LEARNING NOTE 1 Using Evidence to Support Policy Co-Implementation
LEARNING NOTE 1: USING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT POLICY CO-IMPLEMENTATION KEY MESSAGE: When undertaken through an inclusive approach, evidence-based strategies can support effective policy co-implementation. This can be done by conducting a joint analysis of the national context, influencing government decision-making and subsequently monitoring and evaluating the performance of the multi-stakeholder platform. CO-AUTHORS: Kate Chibwana (NLC Malawi); Eric Raparison (NLC Madagascar); Sophea Pheap (NLC Cambodia); Angélique Mbelu (NLC DRC); Dharm Raj Joshi (NLC Nepal); Berns Komba Lebbie and Yannick Wild (Land for Life Sierra Leone); Shanjida Khan Ripa (NLC Bangladesh).
ABBREVIATIONS CSO
Civil society organisation
M&E
Monitoring and evaluation
MSP
Multi-stakeholder platform
NLC
National Land Coalition
NLP
National Land Policy
TWG
Technical Working Group
VGGT
Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure
3
INTRODUCTION “Once we have understood the context through evidence from the ground, we can lobby for effective policy-making and policy co-implementation” Dharm Raj Joshi, NLC Nepal
An evidence-based approach to policy co-implementation1 makes it possible for a multistakeholder platform (MSP) to account for a country’s policy context and assess the degree of alignment between existing government policy priorities and the platform’s goals. It can foster the legitimacy of the platform and create a sense of public urgency around the issues that it is tackling. An evidence-based approach can also support monitoring and evaluation (M&E) to strengthen the implementation of platform activities, or to assess the potential impacts of policy reforms. There are three possible ways in which evidence can effectively support policy coimplementation: 1. Jointly assessing the policy context: Analysing the national political environment and the priorities of key stakeholders can help the platform to keep abreast of a shifting policy environment. Identifying areas where policies overlap with or diverge from the platform’s goals can also help focus on opportunities for policy dialogue. 2. Influencing government decision-making with evidence: Knowing the areas of policy overlap or divergence is also an opportunity for platforms to build evidence for policy reform. Gathering and communicating evidence on local realities and the effects of past policy implementation efforts can strengthen the platform’s influence on the government’s future policy implementation choices. 3. Systematically monitoring and evaluating platform performance: An evidence-based approach to self-evaluation can strengthen the engagement of platform members, facilitate co-learning among members and recalibrate the platform’s goals and engagement strategy.
1
4
Evidence includes “expert knowledge, published research, existing research, stakeholder consultations, previous policy evaluations, outcomes from consultations, costings of policy options, output from policy evaluations, statistical modelling, and information shared on the internet from verified and credible sources.” L. Shaxson (2005). Is your evidence robust enough? Questions for policy makers and practitioners, Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.101-111.
