Summary of the workshop Pacific foresightXchange – Resilience for New Realities 4-6 November 2015 PIFS Headquarters, Suva, Fiji
Background Strategic foresight is rapidly emerging as an essential addition to conventional strategic thinking. Whereas classical planning methods deal with incremental and unambiguous change against predictable and familiar futures, strategic foresight takes uncertainty, unpredictability and interdependency as constants in policy implementing environments. This shift in perspective prepares governments and public administrations to be more resilient and adaptive to new realities. 1 Strategic foresight encourages policy planners to design flexible plans by exploring alternative futures, identifying emerging strategic opportunities and risks in different scenarios, testing the resilience of existing strategies under different scenarios, and prototyping integrated and innovative policy responses. Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are at the frontline of adapting to new realities, including that of climate change, global mobility and a changing international aid scene. But many struggle to do so effectively with limited resources or in the midst of huge public debt. Resilience, adaptation and capitalizing on opportunities are at a premium, particularly when emerging disruptions are becoming ever more difficult to predict, plan for and adjust to. For this reason, SIDS have much to benefit from foresight, resilient strategies and responsive structures.
Overview The Pacific foresightXchange was held in Suva, Fiji from 4-6 November 2015 and was attended by 35 participants representing seven Pacific Island countries, development and donor agencies, and regional institutions. Organised by the UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence in partnership with the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) and with support from the UNDP Pacific Centre and UNDP’s Innovation Facility, the Pacific foresightXchange coincided with a period when many Pacific Island countries were revising or preparing new development strategies and started the process of localisation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Participants in action at the Pacific foresightXchange
GCPSE advocates a wider interpretation of ‘resilience’ than most international development agencies are guided by: https://www.unteamworks.org/node/512020 1
1
The workshop aimed to: • encourage decision makers, policy planners and communities to apply new ways of thinking about, talking about, and implementing strategies, plans and policies that are compatible with the emerging future. • provide training to strengthen local foresight capacity, resilience and flexibility and to improve organisational and communal ability to cope with and adapt to change. Over the three workshop days, participants: • were introduced to complexity, systems thinking and foresight in policy planning, • discussed shifts and trends affecting sustainable development in Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS), • explored possible, probable and preferred alternative futures in the region, • designed and tested policies for national development strategies/SDGs in the various possible scenarios, and readjusted those policies to make them more resilient. “Don’t implement the plan just to implement the plan. Keep an eye on achieving outcomes and desired results. Using this method, you are forced to think through the implications of implementing.”
Introduction Foresight enhances traditional strategic planning by considering: • complex operating environments, • policy interactions, • accelerating social, technological, environmental change, etc., • alternative implementing environments / possible new realities. Participants reflected on their contributions as planners to previous national development strategies and MDGs implementation. Key ideas that surfaced included: • positive contributions of extensive public consultation processes in some countries, • strong ownership of vision, strategies in most countries, and • building capacity and reducing reliance on technical expertise / external consultants. Participants also identified some challenges they faced around: • high turnover and limited capacities, • lack of prioritisation, • aligning national priorities/plans and national budgets and aid • adjusting national plans to changing circumstances (eg, GEC and natural disasters) and in some countries constant changes in political environments, • lack of experience or awareness amongst some especially on MDGs localisation and implementation, • incentive structures, and • poor multi-sectorial policy coordination.
Hands-on sessions Over the three days, participants actively worked through a foresight process by applying several foresight methodologies to discuss and design resilient and adaptive national development policies.
2
Participants spent half a day on a Horizon Scanning exercise to identify and map key trends driving development in Pacific SIDS. The mapping was conducted in plenary to capture as many diverse voices as possible, and represented an ideal real world application where all stakeholders are represented and engaged in the process. The top four trends collectively voted most important were specific issues relating to 1) Education, 2) Governance, 3) Urbanisation, and 4) Health.
Mapping and voting of key drivers and trends affecting development in Pacific SIDS.
