G
UIDELINE TO ESTABLISH
DIALOGUE WITH POLICY
MAKERS
Version 3.0
CAPINFOOD project
Number of Work Package: WP3.3Task: 3.3 Enhancing dialogue for improving governance Deliverable Dissemination: Internal document
Deliverable Due Date:
Task leader: CBHU
Contributing partners TETALAP, UB, FED
Version Submission date Status Comments from
3 01.02.2013 final
This guideline has been prepared within the CAPINFOOD SEE Project. Project full title:
Improving the enabling environment and public awareness for innovation in the South-East-European food sector through transnational collaboration Project contract No: SEE/B/0027/1.3/X
Edited by:
• András Sebők, Campden BRI Magyarország Nonprofit Kft. Authors:
• Adrienn Hegyi, Campden BRI Magyarország Nonprofit Kft. • Fruzsina Homolka, Campden BRI Magyarország Noprofit Kft.
• Ðuro Kutlača, Institute Mihailo Pupin Science and Technology policy Research Centre
• Maurizio Notarfonso, Federalimentare Servizi srl staff
• Viktor Nedović, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture, Dept. of Food Technology and Biochemistry
• Lajos Nyíri, ZINNIA Group Bt.
• Daniele Rossi, Federalimentare Servizi srl staff
Table of contents
Executive Summary ... 2
Introduction ... 10
1. Process of establishing and maintaining dialogue with policy makersHiba! A könyvjelző nem létezik. 2. Preparations for the dialogue ... 14
2.1 Specific nature of activities of policy makers and their needs for input from non-governmental sources ... 14
2.1.1 The policy cycle ... 14
2.1.2 The learning curve of policy makers: ... 17
2.1.3 Inputs for policy makers from non-government sources ... 18
2.2 Segmentation of policy makers by their needs ... 19
2.3 Establishing contacts with policy makers and building up trusted relationships with them ... 20
3. Implementation of the dialogue with policy makers ... 22
3.1 Formulation of the appropriate content and style of information, tools, strategies for policy makers ... 22
3.2 Successful practices of communication with policy makers ... 24
3.3 Channels and tools for dialogue with policy makers ... 25
3.3.1 Channels of communication with policy makers ... 25
3.3.2 Communication tools: ... 26
4. Glossary ... 39
5. References ... 42
6. Annexes ... 43
Annex I: Benefits of the Foresight in agri-food sector in the Republic of Serbia – Establishing contacts with policy makers and building up trusted relationships with them ... 43
Executive Summary
There are several situations, when innovation enhancing and supporting organisations want to provide input to policy formulation, decision making and policy information on innovation. To achieve that their proposals will be considered in the policy-making process they need to establish a dialogue with the relevant policy makers. Any dialogue with policy makers is a process, where the individual steps and their linkages have to be designed carefully. Any bottlenecks at any of the steps may compromise the result of the whole process.
The primary objective of this guideline is to provide methodological support and guidance for the project partners within the CAPINFOOD South-East European (SEE) project for establishing a dialogue with policy makers at regional, national and SEE level to ensure that the results of the project should be used as input for public innovation policies and programmes.
Process of establishing and maintaining dialogue with policy makers
The process of establishing and maintaining dialogue with policy makers on innovation has the following main steps as indicated on Figure 1.
Preparations for the dialogue
Specific nature of activities of policy makers and their needs for input from non-governmental sources
For the identification of the need of policy makers for inputs from non-governmental sources first
• the process of policy making should be learned,
• the framework, which determines how policy makers runs their daily business should be understood, and
• the learning process of policy makers should be identified. The policy cycle
The typical decision making process in public policies follows a policy cycle, which consists of 7 well-separated phases:
• the preparation phases:
- identification of challenges, - setting the priorities,
- deciding on the objectives,
- formulating the policy documents and
- identifying measures, budget lines and other activities for achieving the objectives.
• the implementation, and
• measuring the impacts (evaluation phase).
The evaluation produces inputs for designing the revision of existing policies and measures or preparing brand new policy decisions.
