Policy Processes : Part 3 Two Important Aspects of ... · Part 3 is about three important aspects of State-citizen synergy, i.e. participation arts starts by presenting basic principles

Participation and Communication

Policy Processes : Part 3

Two Important Aspects of Government-Citizen Synergy in Policy Processes

EASYPol Module 175

Policy Processes - Part 3 Two Important Aspects of Government-Citizen Synergy in Policy Processes Participation and Communication

by

Olivier Dubois, Senior Rural Institutions Officer, Climate Change and Bio energy Unit, Natural Resource Management and Environment Department, FAO, Rome, Italy

Sophie Treinen, Information Management Specialist, WAICENT Outreach and Capacity Building Branch, Knowledge Exchange and Capacity Building Division, FAO, Rome, Italy

Clare Marie O’Farrell, Communication Officer, Technology, Research and Extension Division, FAO, Rome, Italy

for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO

FAO Policy Learning Programme aims at strengthening the capacity of high level policy makers in member countries in the field of policies and strategies for agricultural and rural development by providing cutting-edge knowledge and facilitating knowledge exchange, and by reviewing practical mechanisms to implement policy changes.

About EASYPol EASYPol is a an on-line, interactive multilingual repository of downloadable resource materials for capacity development in policy making for food, agriculture and rural development. The EASYPol home page is available at: www.fao.org/easypol.

EASYPol has been developed and is maintained by the Agricultural Policy Support Service, Policy Assistance and Resource Mobilization Division, FAO.

© FAO January 2008: All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material contained on FAO's Web site for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without the written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for such permission should be addressed to: [email protected].

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

http://www.fao.org/easypol

FAO Policy Learning Programme Policy Processes : Part 3 Two Important Aspects of Government-Citizen Synergy in Policy Processes: Participation and Communication

2. Introduction .................................................................................. 1

3. Reasons and principles for engaging citizens in policy-making .............. 2

4. Participation: Moving on from participation to negotiated and accountable commitments............................................................... 7

4.1.Definition, types/levels, techniques and principles of participation.............. 7

4.2.Why participation is important in policy processes ................................. 10

4.1.From participation to negotiated and accountable commitment................ 12 4.1.1. Power and participation: Linking participation, power and

relationships .....................................................................................13 4.1.2. Operational constraints ............................................................21

4.2.Key requirements for and factors that influence participation in policy processes23

4.3.Measuring quality in participation in policy processes ............................. 24

4.4.Some good practice lessons ............................................................... 25

5. Communication ........................................................................... 27 5.1.Introduction..................................................................................... 27

5.2.Communication for development - back on the agenda........................... 30

5.3.Why communication matters in policy .................................................. 31

5.4. Designing and implementing a communication strategy......................... 33

5.5.Communication media and tools ......................................................... 36

5.6. Some dos and don’ts on communication in policy processes ................... 37

6. Readers’ notes ............................................................................ 38 6.1 EASYPol links ................................................................................... 27

6. Further References on Participation and Communication .................... 38

Annex 1: List of acronyms .................................................................... 42

Module metadata................................................................................. 43

Table of contents

1. Summary...................................................................................... 1

FAO Policy Learning Programme Policy Processes : Part 3 - Two Important Aspects of Government-Citizen Synergy in Policy Processes: Participation and Communication

1

1. SUMMARY

While Part 1 of this material provided some ways and means to better make sense of

work, and communication.

This pthethe

2. NTRODUCTION

Objec

participanAgricuthe chtargetsare then task

More ways and means to achieve

ge

The taagriculture and rural development in FAO Member countries.

Required background

The real problem that policy makers face is how to put all of the rhetoric about how to put

enforced targets and organisational insecurity that characterise the civil service in most countries of the world. The spirit of this module therefore assumes that the participants on this course are most likely to be interested in course materials that help them move from the “what” policies do- which will have been addressed in the other modules of the course - towards the “how” to better make policies and make better policies.

This background material concerns policy processes – the ways policy reforms are planned, designed, implemented and evaluated– which significantly influence policy outcomes and impacts on people’s livelihoods.

policy processes and Part 2 presented some conclusions on what makes policy processes Part 3 is about three important aspects of State-citizen synergy, i.e. participation

arts starts by presenting basic principles for ensuring good State-citizen synergy. It n discusses some concepts and practical ways of applying these principles regarding se three aspects.

I

tives

The purpose of this document is to provide background material on policy processes to the ts of the FAO Capacity Building Programme on Policies and Strategies for

lture and Rural Development. It is deliberately written with the goal of addressing allenge faced by senior civil servants: broad policy directives and development come through to them from parliament and from international processes and they

ed with putting vision into practice.

specifically, Part 3 of this material is about three important aspects of discusses more effective policy making.

Tar t Audience

rget audience of this document is high level policy makers in the fields of

policy processes into action under strict constraints of time, staff and budget, externally

EASYPol Module 175 Conceptual and Technical Material

2

The emphasis on “how” aspects of policy making explain why this material has attempted in as much as possible on practical aspects, with theoretical considerations limited to the minimum required for easy understanding of the arguments and advice. In that spirit, the core of the material will include many “helping tips” such as check lists, summary tables, probing questions and boxes with real-case examples, and more theoretical explanations in annex.

A basic assumption of the material is that the work of policy makers is towards achieving goals of poverty reduction and sustainable resource use, as voiced for instance in the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This does not mean that all policies should focus on the poor and reducing their poverty. Indeed some policies might target the corporate sector or civil servants. The key point then is that policies, at a minimum, do not harm the poor. However, this document acknowledges that poverty is about the distribution (not just the absolute amount) of resources and of political power among different social groups.

While Part 1 of this material has provided some ways and means to better make sense of policy processes and Part 2 has presented some conclusions on what makes policy processes work, Part 3 is about three important aspects of State-citizen synergy, i.e. participation and communication.

Readers can follow links included in the text to other EASYPol modules or references1. See also the list of EASYPol links included at the end of this module2.

3. REASONS AND PRINCIPLES FOR ENGAGING CITIZENS IN POLICY-MAKING

It is pertinent to ask: why is it important that political leaders and policymakers in developing countries ensure that there is broad citizen engagement in the evolution and implementation of these strategies? There are two excellent reasons why this is a matter of the first importance:

Experience has shown that top-down approaches to development do not work and are, in any event, not sustained. Development is about people. It is not something that is

1 EASYPol hyperlinks are shown in blue, as follows:

a) training paths are shown in underlined bold font b) other EASYPol modules or complementary EASYPol materials are in bold underlined italics; c) links to the glossary are in bold; and d) external links are in italics. 2 This module is part of the EASYPol Training Path: Policy Learning Programme, Module 4: Policy and Strategy Formulation, Session 3: Key factors in state citizen synergy.


3

done to people; it is best done with people. Policies are far more likely to be effective and sustainable when they are evolved and implemented with the full participation of

ible segments of the country. That way they unleash people’s power,

that engaging the population in constructive dialogue over policy options is an effective way of managing public

ECD (2001) suggests some guiding principles for effectively engaging citizens in policy

the broadest possenergies and commitment.

Moreover, intelligent political leaders know

opinion and securing political success. It might often be messy and challenging, but the rewards are manifold. It also protects political leaders from blame; for, a problem openly discussed with voters is a problem shared.

Omaking. Box 1 presents these principles, together with some suggestions to foster their application.


4

aking is needed at all levels, from politicians, senior managers and public officials.

y this principle in practice:

Ensure that public officials know and apply the law: Providing support (e.g. training, intranet

hrough established g Ombudsman).

Raise public awareness: Use means of information (television advertising, brochures, show cases, etc.), education (for instance in schools) and partnerships (with civil society organisations).

limits to, information, consultation and active participation during policy-

expectations: From the very start, and as much as you can, define and communicate your objectives (such as to know citizens’ policy priorities or to develop jointly

or non-governmental sources), on how to submit comments (e.g. orally at a public hearing, in writing, by e-mail), on what the process is (for instance key deadlines, main contact persons) as well as on what the next steps are for decision-making.

4

be undertaken as early in the policy process the

. Adequate time must be available for consultation and nformation is needed at all stages of the policy cycle.

T

tools for engaging

Box 1: Some guiding principles and implementation suggestions for ensuring effective citizen engagement in policy making

1. Commitment

Leadership and strong commitment to information, consultation and active participation in policy-m

To appl

Raise awareness among politicians of their role in promoting open, transparent and accountable policy-making. For instance, provide examples of good practice from other countries; organise special events; publicise successful initiatives, etc.

Provide opportunities for information exchange among senior managers for instance through holding regular meetings, peer reviews, and through applying tools for performance evaluation and knowledge management.

Provide targeted support to public officials through, for instance, training, codes of conduct, standards and general awareness raising. Special initiatives, such as award schemes, can support this.

2. Rights

Citizens’ rights to access information, provide feedback, be consulted and actively participate in policy-making must be firmly grounded in law or policy. Government obligations to respond to citizens when exercising their rights must also be clearly stated. Independent authorities for oversight, or their equivalent, are essential to enforcing these rights.

To apply this principle in practice:

site on good practices) and advice (e.g. central help-line) can help.

Strengthen independent institutions for oversight: Oversight may come tprocedures (e.g. parliamentary review) or through dedicated bodies (e. .

3. Clarity

Objectives for, andmaking should be well defined from the outset. The respective roles and responsibilities of citizens (in providing input) and government (in making decisions for which they are accountable) must be clear to all.


