ODI’s absence at the grassroots level and hence its inability to fully relate to the needs of local communities. To mitigate the situation, Naved pointed out that ODI brings on board its staff, members of developing countries who help ODI to ground its policies to the realities of these countries. In addition, Alan stressed that ODI does not seek to set up physical offices in developing countries, but rather base its researchers in these countries as they work on development-based initiatives amongst beneficiary communities.

▪ Concern was raised on the possibilities of influencing civil society participation without raising confrontation. Having effective communication skills2, it was posited would address the issue. Further, it was added that an effective communication strategy is currently being developed.

▪ Possibility of inviting select Members of Parliament and/or senior government officials to attend similar subsequent workshops. It was generally felt and agreed that this possibility should be taken into consideration at the initial planning stages for the workshops.

▪ The staff exchange and visiting fellows (from ODI) programme whose main objective is capacity building generated interest among participants. Naved and Nicola asked those interested to get in touch with them for more information.

▪ ODI and RAPID - it was clarified that the latter is a part of the former – which is itself a think tank.

The first group activity was structured on the subsidiary action programmes basis – 1 ENSAP and 2 NELSAP3. The exercise entailed identification of challenges and opportunities to influence water resource policies in Nile basin countries. The feedback generated demonstrated the participants’ knowledge and understanding of the issue influencing water resource policies in Nile basin countries. However, the understanding of the exercise’s requirements was not uniform and hence more time was spent during the presentations trying to draw out from the reports, the key issues that the exercise aimed to highlight. Presentations: Policy Making and Influencing and Stakeholder Position Mapping Group activity - 2 The second group activity, which entailed development of a stakeholder analysis matrix, came after brief presentations by Naved Chowdhury and Nicola Jones on the first of three parts on policy mapping tools. Focus of these presentations was on the Merilee Grindle Approach of policymaking and development of a stakeholder analysis matrix. The exercise addressed three questions: Who are your stakeholders? What is their level of influence? What type of engagement do you have with them at each level of policy making? The participants’

2 Addressed in the final day of the workshop 3 ENSAP – Eastern Nile Subsidiary Action Programme, NELSAP – Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Programme

3

understanding of the exercise’s requirements in this case was evident in the feedback generated, which was consistent with the feedback expected.

b) Tools for Policy Impact Presentation: RAPID Framework for Influencing Policy and Practice Group activity - 3 This presentation, done by Nicola Jones, constituted the second part of the policy mapping tools, after which participants broke into their third group activity. The structure of the groups however shifted from the subsidiary action programmes (ENSAP and NELSAP) setting to country specific teams. The activity was for each country team to identify possible strategies for influencing policy and practice. Like in the previous group activities, the reporting revealed the participants’ understanding of both the issue at hand and the expected feedback of the exercise. The Ugandan team’s presentation was lauded as being the best and recommended as a model that could be used by the other country teams to generate policy and practice strategy matrices. It was noted that participants could strengthen the evidence4 needed to influence the policy makers by establishing/enriching their information databases, for example, by documenting evidence gathered at the grassroots level through the various development-based initiatives and interventions. The suggestion was made for undertakings of action research projects to distil lessons learnt and share them with beneficiary communities. Discussion points that drew from this group activity included:

▪ Issue of competition and/or antagonism with other NGOs - which could arise when activities undertaken by an NDF are within the mandates of organisations. To mitigate this, the approaches suggested would be for the respective NDF to target the areas within other NGOs mandate that they do not perform/deliver well and build their capacity on them.

▪ Change of NDF focus in terms of programme areas for the sake of sustainability. Concern was raised on the large amount of time spent in training workshops that could be spent in developing new programme areas instead.

▪ Engagement with the government – for CSOs to take on some of the projects currently under the government, for which it has plenty of funds for but not adequate capacity to implement or manage.

▪ Need for fundraising for NDFs to help diversify their programme areas as well as sustain the impact of the programmes on the ground after the funding is over. It was further explained that NDFs’ involvement in the NGO networks requires additional human resources (programme officers), which would be feasible if NDFs have their own financial capacity to support additional staff.

Presentation: Integrated Water Resources Management and Civil Society Participation in Nile Basin Countries In this presentation, Alan Nicol highlighted the potential and opportunities for NDFs to take on more programme areas. The area of integrated water resources management (IWRM) he posited has cross-sectional learning that builds on the ecological, institutional and economic principles. From these principles he drew the strengths and weaknesses of IWRM. The strengths included: ▪ Co-ordination,

4 Evidence is part of the RAPID framework

4

▪ Information resources, ▪ Ecosystems and catchments, and ▪ Process – it is here that NDFs come in on the paradigm of improving dialogue between

policy makers and stakeholders. The weaknesses on the other hand are: ▪ Inadequate resource allocation, ▪ The issue of equity is sidelined by the focus on efficient use of water, ▪ Governance – in terms of integration and policy dialogue on the use of resources. This in

particular underscored the importance of civil society engagement especially in the policy decision-making processes. Further, the role of civil society engagement would be to mainstream the various concerns through lobbying, questioning decisions made, developing and disseminating knowledge in better ways and linking IWRM policy with NBD projects and processes from the bottom-up.

As indicators of impact, monitoring and evaluation would determine the success of the interventions. Issue was raised on whether to develop a clear IWRM policy and/or mainstream the one developed by the respective governments. On this, it was noted that lobbying for IWRM in many countries is not strong especially the role of the Global Water Partnerships. With regard to undertaking programmes at the ground level, capacity is minimal and there is both the need the interest for members to take on the projects an own them.

c) How to develop a policy influencing strategy Presentation: Communication: Why and How to Group activity - 4 The presentation, done by Naved Chowdhury, focused on several aspects of communication. Thereafter participants broke into the final group activity in which they designed country specific strategies for engaging key decision making stakeholders. From the group presentations, several lessons were drawn:

I. The perfect communicator gives a message that remains with the audience for a long time.

II. It is important to study the audience so that one packages the right message that will adequately address the issue at hand.