Figure 1. Process of establishing and maintaining dialogue with policy makers
From the “challenge” to the “objectives” phase, policy-makers policy-makers are very open for new ideas, evidence-based analysis and for the advices of highly reputed experts and leading persons of stakeholder groups.
In the phase of “Actions, measures, budget” policy makers have to be very cautious to keep and demonstrate their neutrality toward different lobby groups. They can decide to use two approaches: either not communicating with anybody (usually it is impossible) or listening to everybody (in practice to all the major stakeholders). On the other hand this phase is crucial for the stakeholders for influencing the policy making process.
During the phase of “Implementation” any feedback concerning the way how the different measures are activated and functioning, the budget spent, actions are implemented may be useful for policy makers.
The “Monitoring and evaluation” phase produces inputs for policy revisions or new policy formulation, and it may verify the quality of the policy implemented. This activity is carried out usually by expert panels and/or professional non-governmental organisation(s). Participation of the stakeholders is important in these panels.
The learning curve of policy makers:
High ranking policy makers typically are not necessarily experts of the area they are responsible for. They rely on their advisors and officials under their supervision. High ranking policy makers are generally very busy and they have time only to get the necessary information usually from secondary internal sources rather than from direct contact with external experts or other external sources. Not only the content of the policy dialogue, but the frequency of the interactions is very important as well. Inputs for policy makers from non-government sources
Policy makers prefer to get clear, concise conclusions phrased on a clear, simple language supported by appropriate facts and unquestionable evidences. The overarching aim of the policy dialogue is that advice is perceived to be salient, credible and legitimate, and that it is timely (Cash and Clark 2001):
• Relevant: the advice is answering the key questions policy makers are
interested in and focusing on the core elements of the issue they deal with.
• Credible: the advice is convincing and accepted as scientifically sound and
reliable.
• Legitimate: the process by which the advice is generated and communicated
is perceived to be fair by the stakeholders involved.
• Timely: it is delivered to policy makers in appropriate time to support their
decisions.
The main activities of the policy makers in the public sector are strongly connected to the policy cycle:
• preparation and formulation of proposals for legislation; • preparation and formulation of proposals for policies;
• discussion of draft legislation and policies with the relevant stakeholder’s groups;
• approval of legislation and policies; • enforcement of legislation;
• implementation of policies;
• design supporting measures and programs for implementation of legislation and policies;
• applying policy tools (like monitoring, evaluation, impact assessment, foresight, etc.); and
• evaluation of the impact of legislation and policies.
Their proposal setting, decision making, enforcement, implementation and subsidising, funding activities should be considered by the general public as objective and seriously neutral, transparent, evidence based, unbiased and fair. Segmentation of policy makers by their needs
Category 1
People in the following positions belong typically to the first category (direct or strong indirect impact on decisions):
• high ranking ministry officials, like ministers, state secretaries, deputy and vice ministers, undersecretaries of state;
• chair persons of policy making bodies, or advisory committees of the government;
• heads of public authorities responsible for preparing policy decisions, or implementing policies; and
• chair persons of monitoring and/or evaluation committees of public policies. Category 2
People in the following positions belong typically to the second category (indirect impact on decisions):
• staff of the ministries involved into policy formulation, implementation and monitoring/evaluation (head of departments, senior analysts, etc.);
• staff of other public authorities (agencies, offices) responsible for policy formulation, implementation and monitoring/evaluation;
• members of policy making bodies, advisory committees of the government; • members of monitoring and/or evaluation committees of public policies.
Persons in Category 2 are much more ready for learning and discussing subjects in depth and if necessary spend long time on the given subject with an other expert, in particular with somebody who has a high reputation.
Establishing contacts with policy makers and building up trusted relationships with them
• Speak to the right person, if necessary use people to find people. This means you have to know to whom you should speak, is this person at a local, regional or national, trans-regional or European level?
• Some issues cut-across the responsibilities of several departments, so it should be assessed carefully at which entry point can and should you start the contact.
• In some situations it may be best to engage at a senior level, in others the ‘desk officers’ may be more appropriate contacts.
