Effective Policy Advocacy: An RNRRS Synthesis

This document, written for the Department for International Development (DFID), United Kingdom (UK), is a 20-page synthesis of how to advocate for policy changes within research for development programmes so that outputs of research will be taken up throughout the policy recommendation domain. The document opens with a discussion of why to include policy advocacy in research for development programmes and includes 5 barriers to policy uptake and 3 case studies with policy uptake analysis. It is a Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy (RNRRS) paper.

The paper points out that research done by the economically poor may not circulate its outputs into the policy recommendation domain for lack of an avenue of approach to institutions that wealthy landowners or corporations may have. In addition, if no profit motive is present, market forces are unlikely to take up the outputs. Researchers, however, may be able to approach barriers to policy uptake by awareness of key conditions for policy change, including:

1. "Raising awareness of a soluble problem.
2. A belief that change is feasible, both technically and politically.
3. An understanding of change processes.
4. Access to policy shapers or policy makers. (A policy shaper is anyone, both inside and outside government, who has a direct impact on policy development and will vary according to the issue and the country)."

The five barriers, commonly barring policy uptake, are:

1. Policy Engagement - how research can make an impact and change existing policy. This is illustrated by projects on changes to water policy that successfully engaged decisionmakers. In South Africa,"an extremely diverse group of collaborators included government officials, representatives from universities, [non-governmental organisations] NGOs and communities. The Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry attended the final workshop as a participant." Another example is in India where the management of water supply and demand has been highly fragmented. The development of a communication network between researchers and policy makers provided the scope for good policy and livelihood impacts.
2. Interdisciplinary and Intersectoral Requirements - For optimum policy uptake, multidisciplinary teams including political and natural scientists can help to ensure that specialised knowledge relevant to policy makers can be translated into workable policies.
3. Culture and Policy - Research managers need a variety of compelling arguments to change beliefs to suit different circumstances. "What aids the cultural dynamics is inclusion of local natural and political scientists in the project team." For example, projects on food safety have met with mixed government recognition because, in some places, most vendors are unlicensed, and, hence, are illegal. Where economies are declining, these vendors are increasing in numbers, as are health problems associated with lack of sanitation knowledge. However, in Zambia, appropriate advocacy meant that new partnerships were developed between those involved in vending and the supporting institutions. In Soweto, South Africa, the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) acknowledged the health programme initiative as support for her work.
4. Long Term Nature of Policy Shaping - to achieve maximum policy reform, policy advocacy should not finish at the completion of fieldwork.
5. Policy Communication - The development of appropriate forms of communication at all levels is a key element of effective policy engagement and advocacy. The paper found that articulate staff willing to popularise a project process and outputs with policy shapers are an important facet of effective policy communication. Also, the materials used to communicate policy are relevant to policy advocacy; for example, one project developed traditional and information and communicaton technology- (ICT-) based interactive learning aids and videos on appropriate animal health and husbandry issues for local community and NGO groups.

The paper finds that major lessons learnt are:

• "Policy Engagement: research teams need to identify and gain access to the right political decision makers, which are problem specific, at the most opportunistic times.
• Policy Communication: one size does not fit all; promotion processes must be carefully focused.
• Interdisciplinary and Intersectoral Requirements: natural and political scientists should be included at appropriate stages of project planning and implementation, as determined by local contacts within the policy domain.
• Culture and Policy: the variety of cultural dynamics means that local political scientists must be included in the project team.
• Long Term Nature of Policy Shaping: policy advocacy should not finish at the same time as the fieldwork to achieve maximum policy reform."

Prior to the case studies, the paper lists implications for donor agencies and national research systems. The document then draws on the experience of research projects from DFID’s Forestry Research Programme (FRP hydrology cluster), Livestock Production Programme (LPP landless livestock keeper cluster) and Crop Post-Harvest Programme (CPHP street food cluster).