Avoid creating false

policy solutions). Specify commitments (e.g. to publish survey results) and the relative weight to be given to public input (e.g. given international treaty obligations).

Provide full information on where to find relevant background materials (from government

. Time

Public consultation and active participation should as possible. This allows a greater range of policy solutions to emerge. It also raiseschances of successful implementationparticipation to be effective. I

o apply this principle in practice:

Start early in assessing information needs and identifying appropriate


5

at the timing of consultation is closely linked to the reality of calendars (for instance regarding legislative programmes or

deadlines for international negotiations).

Set standards for public information services (such as those provided by professional civil servants) and products (for instance drafting guidelines). Enforce standards through internal

ess by using multiple channels for information (brochures, television advertising, Internet, etc.) and consultation (e.g. written and oral). Provide information in clear and straightforward language. Adapt consultation and participation procedures to citizens’ needs (e.g. public hearings held after office hours).

Establish and uphold rights of appeal by introducing and publicising options for citizens to enforce their rights of access to information, consultation and participation. These are, for instance, complaint procedures, judicial reviews and interventions by the Ombudsman.

6. Resources

Adequate financial, human and technical resources are needed if public information, consultation and active participation in policy-making are to be effective. Government officials must have access to appropriate skills, guidance and training. An organisational culture that supports their efforts is highly important.


Set priorities and allocate sufficient resources to design and conduct the activities, including human (e.g. internal staff time, external experts), financial (e.g. to cover publication costs and fees) and technical resources (e.g. videoconferencing).

Build skills through dedicated training programmes (on drafting information brochures, moderating a public roundtable, etc.), practical handbooks and information exchange events.

Promote values of government-citizen relations throughout the administration by publicising them (e.g. in the form of charters) and leading by example (e.g. through direct participation for senior officials and politicians).

7. Co-ordination

Initiatives to inform citizens, request feedback from and consult them should be coordinated across government. This enhances knowledge management, ensures policy coherence, and avoids duplication. It also reduces the risk of “consultation fatigue” – negative reactions because of too much overlapping or poorly done consultation – among citizens and civil society organisations. Co-ordination efforts should not reduce the capacity of government units to ensure innovation and flexibility.


Strengthen co-ordination capacities: Through instruments such as a dedicated Internet site, you can enable public officials and citizens to know what information, consultation and participation activities are underway within government at any given moment. Guidelines and training can help to ensure that citizens experience the same standards when they interact with different parts of the administration.

citizens at each stage of the policy-making process. Plan for public information and involvement early in the policy cycle.

Be realistic in building enough time for public information and consultation into decision-making timetables. Ensure thgovernment decision-making

5. Objectivity

Information provided by government during policy-making should be objective, complete and accessible. All citizens should have equal treatment when exercising their rights of access to information and participation.


peer review and monitoring. Establish clear procedures for public consultation, provide guidelines and training for public officials (e.g. codes of conduct) and consider alternatives (e.g. appointing an independent facilitator).

Ensure acc


6

Build networks of public officials responsible for information, consultation and participation e i

skills (fo and enable to share lessons (such as lessons from local government or other countries).

vation: Identify and disseminate examples of good practice (via a central

r decision-making and how citizens can provide

sponsibilities and assign specific tasks to individual units or public officials (e.g. for paration of information, or for reporting). Ensure that these responsibilities are

changing conditions for d tools, information and capacity to evaluate their

relations with citizens.

s.

ens in evaluating specific events (e.g. through questionnaires) as well as overall

itizens and a dynamic civil society. They can take concrete ss to information and participation, raise awareness, and

h rights of association, centives, etc.), providing assistance (with grants and training), developing

ps (with joint projects, delegated service delivery, etc.) and providing regular

activiti s within the administration. A bas s for this is regular meetings. Networks can pool r instance with on-line database of names and fields of expertise)

Encourage innopolicy unit, regular newsletter web site, etc.) and reward innovative practices (with for instance an annual award).

8. Accountability

Governments have an obligation to account for the use they make of citizens’ inputs received – be it through feedback, public consultation or active participation. To increase this accountability, governments need to ensure an open and transparent policy-making process amenable to external scrutiny and review.


Give clear indications on the timetable fotheir comments and suggestions (e.g. through information brochures, public hearings) and how their input has been assessed and incorporated in the decisions reached (e.g. with a summary report or final briefing session).

Clarify rethe prepublicly known (for instance by providing contact e-mail addresses on the Internet site).

9. Evaluation

Evaluation is essential in order to adapt to new requirements andpolicy-making. Governments neeperformance in strengthening their


Collect data on key aspects of the information, consultation and participation initiatives (e.g. complaints received) and plan for data collection from the outset (e.g. periodic public opinion surveys, number of participants in public hearings).

Develop appropriate tools for evaluation. This can be done for instance through interdisciplinary working groups of experts on consultation, evaluation and audit. Promote the use of the tool

Engage citizgovernment efforts for strengthening government-citizen relations (for instance with a review panel).

10. Active citizenship

Governments benefit from active cactions to facilitate citizen’s accestrengthen civic education and skills. They can support capacity building among civil society organisations.


Invest in civic education for adults and youth (for instance through schools, special events, awareness-raising campaigns). Support initiatives undertaken by others with the same goal (e.g. sponsorship of civil society organisations’ events).

Foster civil society by developing a supportive legal framework (wittax inpartnershiopportunities for dialogue – for instance under a jointly defined framework for government-civil society interactions.

Source, OECD, 2001


7

and implementation. Information-communication,

e donkey don’t know that the ground is hot”

participation. For the sake of it, one can define participation as ‘a process during which

inition itself implies, participation is one of these heavy-loaded terms s to different people. This is because there are actually different

T els of participation and examples of associated

The conclusion of Part 2 argues that strong and good State-citizen synergy is crucial for achieving better policy formulation participation and negotiation are three crucial factors to achieve this, and are discussed in the remaining Sections of Part 3 and Part 4.

4. PARTICIPATION: MOVING ON FROM PARTICIPATION TO NEGOTIATED

AND ACCOUNTABLE COMMITMENTS

“Those who ride th

(villagers in Ghana in the early nineties)

4.1. Definition, types/levels, techniques and principles of participation

Nobody doubts the value of participation. The challenge lies in implementing participation on the ground. Part of the difficulty starts from the difficulties in defining

individuals, groups and organizations are consulted about or have the opportunity to become actively involved in a project or a programme of activity’ (OECD, 2001). However, as this defthat mean different thingtypes or levels of participation, with different techniques associated to these, as illustrated in Table 1.

able 1: Different types/levtechniques

Types/Level of Examples of Participation Participation

Techniques

Type of Impact Intensity of Participation

*

Information: one way From government to public:

government: questionnaire, surveys, toll-free telephone ‘hot lines’

flow Public information, press conferences

From public to

Consultation: two-way flow and exchange of views

Public Hearings, government-led working groups, workshops, field trips

Impact on

influence on who decides

stakeholders’ level of information and knowledge but no

Shared decision- Joint commaking: Shared control over decisions

councils, ta

Low

mittees, advisory sk forces

Impact before or on decision

Shared decision and action

Negotiation, participatory budgeting, co-management of natural resources

Impact to the decision

High

*: The intensity of participation is linked to the type of impact participation has on decision-making


8

policy process. Such factors include:

Their capacity to make a meaningful contribution;

The topic: Some topics will only allow for a limited participation by external

For instance, rather than having policies ratified through an often

evel (Rietbergen-McCracken,

rs at this decision point?

tional development is conducive to stakeholder participation and

None of these levels is necessarily better than another for managing a policy process – each may be appropriate in different circumstances. However they do represent different intensities of participation and balances of control between the different interests at stake.

A number of factors influence the intensity of participation that different stakeholder groups bring to different stages of the

The willingness of the stakeholder group to take part in the activities of the public sector,

The extent to which the institutional setting is conducive to their participation, including the provision of adequate information;

stakeholders. Typically these include monetary and fiscal issues, which require technical rigor, and/or are associated with high rent-seeking risks;

Time issue:cumbersome exercise, it might be better to focus on implementation while incorporating adequate feedback mechanisms by the different stakeholders in monitoring and assessment of progress.

In determining the appropriate forms of participation at the different levels of the policy cycle, the following questions need to be asked at each l1996):

Who are the relevant stakeholde

What are the relative roles of each stakeholder?

What type of institusound public sector management?

How can this institutional development be achieved in practice?

Box 2 presents an example of participation in the case a Poverty and Social Impact Assessment (PSIA) of land reform policy in Cambodia.


9

B

overnment institutions, NGOs and donors were involved in the process through a series of focused and iterative workshops and consultations.

The final research concept was discussed during a widely attended workshop in Phnom Penh to

rtise and experience. Field research teams from different line ministries who would be

volved in a potential land distribution program. Much emphasis was put not only on broad cipation in the process but

Research results from thecomments and then distributed for wider discussion.

In May 2004 a one-day workshop was conducted to sharethe PSIA. The almost 100 workshop participants came from different national and

w r s for finalizing the PSIA report. Follow-up workshops were planned to conti discussion in the provinces.

ox 2: Case Study: Potential Social and Poverty Impacts of Cambodia’s Social Land Concession Program

This PSIA exercise used an open, transparent and inclusive approach to look at the Cambodia’s proposed land distribution program. Various g

obtain last feedback for fine-tuning of the approach. Research sub-topics were covered by the different partners according to their technical expeincluded also a large number of government staff inparti also on ensuring a scientifically sound research process.

different “sub” studies were shared among the partners for

findings and recommendations from

decentralized government institutions, donors, and NGOs. The lively debate during the o k hop provided useful advice

nue dissemination and

The participatory process helped to build alliances for moving the land distribution agenda ahead. The findings have informed the Government and other stakeholders about required actions. Implementation of the recommendations, however, still depends foremost on the political commitment to releases suitable land. Nevertheless, by bringing these issues into the public debate, the likelihood of the reform proceeding has increased significantly.