In designing your strategy how to approach the policy making process, follow these steps:
[A] Start with identifying your point of interests, than formulate your objectives (why you want to have a dialogue with policy makers?);
[B] Objectives - List all the potential policy makers through whom you think these objectives can be achieved;
[C] Decision power - Assess the level of influence of all these policy makers to the required decision making process;
[D] My relationship - Assess your personal relations with individuals on your list (major focus on the trust you have and the character of this relationship);
[E] Design your strategy for policy dialogue in the environment determined by the ‘my objectives’ – ‘necessary decision power’ – ‘my relationship’ triangle. The selection of contacted persons, the applied tools and channels, the approach must be decided as an optimum output of analysing this system. Some interest groups representing the common view of several organisations or individuals, such as civil organisations, food industry federations, associations, chambers of commerce, consumer organisations and in innovation and competitiveness related subjects, European Technology Platforms (ETPs) and national technology platforms (NTPs), etc. are more frequently invited for consultations on planned policies or evaluation of the impact of decisions than individuals or private organisations in themselves.
These initiatives and interest groups usually have well established contacts with the relevant policy makers. A feasible and effective way of establishing contacts and presenting your suggestions to policy makers is to explain your proposals to the members of these interest groups, get them discussed, adjusted as necessary, accepted first. After being accepted by the ETP, NTPs or an other professional interest group they can be presented as the common view and proposal of this interest group, which increases the chance that they will reach the right person in policy making and that they will be considered seriously.
Implementation of the dialogue with policy makers
Formulation of the appropriate content and style of information, tools, strategies for policy makers
During their policy preparation, implementation and impact evaluation activities policy makers shall demonstrate that they are neutral, impartial, and transparent. They have to demonstrate that they ensure fair business environment and do not favour any specific players of the business life, research community or civil society. Therefore public policy makers typically prefer to use inputs to their policy making and decision making process, - which make them well-informed and well-prepared to decide on selecting the optimal option(s) for policy setting and/or policy
opinions and information, what they can build into the proposals, decisions what they develop themselves.
The main types of inputs they can appreciate to receive through a policy dialogue with you (or other experts) are the followings:
• Statements, facts and data, which can be used for timely identification of problems;
• Statements, facts and data, procedures, methods, which can be used for analysing the challenges, including assessment of the related risks;
• Recommendations, guidelines, studies such as vision documents, strategies, implementation plans including estimation of costs and other necessary resources, solutions applied successfully in an other country or group of countries (which are similar situation as your country), which can be used for policy formulation;
• Expert opinions for all stages of formulation and implementation of policies and legislation;
• Tools for evaluation alternatives and supporting decision making;
• Methods, including test methods, procedures, guidelines, training programs and training materials, which support the enforcement of legislation and implementation of policies;
• Facts and data, and other information, which can be used for evaluation of the impact of implementing legislation and policies;
• Facts, statements, messages, recommendations, studies, training courses, which can be used for convincing and education of other stakeholders;
• Impact assessment studies and other tools for policy setting (foresight, technology assessment, monitoring and evaluation, etc.) during both design and implementation phases.
Successful practices of communication with policy makers
The key aspects of successful practices in establishing a dialogue with policy makers based on mutual recognition can be summarised as follows:
• Make your points clear and easily understandable for policy makers. Prepare a concise and meaningful concise message;
• Talk to the right person, if necessary use people to find people. This means you have to know to whom you should speak, is this person at a local, regional or national, trans-regional or European level?
• Emphasise what you can do for the policy makers;
• To have the maximum impact within the decision making process, advice has to arrive in a timely fashion. This suggests that close cooperation with policy-makers is desirable to agree schedules and achieve a close match to policy cycles.
• Trust is an important element of this relationship. Trust can be achieved by professional performance, fair, ethical and moderate behaviour, timely response to requests, keeping deadlines.
• In any type of communication with policy makers it is a priority that the proposal making organisation or person will be acknowledged as a reliable and authentic source of information on the subject – in this case on
innovation. This issue has a major significance at communication via mass media.