III. The message should be simple. IV. Important to use what is available and suitable for the audience. V. Effective evidence based advocacy is driven by both information and the aforementioned

lessons.

5

5. Closing Remarks

Dr. Melaku gave a vote of thanks to all participants, the ODI team and the support staff for their contributions to making the workshop a success. He felt that the training would help the respective NDFs in adopting various advocacy strategies. Participants too were grateful for the workshop, which generated interest on possible trans-boundary networking opportunities, in addition to the take away points on the globalisation theme, undertaking of research and sharing of expertise. They also identified various issues to advocate for, i.e. gender and water management, energy alternatives (with focus on stemming deforestation), integration of other disciplines into water resources management, role of the state in engaging civil society (in areas of corruption, non-accountability, creating space for civil society, poverty), water and health, HIV/AIDS, population and biodiversity conservation. Presentation of certificates of participation to the participants marked the end and official closure of the workshop.

6

7

Annex A. Workshop Presentation

Improving NBD Policy Engagement Improving NBD Policy Engagement Improving NBD Policy Engagement Improving NBD Policy Engagement

25252525----27 April, 2007,27 April, 2007,27 April, 2007,27 April, 2007,

Nairobi, KenyaNairobi, KenyaNairobi, KenyaNairobi, Kenya

Improving NBD Policy Engagement

Naved Chowdhury Nicola Jones

n.chowdhury@odi.org.uk n.jones@odi.org.uk

25-27 April, 2007

Naivasha, Kenya

Expectations

• Introduction

• Your name

• Your work

• What is your expectation from this workshop?

• 2 minutes!!

Overseas Development Institute

• Development Think Tank

• 60 researchers

• Research / Advice / Public Debate

• Rural / Humanitarian / Poverty & Aid / Economics / Policy Processes

• DFID, Parliament, WB, EC

• Civil Society

For more information see: www.odi.org.uk

RAPID Group• Promoting the use of research-

based evidence in development policy

• Research / Advice / Public Affairs & Capacity-building

• Programmes:

– Research for Policy

– Progressive Policymakers

– Parliamentarians

– Southern Think Tanks

for further information see: www.odi.org.uk/rapid

Case Studies• Detailed:

– Sustainable Livelihoods– Poverty Reductions Strategy

Processes– Ethical Principles in

Humanitarian Aid– Animal Health Care in Kenya– Dairy Policy in Kenya– Plant Genetic Resources

• Summary– GDN x 50– CSPP x 20– Good news case studies x 5– Mental health in the UK

ODI and Global Civil SocietyCivil Society Partnerships Programme

Outcomes:

• CSOs better understand evidence-policy process

• Capacity development to support CSOs’ policy influencing efforts

• Improved knowledge base for CSOs on policy influencing

• Global collaboration and experience sharing about research/policy/practice linkages

Aim: Strengthened role of southern CSOs in development policy processes

http://www.odi.org.uk/cspp/

8

CSPP Objectives

Goal

Development policy is more pro-poor

Purpose

• Southern CSOs make more use of research-based evidence to influence the establishment of pro-poor policy

• ODI engages more effectively with southern CSOsand other stakeholders to make more use of ODI’sresearch-based evidence to influence the establishment of pro-poor policy.

Partnership Activities

Network:• Interactive community website• Information and knowledge

exchange within and across regions

• General support

Capacity-building:

• staff exchanges• visiting fellows to ODI and

Southern institutes, • Southern participants in global

policy events• Training and ToT – for CSOs

and policy-makers• Mentoring support to action

research projects

Dissemination of lessons:

• Ongoing learning

• “How to do it” guidelines

• New research on the research-policy-practice interface

Collaborative projects:

• Small-scale ARPs

• Continued support to existing projects

• One new global collaborative project each year

Global Consultation• Workshops were held in Africa (Southern, Eastern and West),

Asia (South and South East) and Latin America (Southern Cone and Andes) and organized in partnership with local CSOs

• Case studies: – Budget Monitoring (Zambia), – Community Participation in Waste Management (Ghana), – Rice pricing (Bangladesh), – Public participation (Indonesia) etc.– Sub-national elections and journalist capacity building (Peru)

Key factors for CSO influence (Malawi)

Constraints• Lack of capacity• Lack of local ownership• Translating data into

evidence• Limited data• Donor influence• Crises• Political factors

Strengths• Evidence of the value of

CSO involvement • Governments becoming

more interested in CSOs• CSOs are gaining

confidence• Strength of networks• Opportunities for media

engagement • Political factors

What do CSOs need to do?

• Define clear roles and responsibilities, especially in networks

• Financial and human resources to facilitate policy influencing – both constructive engagement and confrontational approaches

• Effective communication: develop different materials for different target audiences

• Engage the media

• Engage with donors so that they can develop a more holistic understanding of development challenges

• Consult with policymakers (elected officials and civil servants) from the outset

Group work in regional teams • What do you understand by the term “policy influencing” or

“policy engagement”?

• What are the most important policy processes for CSOs to influence with regard to the Nile River Basin? – Please give examples at regional and national levels

• How are you trying to influence water policy in your country?

• What are the key opportunities for CSOs and challenges in your country to influence water policies?

• Plenary: Opportunities and Challenges for influencing water resource policies in Nile Basin countries

9

Overview

• What is policy?

• What explains policy change?

• What is the relationship between researchers and policy makers?

• Tools to understand the political context of policy change

• Tools to influence the policy process

Merilee Grindle’s Approach1. Identify the policy reform – the decision to be

made

2. Political Interests Map – the actors and “politics”

3. Institutional Contexts Map – the organisations and processes involved

4. Circle of influence graphic – supporters and opponents and their power

5. Policy process Matrix – what needs to be done when

6. Communications Strategy

Policy – some meanings

• Label for field of activity/space

• Expression of general intent

• Specific proposals

• Decisions of government

• Formal authority/legislation

• Program

• Output or outcome

• Model or theory

Hogwood & Gunn, 1984

According to Peter John -

‘the interplay between institutions, interests and ideas.’