GUIDANCE 1. JOINTLY ASSESSING THE NATIONAL CONTEXT AND RELATED RISKS A joint analysis of the national context helps to build areas of policy convergence and creates opportunities for policy dialogue. Together, these efforts help platforms and governments to better align with one another in the policy co-implementation process. A) BUILDING POLICY CONVERGENCE Understanding the context includes identifying areas of convergence for the platform with government policy priorities. In Sierra Leone, a key step toward the institutionalisation of multi-stakeholder dialogue was taken when the platform was expanded, based on recommendations made by a Technical Working Group (TWG) set up by the initial members. This process triggered an alignment of stakeholders’ interests and policy priorities as state and non-state actors collaborated through a participatory approach. The platform now has more than 100 stakeholders, including traditional leaders, local and national government representatives, civil society organisations (CSOs), representatives of the private sector and members from academia. This institutional framework provides a forum where members actively engage in discussing issues identified through TWG assessments, studies and reporting. It has also created a strong accountability mechanism, as all stakeholders must report back to the platform. A clear outcome of this participative action was the 2015 National Land Policy (NLP), which was drafted based on the principles of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (VGGT) with the involvement of the government and the TWG. In turn, the NLP led to the formulation of land laws that recognised customary rights. B) IDENTIFYING ENTRY POINTS FOR POLICY DIALOGUE An analysis of the national policy context helps to identify entry points for dialogue in unexpected places. In Cambodia, recognition that opportunities to take part in national policy debates were limited led to a focus on local- and provincial-level engagement (Box 1). Similarly, in Tanzania a TWG analysed the national context regarding land tenure through local stakeholder interviews. The TWG collected information on the constraints facing local communities as evidence to substantiate advocacy efforts at the national level. At the district level, a baseline analysis conducted through field visits revealed conflicts between pastoralists and farmers. By independently conducting this study rather than relying on limited existing data, the platform generated an accurate, up-to-date picture of the conflicts. This then informed consultations with the government and helped to tailor the design of the intervention more closely to the context. Analysing the policy and institutional context also allows different understandings of crucial issues to be identified. In the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the
5
platform is seeking to align with the land tenure reform process based on the principles of participation and inclusion. However, context analysis revealed divergent understandings of these principles between the platform and the government. From the government’s side, participation was understood solely as being the dissemination of information, without necessarily seeking feedback from other stakeholders. DRC platform members also observed that the mandate of the government, as outlined in the reform agenda, was mainly executed to meet indicators at the expense of the quality of interventions. For the platform, these observations stimulated fresh thinking on approaches to keep the government accountable for its commitments to more inclusive reform. Box 1: Coordinating policy dialogue at the sub-national level in Cambodia Given difficulties in influencing national policy debates, National Land Coalition (NLC) members in Cambodia have focused attention on the local level, with a view to finding solutions through the action of local authorities. This “decentralised” dialogue strengthens and encourages provincial network members to negotiate locally, based on evidence-backed arguments. NLC Cambodia has a new strategy to maintain the activity of provincial networks that are working on land and housing rights and has identified three priority cases to investigate. Continuing dialogue with sub-national government on these issues encourages the participation of key stakeholders such as the private sector, with close coordination from the NLC. Events such as regional workshops involving sub-national and national government, NGOs, the private sector and local community representatives are regularly organised to share lessons learned from dispute resolutions. When issues cannot be resolved at the sub-national level, meetings with ministries and other national-level stakeholders are also arranged.
2. LEVERAGING EVIDENCE FOR GOVERNMENT INFLUENCE The creation of a strong sense of urgency among decision-makers and governmental representatives is key to ensuring their responsiveness. Disseminating evidence-based information through a strong communications apparatus can help to emphasise the pressing need for government to improve land tenure regulations and laws. It is also important to keep dialogue open with both government and non-government actors to continue influencing the policy process. A) ENSURING EFFECTIVE DISSEMINATION OF KEY EVIDENCE-BACKED MESSAGES AT MULTIPLE GOVERNANCE LEVELS When existing problems are identified and backed by evidence collected at the local level, a clear dissemination strategy needs to be devised to leverage this evidence. With the key findings at hand, grassroots movements can, for example, lead targeted advocacy efforts to influence policy processes. Decentralised government agencies can be the focus of
6