• To build and sustain trust over time, all advisers on innovation representing different stakeholders such as industry, science and intermediary institute, etc need to meet the requirements of competence, trustworthiness, independence, objectivity and authority. Policy makers need to take account the advice in arriving at policy decisions, not cherry-picking from the advice to support pre-established policy positions, and should explain how the advice has been used in arriving at the policy decision. (Cash and Clark 2001)
• When a professional is participating in a consultation on policy making on behalf of an interest group or multi-stakeholder initiative providing advice or opinion on behalf of these multi-stakeholder bodies the opinion should reflect the common view of the body and not the individual view of the person representing the group of the stakeholders. Promotion of the organisation of the expert and its direct, specific business interest should always be avoided. This is a stringent ethical requirement, what the delegated experts of interest groups, associations should always considered before accepting the nomination for this job during carrying out this job.
• When mutual trust had already been established longer term, informal relationships can be built up. This provides an opportunity for regular exchange of views, when one of the parties, the policy maker or the expert lobbist requests it.
• Present various options, but make sure that you are well prepared. You must present various solutions to a problem and you must have the correct knowledge.
• Follow up your face-to-face contact with a short letter of thanks which summarises the main points of the meeting.
• Keep contact information up to date.
• Build proactive and long term relations with frequent interaction and feedback. Channels and tools for dialogue with policy makers
The main communication channels are the following: • Personal interactions;
• Networks; • Internet; • Mass media. Communication tools are:
• personnel visits, face-to-face meetings and discussions • trainings organised for policy makers;
• expert advice through industry, NGOs or scientific expert advice directly or through government advisory panels;
• voluntary vocational initiatives;
• advisory boards of project, technology, multi-stakeholder initiatives for foresight studies;
• guidelines, manuals;
• press releases, press conferences; • scientific journals, trade magazins • newspapers;
Introduction
There are several situations, when innovation enhancing and supporting organisations want to provide input to policy formulation, decision making and policy information on innovation. To achieve that their proposals will be considered in the policy-making process they need to establish a dialogue with the relevant policy makers. Any dialogue with policy makers is a process, where the individual steps and their linkages have to be designed carefully. Any bottlenecks at any of the steps may compromise the result of the whole process.
Within the CAPINFOOD South-East European (SEE) project the innovation supporting system (ISS) and the innovation supporting practices for the food sector are analysed in the SEE countries for identification of the necessary actions to improve the capacity and coordination mechanism of the institutional system. In addition to that new or improved national food sector innovation strategies are developed for each participating SEE country and also tools for institutions for building up a more enabling environment for innovation in the food sector. Since the majority of the project partners are not directly involved into the public innovation policy making the results and recommendations of the project have to be transferred to local, regional, national, SEE and European policy makers to achieve that they will be implemented in practice through supporting measures. It is feasible to summarise the available experiences on dealing with policy makers and provide a joint guidance tool for all partners and other institutions acting in this area of innovation support for the food sector.
The primary objective of this guideline is to provide methodological support and guidance for the project partners for establishing a dialogue with policy makers at regional, national and SEE level to ensure that the results of the project should be used as input for public innovation policies and programmes. However this guideline can be used by a significantly broader group of users. In this guidebook practical advices are formulated to organisations, which are involved into innovation promotion and support. These guideline aims at assisting these organisations in their efforts to design these processes effectively and successfully.
The targeted groups of policy makers for establishing a dialogue include: • High ranking policy makers, decision makers;
• Staff of the government policy making organisations who prepare decisions, strategies, reports, analysis;
• Those staff members of the government policy making organisations, who are really interested in learning issues;
Figure 1. Process of establishing and maintaining dialogue with policy makers
1. Process of establishing and maintaining dialogue with policy
makers
The process of establishing and maintaining dialogue with policy makers on innovation has the following main steps as indicated on Figure 1. The majority of steps are self-explanatory. Additional explanation is provided here for those steps, where it is necessary.
Step 1.: First define, in which phase of the policy making process (preparation, implementation, evaluation of impact can (see in more details Chapter 2.1 “The policy cycle”) input be provided. In different phases of the process different types of inputs are necessary.
Step 2.: Different types of policy makers may need the information and proposals in a different format.
Step 6.: Some non-profit interest groups, such as national technology platforms, food industry federations and associations are regularly invited for consultations on innovation related issues. Consider using them as intermediaries.