Source: Schnell et al, 2006

hatever the W level of participation, the basic principles of citizen engagement in policy making mentioned in Box 1 (Section 1) apply.

Table 2 provides a template which can assist in determining the actual level of participation of different groups in current ses and/or e in proc

policy proces what it should b future policy esses.


10

Table 2: Level of stakeholder participation at different stages of the policy process

Stakeholder groups

Agenda setting

Defining policy objectives & options

Implementation Monitoring & Evaluation

National level

Government

Representative assemblies

General public

Poor & vulnerable groups

Organized civil society

Private sector

Donors

Local level

Government

Representative assemblies

General Public

Poor & vulnerable groups

Organized civil society

Private sector

Donors

Source: Adapted from World Bank, 2004a

4.2. Why participation is important in policy processes

Participation can support policy processes in many ways:

It improves stakeholders’ information on policy matters, hence the quality of their involvement in their implementation;

It can also allow for a better inclusion and effectiveness in policy, in different ways, including:

o Address stakeholder differences and manage conflicts. It is known that one of the most effective means of addressing stakeholder differences is through stakeholder


11

the ficant degree of uncertainty, such as in the case of environmental matters. In case of conflicting issues, it is the public

re not sufficient, such as in the case of

or indirectly in exacting

Brazil) and

Ultimately, participation in policy processes can improve the livelihood conditions of policy users. For instance, recent research found that farmer participation in market

6). In this particular case, in addition to providing better security over livelihood means, this increase was caused by the

the different stages of the policy process.

dialogue and early inclusion in the policy process. This is all the more useful when issues are complex and present a signi

sector responsibility to uphold public interests. But it is also its responsibility to ensure that external stakeholders are informed and that their voice is taken into consideration in final decisions.

o Improve links between parliaments and citizens, which are often tenuous at best in many developing countries;

o Increase external stakeholders’ support to policy makers: One aspect relates to the additional information that stakeholders can provide to policy makers. This is especially valuable when experts’ opinions acomplex environmental problems which also carry a lot of uncertainty. Another type of support, which applies to service delivery, is social accountability. The World Bank has defined social accountability as “an approach towards building accountability that relies on civic engagement, i.e. in which it is ordinary citizens and/or civil society organizations who participate directlyaccountability” (World Bank, 2004b). This has been nicely expressed in the fact one expressed that state’s ‘police patrol’ can usefully be complemented with ‘fire alarms’ by non-state actors (McCubbins and Schwartz, 1984). Famous examples of social accountability include participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre (Bangalore citizen score cards (India).

authorities of arabica coffee exporting countries has increased their share of the world price by 19 percent (Cari and Coe, 200

incentive provided by the market premium characteristic of niche-market such as that of arabica coffee.

Table 3 summarizes the advantages of including participatory methodologies according to


12

process Table 3: Advantages of participatory methodologies at different stages of

the policy

Advantages

Agenda setting

involving a range of stakeholders leads to a more realistic understanding of policy appropriate public actions

Combining datasets and issues and more

Formulation (of object es and options)

alogue

s broad consensus

ownership

- Develops trust between government and civil society

ance and probabil uccessful implementation

iv

- Opens di

- Build

- Country

- Increases relev ity of s

Implementation, monit

- Max

oring and ev ion

imize impact on the relevant beneficiaries/clients- participation gives a range of options that increase the possibility of success—

untability

dapt institutional rrangements accordingly

aluat

- Transparency and acco

- A a

Source: Adapted from World Bank, 2004a

From participation to negotiated and accountable commitment

y is rebelling against being co-opted, misrepresented and d abou n “particip tory processes” at all levels from village participation

exercises to national-level consultations and referenda.

Meanwhile senior policy makers in almost every country and every sector are under single pol y in a “participatory” manner. The temp to cut

and pay lip service. Therefore one has to say upfront that implementing ier said than done. It is also not always advisable to actively

participate, especially for weaker groups.

Some of the main pros and cons regarding the practicalities of participation are presented issues, which are discussed in turn:

sues; and

4.3.

All over the world, civil societsimply messe t i a

pressure to make evercorners

y ic tation is

participation is eas

in Table 4. They point out two types of

Context and actors’ constraints, which to a large extent, boil down to power is

Operational constraints.


13

Table 4: Main pros and cons of participation

Positive side of stakeholders participation in decision making processes

Negative side of stakeholders participation in decision making

Quality of the planning

Improvement

(Review of policies from various

ces the risk of

aspects increases the possibility of environmental programmes having the desired results and redufailure)

Wider Representa-tion

Wider aspects

(A diverse range of values and opinions come to the table, PI can improve problem solving;)

Misrepresentation

(Some participants may not actually have anystake in the policy decision and may use the procefor political ends.)

direct ss

Relationships among stakeholders

Improved relationship with local community

(Stakeholders participation provides the developer (government or private sector) with a "license to operate" in a given area, through the development of "partnership" with local communities;)

Distorted interest

(Possible conflicts between individuals, grouporganizations undermining sustainable developm

(Many government workers are inclined to vipublic and industry as the problem and are unwiconsider abrogating their own power or control.)

s and ent;)

ew the lling to

Timing Long-term benefit Time consuming process

(The more participants, the longer the process of decision making)

Costs Reduction of future risks

(Reduced risk of serious confrontation, thereby minimising long-term project costs and delays;)

Financial and other resource costs of promthe stakeholder participation

(Expensive process (advertising, public presenetc) of getting the public and private enterpunderstand an issue and actively participate environmental programme)

(Negotiation skills to resolve conflicts of interest

oting

tations, rise to in an

among different participants)

ation (Facilitation skills to prevent unbalanced representor takeovers by powerful interest groups)

Source: ESCAP, 1997

4.3.1. Power and participation: Linking participation, power and relationships

Since the early 70s or so, it has become more and more apparent that unilateral decision-making by administrative authorities often fail to meet the challenge of development in reconciling different interests and providing multiple goods and services. For many years, participation was seen as a key mechanism to improve performance in that respect. However, more often than not, the amount and intensity of conflicts did not significantly subside with the use of participation, nor did agreements become more durable. It has become gradually apparent that participation alone is not sufficient, due to strong limitations. The major one relates to the emphasis placed on the communication aspect of participation, and the array of methods that go with it. Despite being all about establishing rapport, for which good communication is key, participation has usually failed in addressing some other key aspects of relationships, and in particular issues of conflicts and power. Experience indeed shows that issues of power matter often more than active


14

implementa in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Linking participation and power to the quality of outcome in policy ements

ipation, favouring collaboration

Parity in

power

Mono-actor decision-making

involvement in decision-making in reaching durable agreements over policies and their tion. This is illustrated

agre

Multi-actor decision-making

active partic

Disparity in

power

passive participation, favouring competition

Outcome potentially unstable, at least in the long term, due to possibility to exercise power

Outcome stable as long as parity of power is maintained

S

ove from a means of

tionships and

ource: Adapted from Sidaway, 1997

herefore, to be more efficient, participation has had to mTcommunication to a negotiation process. But then, one has to bear in mind that negotiation may not always be the best participation strategy, especially for weaker groups. This relates to the complex linkages between stakeholders’ relapower, which is illustrated in Figure 2.


15

Figure 2: Interactions between power and relationships in negotiation stra

area where a consensus is reachable even if stakeholders’ values diverg

+

importance c ollaboration,

of and d on

p

a

_ w accommodation

_

importance of the relat

Source: Vodoz, 1994

Box 3 shows a n

Box 3. Social relationships in Malawi

Social relationships in Malawi are characterized by i e “power distance”. That is, hierarchy is expected, inequality is desired expected to be dependent on more powerful peop

what to do, and the according of privileges and status to members of the welcome. In such a setting, concentrated authority and dependency are

Importantly, people of high and low status gain a sense of security knowing their place in such a society, and these characteristics have important benefits for society – such a protectitransitions nd comfort resulting from interdependence.

tegies

e.

ompetition; c

stake

ower

omination co-operati

compromise

voidance,

ithdrawal

pacification,

ionship +

n example of power-relationships i terplay in Malawi.

nequality and a largand anticipated, less powerful people are le, women defer to men, subordinates

envisage being toldelite is expected andthe norm.

on of its weaker members, relative peace under a strong leader and during political , a sense of community, a

The same characteristics can stifle innovation, initiative, and problem solving. In the rural context, large power distance undermines self-help, as ordinary people are reluctant to take the initiative without instructions from above. Instead people wait for government, a chief or another “big man” to tell people what to do or do it for them. The large power distance also eases the way for corruption and influence-peddling by civil servants, as ordinary people rarely question the activities of their “betters”. People assume that the elite should behave in a way quite different from themselves – they are not bound by the same rules or laws as ordinary people! The excessive deference by these social patterns thus also permits the retention of power by networks of people who are known by the public to be criminal and corrupt.