such efforts, with communication of outcomes by the national-level platform then helping to influence the central government (Box 1). Policy influencing is most effective when the platform’s communications apparatus is well established at all levels. Building connections with the government at multiple levels – from national and central to local and community levels – is crucial. Engaging local government authorities and technical departments and communities in land policy dialogue helps to strengthen the advocacy strategy, bring communities’ needs and land rights to the fore and accelerate the process of influencing policy. For instance, in Nepal, the ILC-supported MSP has been implementing a multi-level advocacy strategy since 2019 (Box 2). The intervention started with a policy context mapping of land and natural resources use. For the platform, this was a pilot exercise that aimed to identify the status of landless groups and their access to available resources at the local level. Because the platform’s advocacy actions exposed unsustainable land use, a National Land Commission was created by the Nepalese government in 2020 to resolve land issues in the country. The evidence gathered from local actors was crucial for the MSP to lobby this commission, and to push the government to close the gap between policies and practices at the local level. Box 2: Mapping policy priorities in Nepal In Nepal, the NLC has enacted a three-pronged strategy of research, campaigning and capacity strengthening for people’s organisations to promote people-centred land governance. NLC members discuss which topics need to be researched, before ensuring the participation of communities and government organisations in the information-gathering process. Reports are then used to initiate advocacy and policy dialogue. Following this approach, in 2017 NLC members conducted a context mapping exercise in three local government areas, collecting comprehensive data related to land tenure arrangements and the availability of forest, water and other resources. The dataset is used to guide local governments on development planning issues, and to help the federal government initiate policy actions that ensure land tenure security for the landless. NLC Nepal has produced research papers that identify issues of land tenure among indigenous communities, as well as gaps in policies and practices. This initiative, alongside parallel advocacy and campaigning efforts, led the government to make amendments to the Lands Act 1964 which recognised tenure rights for landless groups, including Dalits and informal settlers. Additionally, in 2020 the government established a Land Commission mandated to oversee the land reform process. Around 1.3 million landless and informal settlers are expected to acquire formal land titles in the next three years through this effort.
7
B) KEEPING DIALOGUE OPEN WITH GOVERNMENT AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS Maintaining dialogue with decision-makers over time, despite changes of administration and key government officials, pre-empts any potential disruption and anticipates the need for mitigation measures. The platform in Madagascar suggests a clear approach to maintaining dialogue in an evolving national policy or political context. These measures include: 1.
Ensuring that all stakeholders, including new or incoming governmental decisionmakers, are aware of dialogue efforts, regardless of the quality of outcom(pink arrows – image): the broader contextual conditions in which actors are operating.
2. Ensuring the visibility of actors who are leading the dialogue by disseminating minutes of meetings and sharing notes on the entire spectrum of existing and potentially diverging positions. 3. Safeguarding government integrity in the dialogue process and stimulating officials’ interest in land policy-related topics, by engaging all relevant stakeholders including media actors, organisations that fight corruption, members of parliament and judiciary institutions. 4. Sensitising public opinion via communication channels and disseminating the results of the context analysis using these channels. This type of evidence can be used as a tool to maintain dialogue, even when face-to-face interactions are not taking place. Consistent cooperation with decision-makers – including both government and nongovernment actors – can also increase the platform’s credibility and contribute to a sense of shared understanding. 3. USING EVIDENCE TO MONITOR, EVALUATE AND IMPROVE PLATFORM PERFORMANCE “Learning, monitoring and evaluation is a compass that enables to deliver the promised changes of a given intervention.” – Bernard Baha, NLC Tanzania Gathering evidence is crucial to monitoring, evaluating and ultimately improving a platform’s performance. To do this, platforms should involve key stakeholders in the information-gathering process, develop indicators that are easily understandable and support adaptive planning processes. A) INVOLVING KEY STAKEHOLDERS IN THE INFORMATION-GATHERING PROCESS Involving local actors in the evidence-gathering process helps to address gaps in contextual data – especially in cases where a baseline needs to be established. Focus
8
group discussions and regular interactions with local actors can be suitable options for platforms to use in these circumstances. In Bangladesh, the platform organises regular workshops with different stakeholders, in particular local actors, to gather data which can then be used for M&E purposes (Box 3). In Malawi, the concept of evidence-based policy dialogue is gaining traction, including in order to engage the private sector. The platform has steered two studies conducted by district-level networks to warn key stakeholders about the urgent need for action on maintaining access to critical natural resources. With the public dissemination of information on the impact of large-scale, land-based investments on community land, investors such as the mining company Mkango Resources Ltd have expressed their willingness to investigate how best to engage at the local level with communities around Lake Malawi. Box: Leveraging research for land rights in Bangladesh The Bangladesh Land Rights Network (BLRN) has a well-established data collection methodology that incorporates local-level information collection, focus group discussions and the dissemination of research among stakeholders. The platform uses multiple campaign materials based on data collected on food security and the importance of protecting agricultural lands. For instance, BLRN collected and disseminated thousands of stickers and postcards containing statements and signatures by rural women that were addressed to the prime minister. These materials contained stories and testimonies of the issues faced by rural women in terms of their access to land rights. In parallel, the platform disseminated findings from the EU-funded project Promoting Sustainable Building in Bangladesh (PSBBP), which detailed how using land for brick production adversely effects soil fertility and agricultural productivity. Using this type of advocacy method, the platform has registered some major achievements. For instance, the national parliament passed a law in 2019 to improve the regulation of brick manufacturing, and the Ministry of Land recently issued an order to restrict the allocation of agricultural land for commercial use.