Step 7.: In some cases the key decision makers can be contacted directly, More frequently some of their staff members preparing materials, proposals for them, or experts working with them or some of their advisors are more accessible and they should be contacted first.
Step 10.: Select the most appropriate ones.
Step 11.: It is a good practice to prepare a concise summary of the main issues, which need to be discussed for the policy makers to help their preparation for the meeting.
Step 12.: These relationships have to be maintained and nourtured by provision of regular information on those results of your activity to the policy makers, which are relevant for them and which show your professional expertise, commitment to the progress of the knowledge and practice of the subject, objectivity and independence in evaluation.
Step 14.: Information, advice, recommendations are rarely used in themselves, isolated. It makes the new information, knowledge more valuable if it is integrated to the available knowledge and it is shown clearly what are the other facts, evidences, which support the validity of the current information or what is the new, additional value in this information.
Step 21.: Good, well balanced recommendations, explanations of position are developed usually gradually. In the majority of the cases the information, advice has to be refined through several consultation rounds until they meet the actual, specific needs of the policy makers.
As a part of the preparation formulate the message, structure, the content. Make clear what you propose, what are the benefits, the impact and the necessary resources for implementation
2. Preparations for the dialogue
2.1 Specific nature of activities of policy makers and their needs for input from non-governmental sources
Policy reform occurs when decision makers recognize a feasible solution to a significant problem and demonstrate the political will to make change. The policy dialogue with stakeholders (like you) can contribute significantly to this process. (AgriFoodResults, 2011).
Generally policy dialogue is possible only when proposed solutions address recognized problems for a well-targeted policy maker.
The objective of a dialogue with policy makers is to transfer new knowledge (learning), increase competencies and develop new skills in order to make policy makers more prepared and capable for policy and legislation formulation, policy implementation and enforcement.
For the identification of the need of policy makers for inputs from non-governmental sources first
• the process of policy making should be learned,
• the framework, which determines how policy makers runs their daily business should be understood, and
• the learning process of policy makers should be identified..
2.1.1 The policy cycle
The typical decision making process in public policies follows a policy cycle, which consists of 7 well-separated phases (see the Figure 2.):
• the preparation phases:
- identification of challenges, - setting the priorities,
- deciding on the objectives,
- formulating the policy documents and
- identifying measures, budget lines and other activities for achieving the objectives.
• the implementation, and
• measuring the impacts (evaluation phase).
The evaluation produces inputs for designing the revision of existing policies and measures or preparing brand new policy decisions.
Figure 2: Steps of the decision making processes in public policies
Many of the challenges what public policy seeks to address today are complex. They require considerable efforts and resources of knowledge to understand them and to provide feasible and effective options for addressing them.
From the “challenge” to the “objectives” phases, policy-makers have to identify the problem to be addressed. For this purpose they have to understand in depth the current situation, the reasons behind the problems and weaknesses and draw conclusions as a starting point for setting up priorities, formulating objectives and translate them into a detailed policy document. In these phases policy-makers are very open for new ideas, evidence-based analysis and for the advices of highly reputed experts and leading persons of stakeholder groups.
The phase of “Actions, measures, budget” is a very delicate and sensitive period in the whole process. Policy makers have to be very cautious to keep and demonstrate their neutrality toward different lobby groups. They can decide to use two approaches: either not communicating with anybody (usually it is impossible) or listening to everybody (in practice to all the major stakeholders). On the other hand this phase is crucial for the stakeholders for influencing the policy making process. The channels and tools applied and the person(s) transmitting the well-formulated messages are very important for the success of these efforts.
During the phase of “Implementation” any feedback concerning the way how the different measures are activated and functioning, the budget spent, actions are implemented may be useful for policy makers. Usually in this phase the lobby power of the stakeholder is much more important for making impact on decisions, than its expertise.
The “Monitoring and evaluation” phase produces inputs for policy revisions or new policy formulation, and it may verify the quality of the policy implemented. This activity is carried out usually by expert panels and/or professional non-governmental organisation(s). Participation of the stakeholders is important in these panels. The
findings may determine the key elements of the new policies and introduce new measures. The process itself provides important information for learning and may create trust and new platforms for future policy dialogue.