Source: Hyden, 2006

Two key points emerge from Figure 2:


16

ually not reachable if the importance of relationships matters less than:

o the importance of s likely to happen where power differences a

o a combination of the above.

Under such circumstances, negotiation should not be used as a form of active participation before bargaining powers are levelled off, as it might result in competition

ues of rs’ related

constraints.

Context-related constraints have to do with the political and governance conditions, which were already discussed in Section 6.3. (Part 1) One way of exploring these issues is to address the questions mentioned in Table 5; knowing that negative answers to some of these denote a constraint to participation.

Table 5: Probing ques rnance constraints to participation

Collaboration between stakeholders is us

o the stakes;

keeping power, which ire high;

with the weaker parties loosing out. Time must be therefore given to address isspower differences. This gives the possibility to address both context and acto

tion regarding political and gove

Political conditions Governance conditions

Is th s of de es and institutions exist?

Are there effective laws, legal frameworks and functioning legal institutions?

ghts and the exist?

Is there effective decentralization that brings decision making closer to the local level?

Is there political commitment to policy reform?

ich

eaucracies dominated by people from a particular disciplinary background, geographic area, academic institution, etc.?

Are there particular patterns linking the bureaucracy to political parties or the private sector?

Are bureaucracies organized in such a way that cross-sectoral approaches are possible?

Do bureaucracies operate transparently?

ere a democratic government? What typemocratic structur

Does political commitment to ripossibility to exercise these rights

What mechanisms exist to influence policy

through political structures?

Are there existing or potential development programmes and projects that could work with government to facilitate policy reform?

Are there windows of opportunities? If so whones?

Does bureaucratic capacity exist for policy reform?

Are there windows of opportunities? If so which ones?

Are bur

Source: Drawn from Karl, 2002

Ways of addressing context-related constraints are discussed in Sections 7.2. and 7.3. (Part 1).

As regards actors- related constraints, hereafter we will look at those civil society groups themselves, not to those related to their external environment, as this has been discussed


17

above and earlier in the document. Several reasons explain their lack of participation

Lack of information;

ed for participation because lack of interest might be caused by the reasons belo

ge

No belief in the ability to influence;

No access to the participatory process, through exclusion or under representation. This relates to the power issue discussed in the section on the main elements of policy

ence from

Citizens in both developed and developing countries and in rural and urban settings are increasingly called on to participate in consultations and

to “choose his/her real importance to

him or her.

representation, a topic on which we briefly dwell hereafter

(Mayers and Bass, 1999):

(FAO/ECE/ILO, 2000, Holmes and Scoones, 2000):

Lack of interest/motivation. One should not jump too quickly to the conclusion that this means no ne

w;

Lack of capacity to make meaningful contributions, including in terms of knowledand/or financial means;

processes [See Section on Actors];

Tactical behavior, for instance, as when groups see better opportunities to influ the outside;

No belief in on the effectiveness of the participation process (‘talk shop’ fear);

Lack of time:

deliberations of local and national government. The citizen needsbattles” – to choose to participate when that particular issue is of

Many of these reasons revolve around the situation of weaker groups as regards the power-relationships nexus illustrated in Figure 2. It means in particular that weaker groups would better not participate in policy-related negotiations before their bargaining power is similar to that of other parties. This means often being much better informed, better arguing and communicating, and having more voice through alliances and an enabling governance system.

As regards governance, crucial aspects have to do with

transparency, a topic which will be further discussed in the Section on communication;

accountability, as it stresses that participation means feeling responsible and committed – The issue of accountability and examples on how to promote it are discussed in Section 13;

The dimensions of representation are


18

Identity: Does the representative share the views of the group/ constituency in relation

der representation?

sanction has the group attached to the representative’s accountability?

Finding the right mode of representation of civil society groups’ interests is still the object

t necessarily representative of local stakeholders’ interests, in particular in the absence of independent candidates to the polls;

the formal ones, where important decisions are actually taken. These can be formal, like the Resistance Councils in Uganda, or

Afri

o working through traditional leadership structures uction of

y functions, erroir” p

our and respect in local

on of refusing politica

e importance of evidence-based policy making to counteract policy narratives on 9.3 (Part 1)., it is important that citizen’s engagement be

evidence. On the other hand, recent research on civil society ngagement in policy processes highlights the importance of better using evidence to

ns of better use of evidence by civil society organizations (CSOs), and Table 6 ummarizes approaches for more effective CSO engagement.

to the main problem at stake? Or will the representative bring other/ multiple identities to the process e.g. tribal/ class or political affinities? Where can such other identities help, and where might they hin

Accountability: Was the representative chosen by a particular group/ constituency? And/ or does s/he consult with that group regularly? What kind of specificity and

of much debate and experimentation. A few lessons can be drawn from recent experience as regards the representation of communities’ interests within local councils, i.e.: (Dubois, 1997)

Elected bodies are no

Likewise, local leaders are not a guarantee of good representation;

What seems more important is trustworthiness, a key ingredient, e.g.:

o setting up of parallel structures to

informal and more culturally entrenched, as in Tanzania and many places in West ca;

, e.g., the reintrodtraditional leaders and traditional leader boundaries in Zimbabwe;

eparate management from advisoro creating sub-committees in order to sin some “Gestion de T rojects;

able citizens” who commo appointment of ordinary “honnegotiation, e.g., District ConciliatioCommittees in the Duru Haitem

n Courts in Burkina Faso, Village Forest ba and Mgori woodlands in Tanzania;

o allowing for the presence of independto the extreme positi

ent candidates in elected bodies. This can go l militants to the polls, as in the case of

Burkina Faso, Uganda and Ghana.

Given thand discourses – see Sectieffective in developing such emake this engagement more effective (Court et al, 2006). Figure 3 illustrates the implicatios


19

F impact

How do these groups network and interact with each other, with grassroots g bodies?

y support the participation of the poor in policy making processes?

organizations?

igure 3: CSOs, evidence, policy and pro-poor

Source: Court et al, 2006

The procedure suggested to explore context-related constraints can also be used in the case of actor-related constraints, through the following questions (Karl, 2000):

organizations of the rural poor, and with policy makin

What are their strengths and weaknesses?

Do relationships of trust and cooperation exist between them and organizations of the rural poor?

How can the

What are the advantages and disadvantages of working with particular civil society


20

Table 6: Possible Approaches for Effective CSO Policy Engagement

Key obstacles to engagement Potential solutions for effective policy engagement

External

Adverse political contexts constrain CSO policy work.

- Campaigns – to improve policy positions and governance contexts

- ‘Boomerangs’ – working via external partners to change national policy

- Pilot projects – to develop and test operational solutions to inform and improve policy implementation

Internal

Limited understanding of specific policy processes, institutions and actors.

Conduct rigorous context assessments. These enable a better understanding of how policy processes work, the politics affecting them and the opportunities for policy influence.

Weak strategies for policy engagement.

Identify critical policy stages – agenda setting, formulation and/or implementation – and the engagement mechanisms that are most appropriate for each stage.

Inadequate use of evidence. Ensure that evidence is relevant, objective, generalisable and cy and credibility with practical. This helps improve CSO legitima

policymakers.

Weak communication approaches in policy influence work.

Engage in two-way communication and useplanning, packaging, targeting and monito

e

existing tools for ring communication

fforts. Doing so will help CSOs make their interventions more accessible, digestible and timely for policy discussions.

Working in an isolated manner.

Apply network approaches. Networks can help CSOs: bypass obstacles to consensus; assemble coalitions for change; marshal and amplify evidence; and mobilize resources. We outline the key roles of networks (from filters to convenors) and the 10 keys to network success

Limited capacity for policy influence.

Engage in systemic capacity building. CSOs need a wide range of technical capacities to maximize their chances

of policy influence.

Source: Court et al, 2006

An innovative tool to include citizens in “argumentation” over complex policy issues such as GMOs is DEMOCS (deliberative meeting of citizens). http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/democs.aspx

DEMOCS is part card game, part policy-making tool that enables small groups of people to engage with complex public policy issues. It helps people find out about a topic, express their views, seek common ground with the other participants, and state their preferred policy position from a given choice of four. They can also add their own policy positions.

DEMOCS:

enables players to identify and absorb the basic information they need to discuss an issue that may be complex and that they may not have discussed before


21

may simply allow the group to explore an issue, or enable people to seek common

is ideally used by groups of six, but anything between five and nine will work

may be facilitated by an outsider or the group can be self-facilitating.

4.3.2. Operational constraints

Operational constraints have primarily to do with the complexity of participatory processes, as these require better information and coordination, and increased transaction costs.

Actions for improving policy coordination require adequate (Shannon, 2003):

Information sharing;

Spatial integration of policy and planning;

The creation of multi-stakeholder groups at different levels; which relates to the concept of ‘policy spaces’ discussed in the previous section, and

Capacity building on participatory processes.

The cost of undertaking participatory processes obviously varies across countries. It would depend on the context, existing national and local capacity for facilitating and managing participation, the existing donor efforts, and programs for introducing participatory approaches. In a country with a higher existing capacity and intensity of participatory processes at the national level, there is a high potential to strengthen

cremental costs. However, in a country with little articipatory processes, efforts would be required initially to assess

e situation, including stakeholder analysis, ensuring that poverty data incorporate

lications (World Bank, 2004a,):

approaches leading to more comprehensive poverty diagnostics and overty

and public action choices and for building consensus, for example, national- and local-level consultations and workshops; and

ground on what policies should be adopted on the issue.

participatory processes at lower incapacity and limited pthqualitative approaches, and building local capacity for facilitation and participatory research.