John P (1998) Analysing Public Policy. London: Cassell.

Policy Processes

Identify the problem

Commission research

Analyse the results

Choose the best option

Establish the policy

Evaluation

Implement the policy

Monitoring and Evaluation

Agenda Setting

DecisionMaking

Policy Implementation

Policy Formulation

Policy Processes

Civil Society

DonorsCabinet

Parliament

Ministries

Private Sector

10

…in reality…• “The whole life of policy is a chaos of

purposes and accidents. It is not at all a matter of the rational implementation of the so-called decisions through selected strategies 1”

• “Most policy research on African agriculture is irrelevant to agricultural and overall economic policy in Africa2”

• “Research is more often regarded as the opposite of action rather than a response to ignorance”3

1 Clay & Schaffer (1984), Room for Manoeuvre; An Exploration of Public Policy inAgricultural and Rural Development, Heineman Educational Books, London

2 Omamo (2003), Policy Research on African Agriculture: Trends, Gaps, and Challenges,International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Research Report No 21

3 Surr (2003), DFID Research Review

Evidence

Experience & Expertise

Judgement

Resources

Values and Policy

Context

Habits & Tradition

Lobbyists & Pressure Groups

Pragmatics & Contingencies

Factors influencing policy making

Source: Phil Davies Impact to Insight Meeting, ODI, 2005

Different Notions of Evidence

• Colloquial (Contextual)

• Anything that seems reasonable

• Policy relevant

• Timely

• Clear Message

Policy Makers’Evidence

Source: Phil Davies Impact to Insight Meeting, ODI, 2005

• ‘Scientific’ (Context free)

• Proven empirically

• Theoretically driven

• As long as it takes

• Caveats and qualifications

Researchers’Evidence

Policy process

• Agenda setting – why some issues considered by policy makers

• Formulation – which policy alternatives and evidence is considered, why evidence ignored

• Adoption – who is involved in deciding, formal or informal decision-making

• Implementation – who will implement, how will implementers change policy to suit their aims, are implementers involved in decision-making

• Evaluation – whether and why policies achieve their aims

The way policy is initiated, developed, negotiated, communicated, implemented

Policy context

• Situational: change of leadership, focusing events, new evidence, etc.

• Structural: resource allocation to intervention, organization of service delivery – public private mix, etc.

• Cultural: prevailing attitudes to situation of women, technology, equity, tradition, etc.

• International: place of intervention on international agenda, aid dependency, levels and modalities, migration of staff, ideas and paradigms, etc.

Systemic factors which effect policy

Political Context Analysis • Systematically gather political intelligence

associated with any policy reform

– Contextual opportunities & constraints

– Formal & informal processes through which decisions made

– Identify stakeholder groups

– Assess political resources of groups

– Understand interests, positions and commitments of groups

• Systematically assess political palatability of specific policy alternatives

11

The overall framework

• Identify the problem

• Understand the context

• Identify the audience(s)

• Develop a SMART Strategy

• Identify the message(s)

• Resources – staff, time, partners & $$

• Promotion – tools & activities

• Monitor, learn, adapt

How?

Who?

What?

Policy Mapping Tools

• Policy Process Mapping

• RAPID Framework

• Stakeholder Analysis

• Force-Field Analysis

• Outcome Mapping

• More complex tools:

– Drivers of Change

– Power Analysis

– World Governance Assessment

More Complex Tools

• Civil Society Index (CIVICUS)

• Country Policy & Institutional Assessment (World Bank)

• Democracy and Governance Assessment (USAID)

• Drivers of Change (DFID)

• Governance Questionnaire (GTZ)

• Governance Matters (World Bank Institute)

• Power Analysis (Sida)

• World Governance Assessment

Practical Tools

Overarching Tools- The RAPID Framework

- Using the Framework- The Entrepreneurship

Questionnaire

Context Assessment Tools- Stakeholder Analysis

- Forcefield Analysis- Writeshops- Policy Mapping

- Political Context MappingCommunication Tools

- Communications Strategy- SWOT analysis- Message Design

- Making use of the mediaResearch Tools- Case Studies

- Episode Studies- Surveys

- Bibliometric Analysis- Focus Group Discussion

Policy Influence Tools- Influence Mapping & Power Mapping

- Lobbying and Advocacy- Campaigning: A Simple Guide

- Competency self-assessment

Problem Tree Analysis

• The first step is to discuss and agree the problem or issue to be analysed.

• Next the group identify the causes of the focal problem – these become the roots – and then identify the consequences – which become the branches

• The heart of the exercise is the discussion, debate and dialogue that is generated as factors are arranged and re-arranged, often forming sub-dividing roots and branches

SWOT Analysis• What type of policy influencing

skills and capacities do we have?

• In what areas have our staff used them more effectively?

• Who are our strongest allies?

• When have they worked with us?

• Are there any windows of opportunity?

• What can affect our ability to influence policy?

Strengths Weaknesses

Opportunities Threats

•Skills and abilities•Funding lines•Commitment to positions•Contacts and Partners•Existing activities

•Other orgs relevant to theissue•Resources: financial, technical, human•Political and policy space•Other groups or forces

12

Planning: Social Network Analysis

• Focus on structure of relationships

• Nodes and links between nodes

• Nodes: people, groups and organizations, etc.

• Links: social contacts, exchange of information, political influence, membership in org etc

• Social processes influence organizations and vice versa

Stakeholder analysis

• Stakeholder: individuals, groups, or organizations that have an interest in the project and can mobilize resources to affect its outcome in some way.

Stakeholders are often specific to each policy reform and context, and should not just be assumed.