The first half of day 2 was devoted to a Deep Dive of the four key drivers to frame the discussions leading up to participants’ policy designs. Each group dug into one specific topic at depth. Reporting back of the deep dive discussions simulated the art of information gathering in the real world, where knowledge is diffuse and listening is a key skill. In the Scenario Building exercise, participants spent the second half of the day using information gathered during the Deep Dive to construct four possible future realities of 2025. They first set the scene for their scenarios by building coherent narratives for (a) a 15-year old school girl in the city, and (b) a 70-year old rural man seeking medical treatment. Presenting the Deep Dive discussions on to plenary
A group creates narratives about a week in the life of characters in the future
Opportunities within Scenario 1: Doom and Gloom
3
Narratives generate empathy between policy planners and the citizens who are ultimately affected. In lieu of gathering real stories from citizens (for example when time or resources are limited), creative narratives can be an effective way to step out of the “policymaker’s hat” and experience issues from citizens’ perspective. Once the scenarios were constructed, participants identified key insights: Scenario 1: Doom and Gloom Poor governance; poor urbanisation 1. There is always a silver lining. Opportunities exist for partnerships with the private sector and civil society, as well as developing community and cultural resilience. 2. It is important to prioritise resources and keep on pushing for development and improvement. Scenario 2: The Way Forward Strong governance; poor urbanisation 1. There must be things that do we not know, or are not thinking about if governance is good, but is unable to keep up or cope with the social problems associated with urbanisation. 2. Good governance is not the same as good policies. 3. There is also a limit to what the public sector can achieve by itself. Scenario 3: Back to the Future Poor governance; strong urbanisation 1. Despite poor governance, development can thrive if there are other systems in place, e.g., urban authorities, functioning decentralised government, private sector, civil society, etc. 2. But without good governance, the silver lining is just a band aid and ultimately unsustainable in the long term. 3. It is important to ensure we focus on and enable/support the” drivers” of development if we are to achieve the “development outcomes”. It is crucial to have sustained enabling environments for development. Scenario 4: The Spoilt Generation Strong governance; strong urbanisation 1. It was not a perfect society; it was a near perfect society. Even so, it was neither real nor something that can realistically be achieved. It is a model of what one can aspire to, a near perfect society where there is better risk management. 2. Despite having buffer mechanisms and being semi-subsistent, there was still reliance on tourism and technology, which are dependent on factors external to the system. Participants quickly identified probable futures based on the four possible scenarios and were asked to define a vision of their preferred future for either health or education. Working in country/sub-regional groups, they then designed policies to achieve that vision. The final exercise in wind-tunnelling required participants to test their health or education policies in the various governance and urbanisation scenarios. Stress testing policies gives planners the opportunity to see how their policies hold up under different conditions, and is reflective of the dynamic nature of future implementing environments. 4
Participants test their policies in different versions of the future
Mid-term reviews can be useful if they are used as an opportunity to check that policy trajectories are still relevant, less so if they are only used to monitor progress of a plan that is failing to adapt to a changing reality.
Moving forward Pending funding for a formal Peer-to-Peer Learning Alliance under the auspices of the Effective Institutions Platform (EIP), an informal online discussion group was launched to keep in touch, ask questions and share resources and experiences of integrating foresight in their daily work: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ foresight-x-resilience. A concept note for the Learning Alliance is being developed by PIFS and UNDP and will be shared with potential donors for review and comments. Please contact leah.chan@undp.org for details.
The Pacific foresightXchange was supported by the UNDP Innovation Facility with funding from the Government of Denmark.
5
Annex 1: Pre-workshop reader and GCPSE literature on foresight Pre-workshop reader • [Article] Coping with Complexity, Peter Ho, 2012 http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/public_sector/coping_with_complexity •
[Article] Anticipatory Governance: Winning the Future, Leon Fuerth, 2013 http://www.wfs.org/futurist/2013-issues-futurist/july-august-2013-vol-47-no-4/anticipatorygovernance-winning-future
•
[Scenarios] Alternative futures for the Pacific food system, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2015 http://www.spc.int/DigitalLibrary/Doc/FAME/Brochures/Anon_2015_Alternative_Futures.pdf
•
[Framework] The Framework for Pacific Regionalism, Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2015 http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/embeds/file/Framework%20for%20Pacific%20Re gionalism_booklet.pdf
•
[Report] Emerging Issues for Small Island Developing States, UNEP, 2015 http://www.unep.org/pdf/Emerging_issues_for_small_island_developing_states.pdf
•
[Report] Climate Change and Migration Issues, UNESCAP et al., 2014 http://www.ilo.org/dyn/migpractice/docs/261/Pacific.pdf
GCPSE literature on foresight • [Blogpost] Resilience for New Realities, 29 October 2015 https://www.unteamworks.org/node/512020 •
[Discussion Paper] Stewardship of the Future: Using Strategic Foresight in 21st Century Governance, 3 September 2015 http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/capacitybuilding/Stewardship.html
•
[Guide] Foresight: The Manual, 19 June 2015 http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/capacity-building/global-centrefor-public-service-excellence/foresightmanual.html
•
[Blogpost] Introducing the foresightXchange, 17 August 2014 https://www.unteamworks.org/node/454008
•
[Discussion Paper] Foresight as a Strategic Long-Term Planning Tool for Developing Countries, 27 May 2014 http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/capacity-building/global-centrefor-public-service-excellence/Foresight.html
6