The following are the key areas in which participation has cost imp

Coordination of the process;

Assessment of stakeholders and participation, and process design;

Participatoryconsulting the poor for their perceptions, for example, Participatory PAssessments (PPAs);

Participatory approaches for civil society engagement that enable discussions on priority setting


22

Mechanisms for information sharing, that is, dissemination and feedback mechanisms and public

information campaigns.

W ts are likel sts of organizing workshops and events (includ aterial, and so forth), and costs of

It is worth pointing out thatdynamic processes such as dev expectations (Buchy and Hoverman, 2000

provides an example of av SP processes

Table 7: Illustrative cost estim processes within PRSPs

that include translating and preparing documents in local languages

ithin these areas, the cos y to include training, personnel costs, coes logistics, m

institutional coordination.

the costs mentioned above do not consider the time for elopment of opposition and raising of exaggerated

.

Table 7 erage participation costs in relation to PR

ates of participation

Participation Activities Approximate costs (range in US$)

Stakeholder analysis and process

r Seeking direct perceptions of the Participatory Poverty Assessment

ns Local-level workshops Focus groups with key stakehold Public information campaigns

cipatory processes, feedbaanalysis

b

10,000-30,000 design Coordination group meetings Consulting the poo

poor s

5,000-10,000

25,000-50,000 75,000-100,000

National-level consultatio

ers

80,000-150,000 20,000-30,000 10,000-20,000 40,000-100,000

Feedback and validation worksho Institutional structures within

for parti

ps government

ck and

50,000 300,000-500,000

Source: World Bank, 2004

Note: All these costs are for a single event. Many events may be required for representation and iteration.

portant means to bring the voices of village people to olicy makers and also inform them on central-level policies and legislation – see next

ing constraints on policy reform are (Karl, 2000):

g how people will benefit;

The number and intensity of these participatory processes would depend on the context and design of the participatory process.

Participatory projects can be impSection. A World Bank review of its participatory projects found that participatory approaches would increase the overall costs of projects by 10-15% (Rietbergen-McCracken, 1996)

Important steps to overcom

Identifying the constraints;

Building support for reform through awareness campaigns and explainin


23

rces to implement policy reform;

Capacity building to articulate stakeholders’ demands and influence the policy process.

ditions necessary for stakeholders to adequately participate include (Rietbergen-cCracken, 1996):

n to permit the discussion of issues by all interested groups, and;

nderpinning these conditions are two key aspects, i.e. political will and policy spaces, hich are discussed in Section 6.3. (i) and 7 of Part 1, respectively This is where the

B

Capacity building, training and strengthening of institutions to ensure implementation of policy;

Resource mobilization including technical, managerial and financial resou

4.4. Key requirements for and factors that influence participation in policy processes

The conM

Full access to information on policy issues and development plans;

Freedom of associatio

Regular meetings between stakeholders and government officials, where these can respond to questions and views and be held accountable for their actions.

Uwprinciples of citizen engagement in policy making presented in Box 1 (Section 3) come at hand to reduce the influence exerted by the more powerful. Box 4 provides an example of ‘invited space’ in setting agricultural research priorities in Ghana, and how the non-respect of some amongst the engagement led to poor impact.

ox 4. Stakeholder participation in setting research priorities in Ghana

In Ghana, Research-Extension Linkage Committees (RELCs) have been formed for each of the country’s five agro-ecological zones. These RELCs jointly determine research and extension priorities and plan and promote joint training sessions, field visits, workshops, field days and on-farm trials. Farmers and NGOs are supposed to participate in these sessions, with the objective of generating greater collaboration and communication between researchers, extension workers and farmers. The RELCs also aim to make research, development and transfer of technologies more responsive to the needs of the farmer, and make extensive use of PRA methods to identify key issues on the ground.

In practice, RELCs have had a limited impact. Farmers have not been properly represented, and, as a result, a recent CORAF report suggests that farmers’ issues have not accurately been presented to the committees. The committees themselves have been dominated by crop-based research and extension staff. Women farmers and processors, in particular, have been unable to influence RELCs. The difficulties faced by RELCs in Ghana have, in part, been attributed to a weakness of farmer-based organizations (FBOs). Whilst some strong FBOs exist in Ghana, they are the exception. Without strong and representative FBOs, agricultural producers seem destined to continue to be under-represented in structures such as RELCs.

Source: Thomson, 2000


24

can be measured by looking at:

Quality of the resulting policy: in terms of how equitable, far-sighted and sustainable

olicy work.

Inclusiveness: the hearing and inclusion in negotiations of all the different perspectives

Broad- ent of wides the population.

ameters to monitor of participation

or the evaluation of participatory processes

4.5. Measuring quality in participation in policy processes

The quality of participation in policy processes can be measured both in terms of results and process.

As regards results, quality

its effects are, and

Capacity-building: enhanced capacities of various stakeholder groups and public agencies to enable participation in future p

As regards process, quality can be measured through:

and priorities on a particular issue;

based ownership: attainm pread ownership of and support forpolicy in the country and throughout the

Table 8 provides a check list of par performance pro esses c

Table 8: Monitoring parameters f

WHO - People HOW – Process WHAT – Objective fulfillment

Audience size Interest g

Scope, area o Stakeholders

roups

Stakeholders’ success (capacity to influence, ownership of the

r other measures

Time and relative progress

Ground rules Feedback/Debriefing Transparency Efficiency, effectiveness

Competency and influence Internal/external

organizational change

Awareness raising Policy/management change Improved achievements in

the interest of the broad public

New contacts Relationships Stakeholders’ attitude

change

Budget and % used Level of progress Formal/non-formal

Follow up actions (e.g. other public participation processes)

process, etc.) Appropriate techniques Media coverage

Improved public commitment

Source: Adapted from FAO/ECE/ILO, 2000

e benchmarks for measuring quSom ality participation are (Karl, 2002):

ty of key partners where necessary, to permit them to understand and utilize the information;

Provision of full information to key partners on past policy in the area concerned, itsimpact, need and rationale for new policy;

Support to enhance capaci


25

rspectives and priorities and attain agreement on the resolution of differences;

fillment of their roles in subsequent implementation of the

Built-in monitoring procedure to provide feedback to key partners periodically throughout the whole process.

Will the staff be paid appropriately for extended and unusual hours that participation work often entails?

k,

The performing stage, when the group is discussing, designing and completing the task

Facilitated consultation and negotiation across different stakeholder groups to bring out diverse pe

A defined and publicized procedure for providing feedback to all key partners and supporting them in the fulpolicy;

4.6. Some good practice lessons

Whichever mode of participation is developed, some general principles of good practice apply. These relate as much to behaviors and attitudes as to processes and resources.

Lesson 1: Be committed and clear The agency calling for stakeholder participation must be very clear from the onset onwhat it is prepared to do in that respect to avoid misleading these stakeholders or raising false expectations. Is it about informing people, seeking their opinion or proposing them to share decision-making?

Commitments by the convening agency can be assessed by asking the following questions (Buchy and Hoverman, 2000):

Does the agency maintain specialized staff to deal with participation?

Are the staff who engage in participation issues given the same status as their peers, fort instance in career opportunities?

Will the staff undergo special training?

Is sufficient time allocated to participation processes? This is discussed in turn.

Lesson 2: Time and group dynamics are crucial Participation takes time because collaborative work usually goes through four stages of group dynamics (Pretty et al, 1995):

The forming stage at the beginning of the collaborative process;

The storming stage, where personal values and principles are challenged, roles and responsibilities are taken and objectives defined. If there is too much conflict of values and interests, the group will collapse;

The normative stage, when the group has settled down and is ready to focus on its tasand


26

mentioned above will take more or less time, but, in any case the process is a long one;

oup from one stage to another;

sed to the organizing agency having designed these beforehand;

implementation rests with the government agency of project team, and is not transferred to the participating

is crucial and outcomes of consultation should

erman, 2000):

Have the stakeholder groups been clearly defined? And by whom?

ws?

Have issues of equity been clearly defined and agreed upon?

How have the views within stakeholder groups been obtained?

g p rs o tc m

aker eth macro-level policies and in uencing m

ers on local people’s needs, aspirations and ce ,

tions on both sides of the divide. This can

Bringing local-level acto akers, for exam. a video on fishermen’s stories in Tanzania (IDS,

Bringing policy makers to local actors. This can occur through rapid interactive field ing policy makers

rger, 1998 – Briefly presented in Box 10,

Some major lessons can be drawn here (Buchy and Hoverman, 2000)

The stages

Considerable facilitation skills are needed to bring the gr

This dynamics assumes that the group itself will develop deliberative rules and procedures, as oppo

Representativity of the different stakeholder groups involved is crucial; and

In the case of projects, the overall responsibility for

stakeholders.

Lesson 3: Adequate representativitynot be predetermined In that respect it may be valuable to ask (Buchy and Hov

Have all the members of a stakeholder group the same voice and opportunity to express

their vie

Lesson 4: Bringin olicy makers and policy use together is an efficient process treach productive ou o es in participatory policy processes Bringing policy m s and policy users closer tog er is very useful both in informing

acro policies with their micro policy users about infllevel implications by sensitizing policy makcapacities. Repeated interespect and change, and cbe achieved in two ways, i.e.

raction creates and reinfor s a process of mutual recognitionhallenges preconcep

rs’ voice to policy m ples through the provision of videos about local realities, e.g1998a), and

work, either in the form of workshops, study tours, or even by involvin participatory research teams – e.g. in the USAID-supported development of the Land Code in Guinea (Schoonmaker-FreudenbeSection 9.3.1. (Part 1).