• Stakeholder analysis: tool used to identify and understand the needs and expectations of major interests inside and outside the project environment in order to plan strategically.

It is critical for assessing project risk and viability, and ultimately the support that must be effectively obtained and retained.

Stakeholder Analysis Approach

• Clarify policy change objective

• Identify all stakeholders associated with this objective

• Prioritise stakeholders according to interest/commitment and power/ assets

• Develop strategy to engage with different stakeholders

Keep Satisfied

Engage Closely and Influence Actively

Monitor (minimum effort)

Keep Informed

High

Power

Low

Low HighInterest

Actors/Stakeholders

– Identify key governmental, NGO, international, regional, national and sub-national stakeholder groups

– Also identify independent groups/individuals with some influence or potential influence

– Break down categories as far as feasible (one possibility is primary stakeholders, e.g. ministerial advisors, and secondary stakeholders, the minister her/himself; trade union federation vs factor workers directly).

Interests, Position & Commitment

• Interests – what would a stakeholder gain or lose from the proposed reform?

• Interests determine position: supportive, neutral, opposed

• Commitment – importance attached by stakeholder to issue

Stakeholder interests

Stakeholder Interests Estimated project

impacts

Estimated overall

priority

Ministry of

Environment

� Natural

resource

management

� Synergies

between land

and water

policies

� Minimum

tension with

CSOs

High

Medium

Medium

2nd

priority

13

Assessing Stakeholder Power:

• Tangible

– Votes

– Finance

– Infrastructure

– Members

– Research evidence

• Intangible

– Expertise

– Charisma

– Legitimacy

– Access to media & decision makers

– Tacit/implicit knowledge

Political Assets:

Type of engagement

Inform Consult Partnership Control

Initiation

Planning

Implementation

Monitoring and

evaluation

Strategies for Policy Engagement

Develop political strategies to change:

• Position: deals to bring about change, horse trading, promises, threats

• Power: provide supporters with funds, personnel, access to media & officials

• Players: change number of actors by mobilizing and demobilising, venue shifting

• Perceptions: use data and arguments to question, to alter perspectives of problem/solution, use associations, invoke symbols, emphasise doability

LEVEL OF

INFLUENCE

POSITION

Opposed Neutral Supportive

High

Medium

Low

Policy Mapping Tool 1Stakeholder Position Map

Bangladesh Integration Example:

• Ministry of Finance• Planning Commission• Prime Minister• Minister of Health• Secretary of Min of Health • Deputy Secretary Ministry of Health• Health reformers in Ministry• Cadre of Family Planning Officials• Medical Association• Donors• Press• Academics• Select service delivery NGOs

LEVEL OF INFLUENCE

POSITION

Opposed Neutral Supportive

High DG FP Min of FinancePlanning CommissionPrime MinisterMinister of Health

Secretary of HealthBMASome DPs (WB, DFID, EC, USAID)

Medium Admin cadreFP cadreClass III/IV employeesPrint press

DGHHealth cadreReformers in MOHFW Secretariat

Low Additional Secretary Health NGOsFP NGOsAcademia

Some DPs (WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, CIDA, SIDA, GTZ, Dutch Co-operation)

Bangladesh Integration: Pre-2001

14

LEVEL OF INFLUENCE

POSITION

Opposed Neutral Supportive

High Secretary DG FPFP cadreClass III/IV workersMinistry of FinancePrime MinisterPlanning CommissionMinister of Health

BMA

Medium FP NGOsAdmin cadre? Press?

DGH Some DPs (WB, DFID, EC, USAID)

Low UNFPA CIDASIDAGTZAcademiaHealth NGOs

Some DPs (WHO, UNICEF, Dutch Co-operation)

Positions Oct 2001-May 2003

Panel discussion

• Regional representatives to present on: “How can CSOs improve their engagement with relevant stakeholders?”

• Questions from audience

Day 2

Group work:

Questions:

a) Who are your stakeholders?

b) How powerful are they? And what accounts for their power?

c) What are their interests? Are these likely to differ across different stages in the policy cycle?

d) What type of engagement is recommendable at different junctures in the policy cycle?

Policy Mapping Tool 2

Effective Evidence-based policy influencing:

The RAPID Approach

Definitions

• Research: “any systematic effort to increase the stock of knowledge”

• Policy: a “purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors”

• Evidence: “the available information supporting or otherwise a belief or proposition”

• Evidence-based Policy: “public policy informed by rigorously established evidence”.

15

Non-linear, dynamic policy processes

• The impacts of research may occur neither at the time of the research, nor in ways that are predictable…or in the direction in which researchers intend. [Rather] it is mediated by the options available to policy makers at a particular time. [There is a] …need for researcher to be both radical and relate to its time and place….to make an impact but also to accord…with existing mores

»(Lucinda Platt, 2003: 2).

Existing theory1. Linear model2. Percolation model, Weiss3. Tipping point model, Gladwell4. ‘Context, evidence, links’ framework,

ODI5. Policy narratives, Roe6. Systems model (NSI)7. External forces, Lindquist8. ‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay &

Schaffer9. ‘Street level bureaucrats’, Lipsky10. Policy as social experiments,

Rondinelli11. Policy Streams & Windows, Kingdon12. Disjointed incrementalism, Lindquist13. The ‘tipping point’, Gladwell14. Crisis model, Kuhn15. ‘Framework of possible thought’,

Chomsky16. Variables for Credibility, Beach

17. The source is as important as content, Gladwell

18. Linear model of communication, Shannon

19. Interactive model, 20. Simple and surprising stories,

Communication Theory21. Provide solutions, Marketing I22. Find the right packaging, Marketing II23. Elicit a response, Kottler24. Translation of technology, Volkow25. Epistemic communities26. Policy communities27. Advocacy coalitions etc, Pross28. Negotiation through networks,

Sebattier29. Shadow networks, Klickert30. Chains of accountability, Fine31. Communication for social change,

Rockefeller32. Wheels and webs, Chapman & Fisher

X

An Analytical Framework

The political context – political

and economic structures and processes, culture, institutional pressures, state-civil society relations, pol-econ history.