B) MAKING INDICATORS ACCESSIBLE TO PARTNERS AND EASY TO USE M&E indicators should be jointly defined with local actors to ensure that the flow of information is accurate and usable. Indicators should be practical to measure progress in a transparent way. Additionally, a participatory approach to M&E ensures local actors’ ability to respond constructively to regular assessments. In Malawi, regular exchanges with local actors help to track progress – particularly by shedding light on the challenges they face, areas of improvement for the platform’s actions and unspoken issues faced by local stakeholders. The platform also looks closely at the achievements of individual members, as these serve as evidence of its performance. Additionally, local community members regularly collect information on their own
9
performance, which the facilitator and the steering committee then evaluate on a threeyearly basis. Alongside these efforts, members discuss annually which performance indicators to utilise, ensuring that their annual strategy incorporates accessible and feasible performance indicators. C) SUPPORTING ADAPTIVE PLANNING BY PLATFORM MEMBERS To ensure platform effectiveness, M&E efforts must support adaptive planning. Evidence of a platform’s performance can improve policy co-implementation. Platforms are encouraged to regularly generate evidence of performance by reviewing workplans, internal function processes and progress towards stated objectives. Furthermore, the results of such reviews should be shared with partners regularly so that the platform can collectively decide on future strategy (Box 4). Box 4: A multi-level M&E system in Malawi to assess members’ ability to conduct advocacy In Malawi, the NLC has established a multi-level monitoring and evaluation system. The facilitator organises regular monitoring missions targeting local actors, which are aimed at assessing the overall progress made by the platform at the local level. These missions include dialogues, consultations and surveys on the advocacy work of district-level actors. These meetings also aim to maintain communication between the national and local levels and to evaluate the progress made by local actors in terms of their ability to advocate directly on local issues and influence policy implementation. The regular monitoring missions help the platform’s leadership to regularly assess the pertinence of its overall strategy vis-à-vis local realities and identify the capacity development needs of local actors to increase impact.
CONCLUSION Evidence-based approaches to policy co-implementation help to ensure that a platform remains effective in an evolving national context. Specifically, using evidence can identify overlap or divergence in priorities between a platform and government actors and can identify areas for policy dialogue. Moreover, evidence can play a critical role in helping to influence government priorities on land policy matters – particularly as platforms disseminate crucial information to garner support from current and future government administrations. Finally, an evidence-based approach can help ensure that a platform continues to make progress towards its stated goals. Gathering information through M&E activities can show whether a platform is out of touch with the national policy context, which approaches are yielding results and what new opportunities have emerged. This can help the platform to recalibrate its strategic objectives and approaches. Overall, an evidence-based approach improves a platform’s credibility and its ability to form winning partnerships with a range of stakeholders, and ultimately its effectiveness in influencing policy implementation.
10
1
LEARNING NOTE 1 Using Evidence to Support Policy Co-Implementation