27

ICATION

sists of transmitting information from one person to another which can be verbal, non verbal, face to face or mediated. Lasswell's maxim3

F

5. COMMUN

5.1. Introduction

The word “communication” comes from “communis” in Latin, which means “to put in common”. Communication con

(Figure 4.) could be used as a working definition:

igure 4. Lassewell’s maxim

Who (says) What (to) Whom (in) What Channel (with) What Effect

e been applied to

participatory/empowerment model

nd technology of developed countries would ‘trickle down’ and transform individuals ed and industrialised ones i.e. from

s group assuming that they have uniformed needs s they misjudged the

Since the 1950s different theories and approaches to communication havdevelopment with mixed effects. The approach used tends to mirror the dominant development paradigms of the time which can be simplified into two main approaches: the diffusion/persuasion model (circa 1950s) and the (circa 1980s).

The diffusion model The diffusion model understood development an educational process whereby the ideas aand society from agrarian economies to mechanisTraditional to Modern. This model relies heavily on mass media as a ‘magic bullet’ sending centrally driven messages from experts to ‘unknowing’, passive audiences. It also treated the audience as a homogenouand preferences. Many of these persuasion campaigns failed aaudiences and lacked key ingredients of ‘relevance’, consultation’, ‘trust’ and ‘credibility’.

3Harold Lasswell (1902-1978) early communication theorist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lasswell (accessed 09/05/07)


28

y the mid-1970s the diffusion or ‘trickle-down’ model was challenged by development ingly clear that the first appeared. The

nt dependency that this approach to development created

brace the

for people to come together to identify issues and to seek int strategies to address those issues.

had a wealth of s we learned in the

any of the underlying issues related to power and control entioned they might be.

evertheless, the diffusion model is still very attractive to those hoping to influence

n and extension services

Bpractitioners including communication specialists. It became increasprocess of development was not as straightforward and linear as hadgap between rich and poor was still growing. Many scholars from Asia and Latin America began writing about the inhere(Freire 1996).

The participatory or empowerment model Participatory or ‘bottom-up’ approaches to development evolved to emcomplexity of development, the need for multiple actors to play a role in order for change to be successful and sustainable. These approaches emphasise the importance of cultural identity, of democracy and participation as all levels – international, national, local and individual. They point the way jo

And directly challenged development workers to address their prejudices and recognise that although economically poor, people in developing countries knowledge, experience and ideas to compliment expert knowledge. Aearlier section, participatory approaches to development can facilitate people’s inclusion in decision making, can enable people to have their voices, opinions and preferences heard so to can they highlight mthat are inherent in development interventions, however well int

Npublic opinion and behaviour, such as government, opposition parties, and advertising agencies and for that matter, development organizations. Many of today’s communication approaches in the field of health communication, adult educatiostill reflect the diffusion or persuasion model and are centred around sending a ‘message’ to the audience. An example of message orientated communication can be seen in the example below on health communications on HIV/AIDS (Box 5).


29

Box 5: Message orientated communication

Single Issue HIV/AIDS

Single solution Individual behaviour change

Promotion of a desired Abstinence and limiting sexual behaviour, product or service partners

Use of a condom

Didactic ‘we the experts know what’s best for you’

Message driven The A,B,C of HIV/AIDS

Abstinence,

Be faithful to one partner and use a

Condom

Government and or What can we get for our budget? development agency funded

Government and media to Health Sector received funds to deliver implement project

Production or product focused Radio, TV and poster campaign

Role of the audience Passive recipient

This approach received a good deal of criticism as the desired changes were not happening and instances of infected people continue to rise. Prescriptive approaches

lling people ‘what to do’ often fail to have the desired effect because the campaigns do ot consider the social, cultural and economic context of the spread of the disease (Panos

ing alone is clearly not sufficient. For example a rural woman may

approach is clear. The table below (Box 6.) summarizes some ommunication aspects of the hierarchical versus the participatory model.

ten2003). Awareness raisbe aware of the need to protect herself from HIV/AIDS by using a condom. Even knowing all the risks she may not have access to condoms and/or the social power to enforce the use of a condom. Instead, successful approaches focus on stimulating debate and discussion in societies and between men and women within communities to understand what the problems are and to collectively devise local solutions.

It is fair to say that no one model has replaced the other rather that they both coexist alongside one another. However, the hierarchical nature and the top-down orientation of the diffusion c


30

Box 6: Contrasting models of communication applied to development

5.2. Communication for development - back on the agenda

Given the shifting and challenging context in which development interventions take place today the need for carefully planned communication has never been more needed Today, communication professionals across the globe use different terms to indicate a planned ommunication approach that supports development programmes and projects. These

People-centred Approaches

Communication for Development is a cross-cutting discipline focused on the interplay between people, processes and media including new information and communication technologies (ICTs). It fosters participation and consensus building, transparency and knowledge exchange, through the application of communication strategies, methods and technologies to different development issues (e.g. agriculture, forestry, fisheries, NRM, food security, governance, etc.) building on the needs and capacities of all concerned.

capproaches have more common features than differences. This paper will adopt the term Communication for Development as used within the United Nations Organizations (Box 7). Some other terms used are:

Communication for Development

Strategic Communication

Communication for Social Change


31

AO

Communication for developm ent calls f ipatio ent, civil s mmunities etc development processes. Indeed some argue that communication and participation are two sides of the same coin

alit 2004).

on strategy is till required for awareness raising and implementation of new policy. The main

partnership with beneficiaries and their

Box 7: Communication for development at F

The Food and Agriculture Organization of ions (FAO) has more than 40 years of experience in the field of communication for development and has been somewhat of a

8) in promoting the use edia to help rural people exchange experiences and become more active participants in development

g p f FAO’s work in communication for development are: communication is a m ngs different social groups together to discuss their interests and needs and r on

munication technologies and n themselves

• begin by listening to farmers – taking into account their perceptions, needs, experience, cultures an

• use a holistic approach to rural deve

• seek partnerships with all stakehold

• make use of all available media infrastructure and channels – traditional and modern

• media used should be appropriate to the cultural, social and economic conditions of

2001)

the United Nat

pioneer (Balit 199 of communication processes and m

activities.

The guiding principles and underlyin hilosophy oediation tool that bri

each consensus for acti

• com media are tools in this process; not ends i

knowledge, d traditions.

lopment

ers

rural areas in developing countries.

(Adapted from Balit 1998; Coldevin

ent rests on the pror the conscious and active partic

emise that successful developmn multiple stakeholders - governm

ociety, private sector co -at various stages of

(B

5.3. Why communication matters in policy

Policy makers are often aware of the need to inform people about new policy but unclear as to the steps involved in making this happen. Communication methods can be applied to provide information or raise awareness – to promote or enact a policy. Whilst the overriding trend has been to disseminate information about new policies and to make regulations known – typically the one-way, top-down information flow that we have discussed, increasingly there has been a shift towards more interactive policymaking - a moving away from the more traditional persuasive advertising approaches to policy. In either instance, whether top-down or participatory, an effective communicatisdifference is that new policy is developed incontribution and sense of ownership are intrinsic to the design of policy. An example of this referring to the Poverty Reduction Strategy Process (PRSP) is discussed in detail below.


32

The Department for International Development (DFID) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank published in 2005 a study on strategic communication in order to improve the chances of success of Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSP) in two ways:

To show policymakers how strategic communication can help them to achieve some of their objectives in formulating and executing effective Poverty Reduction Strategies.

To give the technocrats and officials actively engaged in the execution of Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSPs) guidance on best practice as well as lessons from a community of practice spread around the world.

As countries implement PRSPs, there are major issues arising regarding the need to create national ownership and ensure broad participation in the process. Here are some leading ones:

Lack of information about the strategies being developed - All too often finance

kal, B. 2002)

jor groups of stakeholders. These include d donors. Each of these groups would have

communication dynamics. Systematic application of ommunication tools can help the PRSP process in the following ways:

From the example above we learn that strategic and planned communication is much more than merely informing citizens about policy. Rather, it is the active seeking of the perspectives and contributions of citizens so that they can help to shape policy. It also means ensuring that mechanisms are in place for a two-way flow of information and ideas

An example of Communication in Policy Processes:

and planning ministries treat the process as their exclusive property.

Lack of trust and confidence about the process - cynicism is rife.

So-called participatory exercises are still too often mere public information campaigns, involving top-down dissemination and a few workshops and seminars.

All too often once the PRSP is finalised communication processes come to an end. There is often no effort to institute systems for continued citizen engagement and the regular two way flow of information.

(Adapted from Mozamed, M. and Zatlo

The PRSP process involves four mantarians, angovernment, civil society, parliame

some common and some specificc

It creates open and inclusive national dialogue on policy options.

It manages expectations.

It promotes transparency and accountability.

It establishes and maintains momentum.

It creates or deepens a public culture of citizen–government dialogue.


33

king deliberate efforts to build consensus amongst stakeholders about the development strategy the nation wishes to pu

A Communication Strategy includes several complementary communication functions as suwo

t

between the government and the citizenry as well as ma

rsue.

5.4. Designing and implementing a communication strategy

mmarized below (Box 8). Each function has examples of possible stakeholders that uld initiate each action and some broad indicators of success. These the practical

building blocks in the design of a communication strategy.