The evidence – credibility, the

degree it challenges received wisdom, research methodology, message clarity, how it is packaged etc

External Influences Socio-economic and cultural influences, donor policies etc

The links between policy

and research communities –networks, relationships/ trust, power, competing discourses

A Practical Framework

External Influences political context

evidencelinks

Politics and Policymaking

Media, Advocacy,

Networking Research, learning & thinking

Scientific information

exchange & validation

Policy analysis, & research

Campaigning, Lobbying

Political context - key findings

• The design of political institutions or regimes matter in that they channel the flow of ideas in particular ways and create different sets of incentives

• New regional / transnational policy spaces present new opportunities and challenges

• Volatility of political contexts

• Time-bound windows of opportunity

Evidence – key findings

• Research quality matters

• Research quantity matters (body of work culminating in a tipping point)

• Triangulation of research methods is important

– Quantitative

– Qualitative

– Experiential

– Participatory

16

Linkages

• Intent to shape policy matters“The hard evidence of many cases supports the claim that intent matters. It matters precisely because the confusions, tensions and accidents of the policy process itself turn out to be so complicated and unpredictable…Research will only have a reliable influence on policy if it can survive…” (O’Neil, 2005: 762).

• Credibility of messenger may be as important as the message; this depends on social/institutional positioning and policy entrepreneurship skills

The Key QuestionsThe external environment:

• Who are the key actors?

• What is their agenda?

• How do they influence the political context?

Links:

• Who are the key actors?

• Are there existing networks?

• How best to transfer the information?

• The media?

• Campaigns?

The evidence:

• Is it there?

• Is it relevant?

• Is it practically useful?

• Are the concepts new?

• Does it need re-packaging?

The political context:

• Is there political interest in change?

• Is there room for manoeuvre?

• How do they perceive the problem?

Childhood Poverty in Ethiopia

Political context

•Govt weariness/suspicion of civil society

•Some media access

•PRSP consultation period

•Limited capacity of social policy ministries

External influences

•WB, donors encouraged research-based policy recommendations

•UN Convention on Rights of the Child

•Consultants to Ministry of Finance and Economy

Evidence

•National hh surveys

•Young Lives survey on childhood poverty

•Good practice from other countries, esp. indicators

•Qualitative research

Linkages

•National NGO umbrella orgs

•Save the Children Alliance

•Policy entrepreneurs

•Ethiopian Dev’t Research Institute

•PRSP technical committee

•Dept of Children and Youth

•Regional state govt officials

What you need to do – group work

What you need to

know

Broad action steps Possible strategies

Political Context:

Evidence

Links

• Who are the policymakers?• Is there demand for ideas?• What is the policy process?

• What is the current theory?• What are the narratives?• How divergent is it?

• Who are the stakeholders?• What networks exist?• Who are the connectors,

mavens and salesmen?

• Get to know the policymakers.• Identify friends and foes.• Prepare for policy opportunities. • Look out for policy windows.

• Work with them – seek commissions

• Strategic opportunism –prepare for known events + resources for others

• Establish credibility• Provide practical solutions• Establish legitimacy.• Present clear options• Use familiar narratives.

• Build a reputation• Action-research• Pilot projects to generate

legitimacy• Good communication

• Get to know the others• Work through existing

networks.• Build coalitions.• Build new policy networks.

• Build partnerships.• Identify key networkers,

mavens and salesmen.• Use informal contacts

Feedback and Discussion

What is the present policy agenda? Are there clear and strong links betweenresearcher and policy-making/policy implementingcommunities? How open are policy spaces on water policy? Do you have access to or are you generatingpolicy relevant evidence?What are the external forces and how influentialare they?

A peer assist is a method whereby participants are invited to reflect on the ideas of their peers based on their experiences, insights and knowledge early on in a project

Peer Assist

• targets a specific technical or commercial challenge;• gains assistance and insights from people outside the

team;• identifies possible approaches and new lines of inquiry;• promotes sharing of learning with each other; and• develops strong networks amongst people involved

17

Advocacy RulesAdvocacy Rules

(Or how to influence people (Or how to influence people

to make changes ....)to make changes ....)

What are the changes you are trying to bring

about?

• Use the problem tree or some other tool to identify

problems, impact of the problem and root causes

• Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic,

Time-Bound (SMART) objectives

Who are you advocating/communicating to? Who are you advocating/communicating to?

Who needs to make these changes?

Who has the power?

What is their stance on the issue?

Awareness, Knowledge, Attitude, Behaviour

Targets and influence

Mapping where decisions happen

Analyse the outcome and then decide.

Who are you working together with? Who are you working together with?

1. Who do you need to work with?

2. Identify your ‘niche’ (SWOT)

3. Stakeholder Mapping

4. Structures for collaborative working

5. Skills needed in teams

6. Benefits and pitfalls of collaborations

Why do you want to make the changes?Why do you want to make the changes?

Why should things change (or what is the

evidence to support your case?)

How to make sure that the evidence is

credible and ‘legitimate’?

The evidence : accurate, credible, well

researched, authoritative…

What the target audience wants to hear....

Advocacy StatementAdvocacy Statement

A concise and persuasive statement that captures What

you want to achieve, Why, How and by when?

� Should ‘communicate’ with your target

audience and prompt action

� Think about language, content, packaging,

and timing

� Persuasive

18

How will you communicate your messages and evidence?

� How to target and access information?

� Who is a trusted and credible messenger?

� What is the most appropriate medium?

� How will you package your information?

� Role of the media

Where and when to advocate/communicate?

� Creating opportunities (campaigns, public

mobilisation, formal and informal lobbying

etc.)