Box 8: Functions of communication

Policy communication: Managing the external environmen

Purposes: Making policies, programmes, and the evolving procedures known

Initiated by: Governmental agency, farmer’s organizations and representatives

Success is evident when: Stakeholders demonstrate awareness by applying procedures or suggesting modifications to them

Educational communication: Making things known, sharing knowledge

Purposes: Making scientific, technical and cultural know-how accessible to increase knowledge about the production, transformation, organization and marketing dimensions of agriculture; including price information.

Initiated by: Service providers and beneficiaries (with training on accessing content and transforming it)

Success is evident when: Service providers are able to seek and find information sources and repackage materials for learning. People adopt practices or reject them knowledgeably; people utilize communication methods and media to enhance linkages

Social or facilitative communication: Platforms for participation and debate

Purposes: Providing platforms for stakeholders to exchange perspectives from within their cultural norms and values, explore new ideas and programmes, appreciate differences of opinions, negotiate common goals, develop partnerships, propose changes to programmes and become confident participants able to articulate needs and opinions

Initiated by: Community groups, district authorities, service providers, and local groups/organizations

Success is evident when: Stakeholders participate, become empowered, take action, and take ownership over the programme

Time sensitive communication

Purposes: Keeping in touch with family, prices and weather, emergencies

Initiated by: Anybody, especially those with access to a public pay phone or cellular phone;

Success is evident when: The private sector expands infrastructure to respond to growing rural demand; rural projects and the private sector finds ways to provide agricultural, health and educational content that is time-sensitive in a cost-effective manner

Communication for learning


34

correction Purposes: Listening actively; inviting feedback for course

Initiated by: Government organization

Success is evident when: The organization adjusts procedures on the basis of field experiences and keeps stakeholders informed about the changes and process for future evolution

Note. The first three functions are borrowed from (Röling, 1994) and the remaining from Ramirez (2003).

Typically a strategy includes a range of these functions deployed at different times according to the communication needs. Policy teams should decide at the beginning the

vel of participation they require for their communication activities i.e. (FAO/FONP, 006).

ve or passive: Policy teams may actively contact participants, on their own

lders on an ad-hoc basis (such as uring one –off public events) or on an ongoing basis (e.g. with a continuous exchange

implementation of rocess can ensure

inion leading to ownership by creating public debate to e preparation and feedback of people’s views throughout

le2

Actiinitiative, for example when organizing an open dialogue event. Alternatively, they can react passively to stakeholders’ demands, for example, when providing access to government documents.

Control or no control: Policy teams can choose a channel they control (e.g. a government-led newsletter or brochure) or choose one where they exercise no control(e.g. by giving information to civil society organisations who then can publish their own article through channels under their own control).

Ad-hoc or ongoing: Policy teams may contact stakehodon policy topics through permanent roundtables or forums).

There are six steps to researching and designing a communication strategy (FAO 2006). The use of communication tools and concepts in the preparation and policy can be viewed as a circular process (Figure 5). This circular pnatural inclusion and public opincorporate public opinion in ththe process.


35

Figure 5: Communication Research and Strategy Design (FAO 2006).

Box 9 presents a check list to help design and implement a communication strategy.

Box 9: Communications strategy checklist

• Defining communications: What people already know, and what do they not know? How can communications help? What information will people actually find useful? Is the initiative actually addressing the real problems, or is it based on supposition?

• Target audience: Who are the participations for each communications initiative? Who will be left out? Will messages or content be comprehensible and accessible to the groups targeted? Do communications take into account who makes decisions, and what the consequences of those decisions will be for the individuals involved?

• Pre-testing: Have you got the messages right? Have the communications and media been tested on representative groups? Do the results of earlier evaluations exist?

• Participation: Has the communication strategy taken into account the results of any earlier feedback? How do we know what peoples information needs are?

• Message definition: Can the message be defined any more closely, to increase effect and understanding?

• Media to be used: What are the ways in which the target audience receives information? Can any of these channels be used (radio, newspaper, schools, etc.)? What other media should be introduced?

• Timing and coordination: Multiple channels of communication can reinforce each other if they are timed to interact.

• Scale: How will the communications be carried out?

Source: FAO/FONP, 2006


36

ngagement, it will then be important to select a set

c news releases

easy-to-read printed hand-outs

interviews (print, radio, television, Web) by qualified spokespersons

articles in controlled outlets (newsletters, bulletins)

print, radio, TV, Web and outdoor advertising (paid or otherwise)

ite -- yes, absolutely crucial for setting forth the policy issue, stating the pros and cons, providing for feedback, sharing the feedback publicly

useful for stakeholder meeting organization, other brief communications, but too limiting for discussion of complex policy issues

plement the communication components of your policy deign or rogramme implementation. You would not build an irrigation system without an

is formed by journalists, r other communicators without specific training in communication for development, the ommunication component of the project often tends toward public relations and

on of the policy or programme.

Recommended guides to building a communications strategy include:

FAO (2004) Participatory Communication Strategy Design. A Handbook (second edition): http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5794e/y5794e00.htm

5.5. Communication media and tools

Once one has selected the approach to eof tools and activities to take the communications forward. These media techniques include conventional ones, such as:

periodi

frequent media

They also include more modern means of communication including:

Web S

Short Video / Multimedia Production -- for distribution to television, for use in public events and stakeholder meetings (though may be too heavy for email distribution or inclusion on Web site)

Mobile Telephone --

Let the experts do it Finally, it is important to include a communication for development expert or team to design and impengineer and the same applies for communication activities. The training and background of this professional greatly influences the outcome of the communication process and the media products produced. “If the communication expert or teamocinstitutional image building’(Gumucio and Rodriguez C. 2006). If, on the other hand, the communication expert or team has practical field based experience of development and social mobilization then they are in a stronger position to facilitate participation between multiple stakeholders and to involve communities in their own decision-making processes whilst at the same time managing the image and media products required for the communicati

Mozamed, M. and Zatlokal, B. (2002) Strategic Communication in PRSP. World Bank, October 2002: http://povlibrary.worldbank.org/files/12981_comm0916.pdf, and


37

ogramme consortia:

DFID (2005) Communication of research: Guidance notes for research prhttp://www.dfid.gov.uk/research/communication-research.pdf

Active Partners Unit (2003) Write your own communication strategy: http://www.yhregforum.org.uk/publications_resources/knowledgebase/500/560/119.pdf

OECD (2001).Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?sf1=identifiers&lang=EN&st1=422001141e1

5.6. Some dos and don’ts on communication in policy processes

Hereafter, (Box10) are some suggestions in terms of Do’s and Don’ts in communicating in policy processes (Adapted from Weimer, D.L. and A.R.Vining. 1999).

Box 10: Some Dos and Don’ts in Communicating in policy processes

DO:

Remember the audience Keep in mind that policy analysis has little meaning without an audience

Set priorities Organize your information carefully (essential material in text, supporting material in appendices)

Use headings that tell a story Avoid abstract headings such as “market failure” (these are to organi your analysis, not to write your report) ze

Be balanced If 90% of your analysis is on the problem’ or 90% on ‘the solution’ it fails the test.

Acknowledge ambiguity but then make sure you provide resolution

Be credible by providing references as extensively as possible

Take small incremental steps In other words, first make sure you’re competent before you try to be brilliant

Be succinct Clearly explain technical terms and avoid jargon

Be value overt: if a goal is important, argue its importance explicitly

Write crisp text Favour short and direct sentences

DON’T:

Write an essay Your audiences are busy people, give them the facts

Tell the audience everything you know Think of the essentials that they need

Write a mystery Instead, state your important conclusions up front in an executive summary


38

dules which are part of the EASYPol training path amme, Module 4: Policy and Strategy Formulation,

6. READERS’ NOTES

6.1. EASYPol links

This module belongs to a set of moPolicy Learning ProgrSession 3: Key factors in state citizen synergy.

as

Readers can follow other EASYPol documents under Module 3, which is structured follows:

Module 4: Policy and Strategy Formulation

Session 1: Making sense of policy processes

Session 2: Two case studies: Making sense of policy processes

Session 3: Key factors in state citizen synergy

Session 4: Extrapolate

Session 5: Rice trek – Simulation game

Session 6: Ministerial Loan Bargain Game

RENCES ON PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNICATION

B

B

B

B 1 (2000), pp. 15-25.

C Coffee Exporting

The Politics and Dynamics of

Session 7: Pulling it all together

7. FURTHER REFE

rinkerhoff, D.W. and Goldsmith, A.A., 2002. How Citizens Participate in Macroeconomic Policy: International Experience and Implications for Poverty Reduction. World Development, Vol 31, Issue 4, pp. 685-701.

ooth, D., 1998. Coping with Cost Recovery in Zambia: A Sectoral Policy Study. In Holland, J. and Blackburn, J. (eds) Whose Voice: Participatory Research in Policy Change, Intermediate Technology Publications, pp 28-30.

rock, K; Cornwall, A. and Gaventa, J., 2001. Power, Knowledge and Political Space in the Framing of Poverty Policy. IDS Working Paper 143 October 2001, IDS, Brighton, UK.

uchy, M. and Hoverman, S., 2000. Understanding Public Participation in Fores Planning: A Review. Forest Policy and Economics

ari An Coe, 2006. Farmer Participation in Market Authorities ofCountries. World Development, Vol 34, Issue 12, December 2006, pp 2089-2115.