� Influencing existing agendas

� Piggybacking on other agendas

• Day 3

Why communicate?

• To disseminate our research results

• To provide information

• To aid our research process

• To engage with specific groups

• To facilitate (public) discussion

• To lead to change

But…

more communication

≠

more change

Key communication skills

More communication ≠ more change

• But better communication can lead to change.

Key skills:

• to understand,

• to inspire,

• to inform, and

• to learn.

19

Communications Toolkit

• Planning Tools• Packaging Tools• Targeting Tools• Monitoring Tools

Communications Toolkit

• Planning Tools– Stakeholder Analysis – Social Network Analysis – Problem Tree Analysis – Force Field Analysis – National Systems of

Innovation (NSI) – How to Write a

Communications Strategy

• Packaging Tools• Targeting Tools• Monitoring Tools

Key skill:

to understand

The overall framework

• Identify the problem

• Understand the context

• Identify the audience(s)

• Develop a SMART Strategy

• Identify the message(s)

• Resources – staff, time, partners & $$

• Promotion – tools & activities

• Monitor, learn, adapt

How?

Who?

What?

Audience

• Who needs to make these changes?

• Who has the power?

• What is their stance on the issue?

• Who influences them?

• Identify targets and influence

(use stakeholder & context mapping tools)

Message

• Why should things change (or what is the evidence to support your case?)

• How to make sure that the evidence is credible and ‘legitimate’?

• What the target audience can hear.... frameworks of thought

• Language, content, packaging, and timing

Messenger (Promotion)

• How to access information and target?

• Who is a trusted and credible messenger?

• What is the most appropriate medium? (campaigns, public mobilisation, formal and informal lobbying)

• How will you package your information?

• Role of the media?

20

Persuasion

• Separate people from problem

• Focus on interests, not positions

• Invent options for mutual gain

• Insist on using objective criteria.

• Manage human emotion separately from the practical problem

• Highlight the human need to feel heard, understood, respected and valued.

Lobbying

• Be an authority on the subject

• Include all group in the work

• Be positive in your approach

• Be aware of the agenda and language on the government in power

• Identify and target politicians

• Time your input

• Use the Media to lobby

Targeting: Writing Effective Policy

PapersProviding a solution to a policy problem

• Structural elements of a paper

– Problem description

– Policy options

– Conclusion

• Key issues: Problem oriented, targeted, multidisciplinary, applied, clear, jargon-free.

[Source: Young and Quinn, 2002]

A peer assist is a method whereby participants are invited to reflect on the ideas of their peers based on their experiences, insights and knowledge early on in a project

Peer Assist

• targets a specific technical or commercial challenge;• gains assistance and insights from people outside the

team;• identifies possible approaches and new lines of inquiry;• promotes sharing of learning with each other; and• develops strong networks amongst people involved

Starts with the attitude that someone

has probably already done what I am

about to do.

I wonder who?”

Peer Assist

Peer Assist

What you know in your context

What I know in my context

"...the polit ics accompanying

hierarchies hampers the free exchange of

knowledge. People are much more open

wi th their peers. They are much more w illing to share and

to listen ”

What weboth know

What’spossible?

ActionMultiplying Knowledge

21

What is KM & Learning?

“… keeping track

of people who

‘know the

recipe’….

“…every time we

do something

again we should do it better than

the last time…”

Goals ResultsActivities

Learnduring

Learnafter

Learnbefore

External networks; Colleagues; Information assets; Own knowledge

Different learning styles…

Reflector

Theorist

Activist

Pragmatist

Different forms of knowledge

StartHas it been

articulated?

Can it been

articulated?

Explicit Tacit

Implicit

Y N

Y

N

KM Toolkit

• Strategy Development

• Management Techniques

• Collaboration Mechanisms

• Knowledge Sharing and Learning Processes

• Knowledge Capture and Storage

Knowledge Audit for NBD

• What are the core tasks?• What do the people doing them need to

know?• How is the knowledge generated?• How is it stored and accessed?• Any problems?• What are the relationships between

producers and users?• How could it be improved?• Any leadership issues?• Any incentive problems?

What are the problems we face while monitoring for policy impact?

• The problem with attribution

– Multiple actors and factors contribute

– Unintended results are often ignored

– Influence shifts overtime (indirect relation)

– Impact of our interventions occurs further down the development chain

22

The problem with attribution

CEF

National Gov

Family

Local Gov

GRO

USAID

Church

CSO

DFID

Why do we face these problems?• Because the responsibility for achieving

results ultimately depends on the actions of our partners as influenced by the contexts in which they work

• Focusing on downstream impact increases programming bureaucratisation and is inconsistent with our understanding of develpment as a complex process.

Monitoring ex-ante

• … ex-post is sometimes too late

• A short introduction to OUTCOME MAPPING

What is OM?• OM is a dynamic methodology useful in the

development of planning, monitoring and evaluation mechanism. OM:– Provides the tools to think holistically and

strategically about how it intends to achieve results

– Focuses on Outcomes instead of impacts

– It deals with Contribution instead of attribution

– Forces us to limit our planning and evaluation to our sphere of influence

– Deals with changes in the behaviours of our direct partners

Outcome Mapping

OUTCOME MAPPING:Building Learning and Reflection into Development ProgramsSarah Earl, Fred

Carden, and Terry

Smutylo

http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9330-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

The 3 Stages of OM

• The intentional design stage: helps answer 4 questions: 1) Why? (developing a vision statement); 2) Who? (identifying the primary partners); 3) What? (specifying desired outcomes and relevant progress markers); and, 4) How? (articulating the mission and a portfolio of strategies).

• The outcome and performance monitoring stage: provides a framework for a continuous monitoring of the initiative as a tool to achieving its outcomes. The program uses progress markers, a set of graduated indicators of behavioural change, identified in the intentional design stage to clarify directions with its primary partners and to monitor outcomes.