Cornwall, A., 2004. Introduction: New Democratic Spaces? Institutionalised Participation. IDS Bulletin 35.2, pp.1-10, April 2004, IDS, Brighton, UK.


39

righton, UK.

gramme Consortia. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/research/communication-research.pdf

Cornwall, A, 2002. Making Spaces, Changing Places: Situating Participation in Development. IDS Working Paper 170, October 2002, IDS, B

Court, J.; Mendizabal, E.: Osborne, D. and Young, J., 2006. Policy Engagement: HowCivil Society Can Be More Effective. ODI RAPID Programme.

DFID, 2005. Communication of Research: Guidance Notes for Research Pro

lopment Projects, United Nations, New York, USA.

F

F

Fng an On-line Community; Lesson 7:

tp://www.imarkgroup.org/course/moduleC/EN/pdf/lessons/lesson0098.pdf

FAO/SDRE, 2004. (second

Dubois, O., 1997. Decentralisation and Local Management of Forest Resources in Sub-Saharan Africa: Let It Go or Let It Be (laissez faire)? A Comparative Analysis. Unpublished review for the Policy that Works Project, Forestry and Land Use Programme, May 1997, IIED, London, UK.

ESCAP, 1997. Public Involvement: Guidelines for Natural Resource Deve

AO/FONP, 2006. How to Make the NFP Process Work Through Participation.

AO/LSP, 2006. Report on Participatory Policy Development. Report from SP. 3.2

AO, 2006. Information Management Resource Kit – Module on Building Electronic Communities and Networks. Unit 4: DesigniMarketing your On-line Community. ht

Participatory Communication Strategy Design. A Handbookedition). http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5794e/y5794e00.htm

F 00. Public Participation in Forestry in Europe and North America. f Specialists on Participation in

63.

Holmes, T. and Scoones, I., 2000. Participatory Environmental Policy Processes: Experience from North and South, IDS Working paper 113, IDS, Brighton, UK..

H olicy Analysis. Paper Change in

IDS Workshop, 1998b. Participation, Policy Change and Empowerment. In Holland, J. and Blackburn, J. (eds) Whose Voice: Participatory Research in Policy Change, Intermediate Technology Publications, pp 192-196.

IDS Workshop, 1998a. How are Local Voices Heard by Policy Makers?. In Holland, J. and Blackburn, J. (eds) Whose Voice: Participatory Research in Policy Change, Intermediate Technology Publications, pp 153-157.

AO/ECE/ILO, 20Report of the FAO/ECE/ILO Joint Committee Team oForestry. Sectoral Activities Department/ILO Working Paper 1

yden, Göran, 2006. Beyond Governance: Bringing Power into Ppresented to the Danida/GEPPA Conference on “Power, Politics andWeak States”, Copenhagen, March 1-2, 2006


40

Citizen Participation. PLA Notes 43, February 2002, IIED, London, UK.

Karl, M., 2002. Participatory Policy Refor

Mayers, J. and Bass, S., 1999. Policy that Works for Forests and People. Policy that Works

M l Oversight Overlooked: Police itical Science 28(1): 165-179.

M mmunication in PRSP. World Bank,

IIED, 2002. Advocacy and

m from a Sustainable Livelihood Perspective – Review of Concepts and Practical Experience. FAO/LSP Working Paper, August 2002, FAO, Rome, Italy.

Series No 7: Series Overview. IIED, London, UK. 324 p.

cCubbins, M. and Schwartz, T., 1984. CongressionaPatrols versus Fire Alarms. American Journal of Pol

ozamed, M. and Zatlokal, B., 2002. Strategic CoOctober 2002 http://povlibrary.worldbank.org/files/12981_comm0916.pdf

O mation, Consultation and Public Making. OECD Publications Service. Paris, France.

Philips, S.D. and Orsini, M., 2002. Mapping the Links: Citizen Involvement in Policy April 2002.

Pretty, J.; Gujit, I.; Scoones, I and Thompson, J., 1995. Participatory Training and Action: A Trainers’Guide. IIED, London, UK.

Rietbergen-McCracken J (Ed), 1996. Participation in Practice – The Experience of the

Schnell, S.; Poulsen, P.; Condy, A.; Tertsunen, M. and Holland, J., 2006. Principles for

Schoonmaker-Freudenberger, K., 1998. The Use of RRA to Inform Policy: Observations

sectors". FAO, Rome, Italy.

Sidaw on. In Solberg and Miina (eds.) Conflict Management and Public Participation in Land

ECD, 2001. Citizens as Partners: Handbook on InforParticipation in Policy-

Processes. CPRN Discussion Paper No F/21,

World Bank and Other Stakeholders. World Bank Discussion Paper No 333. World Bank, Washington DC, USA.

PSIA in Policy Cycles and Stakeholder Participation. A document jointly produced by GTZ and DFID, March 2006.

from Madagascar and Guinea. In Holland, J. and Blackburn, J. (eds) Whose Voice: Participatory Research in Policy Change, Intermediate Technology Publications, pp 67-79.

Shannon, M , 2003. Mechanisms for Coordination. Chapter 5 of FAO Forestry Paper 142 "Cross-sectoral policy impacts between forestry and other

ay, R. 1997. Outdoor Recreation. and Conservation: Conflicts and their Resoluti

Management, EFI Proceedings No 14, 1997, pp.290-301.


41

ory Ways of Applying a Sustainable Livelihood Approach, March 2000, FAO, Rome, Italy.

Thom ation, Policy and Institutionalisation: An Overview. PLA Notes, Issue 27, pp. 21-27, IIED, London,

Vodoz, L. 1994. La Prise de Décision par Consensus: Pourquoi, Comment, à Quelles

Worl-GLB.

gton DC, USA.

Emerging Practice, World Bank, Washington DC, USA.

World Bank, Social Development Paper No. 76, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.,

World Bank, 2004a. PRSP Source Book, The World Bank, Washington D.C. USA.

Thomson A.M., 2000. Sustainable Livelihood Approaches at the Policy Level. Paper prepared for FAO e-conference and Forum on Operationalising Participat

pson, J. Abbot, J. and Hinchclife, F., 1996. Particip

UK.

Conditions. In : Environnement & Société No 13, FUL, pp.57-66.

d Bank, 2006. Stakeholders, Power Relations and Policy Dialogue – Social Analysis in Agriculture Sector PSIAs Report No 36498

World Bank, 2005. Social Accountability in the Public Sector: A Conceptual Discussion and Learning Module. World Bank, Washin

World Bank, 2004b. Social Accountability: An Introduction to the Concept and

Washington DC, USA.


42

CSO ivil Society Organisations

FAO Food and Agricolture Organisation

NGO

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

PSIA ment

ANNEX 1: LIST OF ACRONYMS

C

EXTRAPOLATE Ex-ante Tool for Ranking Policy Alternatives

M&E Monitorino and Evaluation

MDGs Millenium Development Goals

Non Governmental Organisation

NPEP New Political Economy Perspective

Poverty and Social Impact Assess

SL Sustainable Livelihoods


43

MODULE METADATA

1.EASYPol module 175

2. Title in original language

English FAO Policy Learning Programme

French Programme de formation aux politiques de la FAO

Sp AO anish Programa de aprendizaje sobre políticas de la F

Other language

3. Subtitle in original language

English Policy Processes: Part 3 - Two Important Aspects of Government-Citizen Synergy in Policy Processes: Participation and Communication

French Processus d’élaboration des politiques : 3ème partie - Deux aspects importants de la synergie État-citoyens dans les processus d’élaboration des politiques

Spanish Procesos normativos: Parte 3: Dos aspectos importantes de la sinergia entre el gobierno y el ciudadano en los procesos normativos - Participación y comunicación

Other language

4. Summary

This background material concerns policy processes – the ways policy reforms are planned, designed, implemented and evaluated– which significantly influence policy outcomes and impacts on people’s livelihoods.

While Part 1 of this material has provided some ways and means to better make sense of policy processes and Part 2 has presented some conclusions on what makes policy processes work, Part 3 is about three important aspects of State-citizen synergy, i.e. participation and communication.

This parts starts by presenting basic principles for ensuring good State-citizen synergy. It then discusses some concepts and practical ways of applying these principles regarding these three aspects.

5. Date

January 2008

6. Author(s)

Olivier Dubois, Senior Rural Institutions Officer, Climate Change and Bio energy Unit, Natural Resource Management and Environment Department, FAO, Rome, Italy Sophie Treinen, Information Management Specialist, WAICENT Outreach and Capacity Building Branch, Knowledge Exchange and Capacity Building Division, FAO, Rome, Italy Clare Marie O’Farrell, Communication Officer, Technology, Research and Extension Division, FAO, Rome, Italy

7. Module type Thematic overview


44

Conceptual and technical materials Analytical tools Applied materials Complementary resources

8. Topics covered by the module

Agriculture in the macroeconomic context Agricultural and sub-sectoral policies Agro-industry and food chain policies Environment and sustainability Institutional and organizational development Investment planning and policies Poverty and food security Regional integration and international trade Rural Development

9. Subtopics covered by the module

Pr y

Pa

C

N

inciples of good State-citizen synerg

rticipation in Policy Processes

ommunication in Policy Processes

egotiation in Policy Processes

10. Training path FAO Policy Learning Programme

11. Keywords

Po communication, negotiation licy process, participation,

Documents

Policy Processes : Part 3 Two Important Aspects of ... · Part 3 is about three important aspects of State-citizen synergy, i.e. participation arts starts by presenting basic principles