• The evaluation planning stage: helps identify the evaluation priorities assessing the strategy at greater depth than the performance monitoring stage.

23

Intentional design

• Boundary Partners– Individuals, groups and organisations with whom

the programme interacts directly to effect changes.

– Those that you are trying to encourage to change so that they can contribute to the vision? With whom will you work directly?

– We must try to group similar partners according to the type of behavioural changes sought. Boundary partners are different from strategic partners.

Boundary partners

= Program`s Partners

Program

Intentional design• Outcome Challenges

– The changed behaviours (relationships, activities and/or actions) of the boundary partner and how they would be behaving if they were contributing ideally to the vision.

– Imagine that in 3-5 years PartCom has been extremely successful. What would our boundary partners be doing to contribute maximally to the vision?

– Outcome challenges are about the boundary partner, not the programme.

Intentional design• Progress markers

– Step by step progressive changes that one expects to see (short run), would like to see (medium to long run) and love to see (very long run) –keep it simple, 15 max!

– Are about CHANGES IN BEHAVIOURS OF BOUNDARY PARTNERS

– Are linear but NOT static

– Must be revised

– Help monitor the effectiveness of the strategy

Intentional design• Strategy Map

– Outlines the programmes approach in working with the boundary partners

– How will the programme contribute to the achievement of the outcome challenged over the next X months/years?

– Use force field analysis

The three stages of OM

24

Discussion

• How will Nile Basin countries monitor its policy engagement work and impacts?

Summary

– Evidence-informed policy challenging

– Policy about interests, institutions & ideas

– Variety of tools to understand these factors - range in sophistication/complexity and ease of use

– Tools to use the understanding to engage in policy processes – less well developed

– Extent to which the tools are helpful depends on creativity, tenacity, inside knowledge – advocacy coalitions useful

– You can get more info at …

Further InformationMapping Political Contexts:

http://www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/Publications/Tools_Political_Context.html

Tools for Policy Impact:http://www.odi.org.uk/RAPID/Publications/Tools_Policy_Impact.html

Best Practice in Policy Making:http://www.policyhub.gov.uk/policy_tools/

Understanding Policy Process:

Further Information / Resources• ODI Working Papers

• Bridging Research and Policy Book

• JID Special Issue

• Meeting Reports

• Tools for Impact

• www.odi.org.uk/cspp

• www.odi.org.uk/rapid

Closing comments

1. Was this useful?

2. What will you do different from now on?

3. How can we help you?

Action Planning

Contact Details:

Naved Chowdhury n.chowdhury@odi.org.uk

Nicola Jones n.jones@odi.org.uk

RAPID Programme, ODI www.odi.org.uk/rapid

Annex B. Workshop Agenda

Improving NBD Policy Engagement 25-27 April, 2007,

Nairobi, Kenya

Day 1 Basics of policy influence: CSOs, evidence and policy processes

9.00 – 10.00

Introduction and objectives of the workshop: Introductions and Expectations

10.00 – 11.00

ODI and Global Civil Society Civil Society Involvement in Nile Basin Initiative Discussion

1100- 11.30 Tea/Coffee

11.30- 12.30 Group work based in 3 teams (2 NELSAP, 1 ENSAP) on Water Policy Influencing Initiatives both national and vis-à-vis NBI. (Possible NBI programmes = CBSI, ENSAP, NELSAP).

1230-13.300 Plenary: Opportunities and Challenges of CSOs to influence ‘Water Resource Policies’ in Nile Basin countries

13.30 -14.30 Lunch

14.30-15.15 Overview of Tools for Policy Mapping Clarification and discussion

15.15-15.30 Tea/Coffee 15.15 – 16.00

Policy Mapping Tool 1 Regional group work: Stakeholder Position Mapping re hydro-power or irrigation. To explore similarities and differences across countries with respect to interests, positions, power and commitments of various stakeholders working on water policy issues

16.15 – 17.00

25

Day 2 Tools for policy impact

9.00 – 11.00 Presentation on how CSOs in partner countries can improve their engagement with relevant stakeholders

11.0 –11.15 Tea/Coffee

11.15 – 1.00 Policy Mapping Tool 2 RAPID Framework: Presentation Group Exercise to Analyse Country-specific Policy Contexts in Nile Basin countries

13.00 -14.00 Lunch

2.00-3.30 Presentation by Country Teams of RAPID framework

analysis in order to better understand the opportunities and constraints for shaping water policy decisions given diverse political contexts in NBD countries

3.30 –4.00 Tea/Coffee

4.00-5.00 Golden Rules of Advocacy

26

Day 3 How to develop a policy influencing strategy

09.00-10.00 IWRM and civil society participation in Nile Basin Countries

10.00-11.00 Advocacy Golden Rules Communication: Why and How?

11.00 -11.15 Tea/Coffee

11.15-12.15 Country work: Participants will write up a country- specific strategy brief on engaging and communicating with key governmental and non-governmental stakeholders (detailing problem, context, context-appropriate messages, engagement strategy)

12.15 – 13.30

Presentation by Country Teams Plenary: how to reconcile country strategies with overall NBI policy influencing strategy – synergies and tensions?

13.30 -14.30 Lunch

14.30 – 15.30

Knowledge Management Clarification and discussion

15.30 -15.45 Tea/Coffee

15.45-17.00 Next Steps: Country Specific Action Planning (Alan, Melakou) Workshop Evaluation Closing

27

Annex C. Workshop Participants

Improving NBD Policy Engagement 25-27 April, 2007,

Nairobi, Kenya

No Name Title/Position Organization Email Address 1. Emmanuel

Nshimiremana Coordinator Burundi Nile

Discourse Forum nshimiremma@yahoo.frfcbn06@yahoo.fr

2. Ntukamazina Jacqueline

Coordinator Organisation pour la Défense de l’Environnement au Burundi “ODEB”

ntukajacky@yahoo.frodeb2002@yahoo.fr

3. Dieudonne Bizimana GEFII Project Coordinator

Association Burundaise Pour La Protection des Oiseaux (ABO)

bizdieu@yahoo.fr

4. Kamate Kambere DRCNDF Coordinator

DRC National Discourse Forum

visskamy@yahoo.fr

5 Masika Lukyo Denise Deputy Project Coordinator

OBNIL (Observatoire du Bassin du Nil)

deniselukyo@yahoo.fr

6 Mtangala Lumpu Nsenga

Coordinator AFED (Amis de las Foret et de l’Environnement pir le Développement

mtangala@yahoo.frafedndcforets@yahoo.fr

7 Essam Nada Coordinator EgNDF/AOYE Egypt aoye@link.net8 Magda Ramzy

Muukahail Ibrahim Editor (Manager of Media Streaming Cent at the SIS)

The State Information Services

aoye@link.netdodododo3@hotmail.com

9. Badr Ismail Aly Coordinator of Local NDF in Port Said

Balady Association-Eg NDF

Funny_cat5@yahoo.com

10. Ayenew Teresa Coordinator Ethiopia National Discourse Forum

Etnbdf2005@yahoo.comayenewtesera@yahoo.com

11. Wondwosen Michago Researcher Ethiopian Nile Basin Discourse Forum

wondpr@yahoo.com

12. Yonathan Menkir Menkir Voluntary Services

wisdomssound@yahoo.com

13. Abinet Tadesse Social and Gender Expert

SUNARMA (Local NGO in Ethiopia)

Abinet_Tadesse@yahoo.uk

14. Berhane Mogos NDF Coordinator Eritrea National Discourse Forum

tokerpro@gemel.com.er; hermonbi@yahoo.com

15. Alemtsehay Fisseha Emergency Project Officer

Lutheran World Federation

Tesbit2001@yahoo.com

16. Erastus Orwa Coordinator Kenya National Discourse Forum (KNDF)

k-ndf@yahoo.com

17. Anne A Ombewa Director Christian Women Partners

cwpartners@yahoo.com

18. Lilian Dullo Information & Networking Officer

Sustainable Aid in Africa International

sana@swiftkisumu.comlilian@yahoo.com

28

No Name Title/Position Organization Email Address 19. Frank Habineza National

Coordinator National Basin Forum( NBDF) Rwanda

info@ndfrwanda.org.rw

20. Betty Gahima National Coordinator

Benishyaka/NBDF Rwanda

bettygahima@yahoo.ca benasoc@rwanda1.com

21. Halizimana Jean Pierre

Head of Sustainable Agriculture & Environment Department

UGAMA/CSC (Ugama Centre de Services Aux Cooperatives

ugamacsc@rwanda1.comhakijpfr@yahoo.fr

22. Najla Hassein El Shrief

Sudan-Kasti-Secs-Ka (Sudanese Environmental)

Sudan Environnemental Conservation Society, Kosti Branch NDF Kosti

23. Safaa Abdel-Magid Potential Coordinator Candidate for SNDF

Nile Basin Discourse Forum, Khartoum Sudan

smabdelmagid@yahoo.com

24. Wilson Lutonda Community Development Officer

Irienyi Development Association (IDEA) c/o Foundation Help

info@foundationhelp.org

25. Verena Materego Accountant and Projects Organizer on Lake Victoria Environment

Bunda Youth and Women Development Trust

materegov@yahoo.com

26. Sarah Naigaga Coordinator Uganda Nile Discourse Forum (UNDF)

undf@uws.or.ugsnaigaga@yahoo.co.uk

27. Okecho Emmanuel Coordinator Mahanga Environment Management (MAHEMO)

emmy-bro@yahoo.co.uk

28. Kuwumulo Peter Head/Director of Programmes

Uganda Association for Socio-Economic Progress ‘USEP’

usep@utlonline.co.ug

RESOURCE PERSONS 29. Prof. Edward Oyugi Coordinator Social Development

Network Edward@sodnet.or.ke

30. Lilian Kisaka National Coordinator

Nile Basin Initiative-TEAP

lkisaka@nilebasin.org

31. Haron Ndubi Executive Director Kituo Cha Sheria ndubihm@yahoo.co.uk32. Astango Chesoni atsangochesoni@yahoo.com33. Prof. Asim El

Moghrabi Chairman Sudan Nile Discourse

Forum asim_mog@yahoo.com

34. Elias Habte Selassie eliashabteselassie@yahoo.com35. Beatrice Kamau gakamau@yahoo.com36. Belinda W Njiru Programmme

Officer Centre for Governance & Development

belindanjiru@yahoo.com

29

No Name Title/Position Organization Email Address ODI

37. Naved Chowdhury Research & Policy Development Programme-Overseas Development Institute

n.chowdhury@odi.org.ukwww.odi.org.uk

38. Nicola Jones Research & Policy Development Programme-Overseas Development Institute

n.jones@odi.ukwww.odi.org.uk

39. Allan Nicol Head, Water Policy Programme

Overseas Development Institute

a.nicol@odi.org.uk

IUCN 40. Chihenyo Mvoyi Programme Officer IUCN- The World

Conservation Union Chihenyo.Mvoyi@iucn.co.ug

41. Geoffrey Howard Invasive Species Coordinator

IUCN-The World Conservation Union

Geofrey.Howard@iucn.org

NBD DESK 42. Melakou Tegegn Discourse

Coordinator Nile Basin Discourse coordinator@nilebasindiscours

e.org43. Beat Mutyaba Knowledge &

Communication Officer

Nile Basin Discourse media@nilebasindiscourse.org

44. Philip Busuru Finance & Administration Officer

Nile Basin Discourse finance@nilebasindiscourse.org

45. Jennifer Kurubeija Administrative Assistant

Nile Basin Discourse info@nilebasindiscourse.org

30