Traditionally the policy cycle was more or less a linear process. This approach functioned effectively for a long time. But nowadays, when the political, social and economic environment around the government activities is under major changes and the process itself has significantly accelerated, this rigid, phase-based approach does not serve well the concept of learning organisation in public administrations. In many cases the on-going reflections to actions still at the phase of decision preparation or implementation may have a high value, since they give a chance for adjusting the procedure in time to the actual conditions and demands, and to achieve the highest possible effectiveness of policies. The public administrations, as learning organisations should develop a system of receiving on-going feedback, carrying out analysis, and the ability to act in time. The quality and time factors should be taken into consideration parallel during the whole process in order to optimise its effectiveness.
This situation creates favourable conditions for stakeholders to initiate dialogue with policy makers in order to assist the preparation of policy decisions and influence the process.
The conceptual framework of policy change can be described as a triangle of three important factors: the political will, the problem/challenge identification and the feasibility of the specified solutions (responses to the challenges) (Figure 3). Policy change may happen when all these factors meet.
Policy makers are mostly interested in getting advices that are:
• focused on relevant elements of a contemporary policy matter/challenge, • feasible under the actual political, government environment,
• identifying well-functioning solutions, and
• decreasing or eliminating the political risks in implementation.
Figure 3: Triangle of factors of policy change
Innovation promoting and supporting institutions can contribute mainly in the phase of policy formulation and developing the planned actions, since nowadays in Europe
it is expected that stakeholders of innovation should be consulted during the development and evaluation of alternatives.
2.1.2 The learning curve of policy makers:
Policy makers are special types of citizens. The high ranking officials typically are not necessarily experts of the area they are responsible for. They rely on their advisors and officials under their supervision.
High ranking policy makers are generally very busy and they have time only to get the necessary information usually from secondary internal sources rather than from direct contact with external experts or other external sources.
The access to government officers or policy makers is not so easy, since it is difficult to take them out of their daily routine work. Their attitudes and assumptions can be ingrained and they may spend time defending their ministerial interests and impose their assumptions rather than listening.
The dialogue with policy makers nowadays is not a simple linear process, but it is very complex one. A wide range of stakeholders are engaged permanently. The specific way, however, how this process runs in practice in a given country is highly dependent on the general nature of administration, in particular the decision making culture and the topic of the dialogue.
The learning process of this system is determined very much by this ‘rationality’. (UN 2001). (See the figure 4.).
Policy makers follow their own agenda, so it is crucial to learn and understand their actual interests. Key questions (AgriFoodResults 2011):
• Which political or regulation area can be affected by the knowledge and experience you have?
• Are your knowledge and experience in compliance with the present and future political and legislative agenda?
• What is the added value of your knowledge and experience for policy makers? Can you offer them any benefit?
If you would like to have a really effective (successful) dialogue with policy makers, you have to take into consideration the nature of their learning process. Not only the content of the policy dialogue, but the frequency of the interactions is very important as well. Never give it up when you recognize after the first meeting that no visible changes have happened.
2.1.3 Inputs for policy makers from non-government sources
The activities of policy makers cover a broad range of technical aspects related to the issues they have to deal with. That is the reason why there are usually a large number of technical specialists and experts behind them in their organisation. Policy makers typically have no detailed scientific and technical knowledge in all disciplines and do not have the opportunity, time and even motivation to read, understand and evaluate detailed technical and scientific reports, analyses or other papers supporting strategy and policy setting (adapted from Clayton and Culshers 2009). They prefer to get clear, concise conclusions phrased on a clear, simple language supported by appropriate facts and unquestionable evidences.
The overarching aim of the policy dialogue is that advice is perceived to be salient, credible and legitimate, and that it is timely (Cash and Clark 2001):
• Relevant: the advice is answering the key questions policy makers are
interested in and focusing on the core elements of the issue they deal with.
• Credible: the advice is convincing and accepted as scientifically sound and
reliable.
• Legitimate: the process by which the advice is generated and communicated
is perceived to be fair by the stakeholders involved.
• Timely: it is delivered to policy makers in appropriate time to support their
decisions.
The main activities of the policy makers in the public sector are strongly connected to the policy cycle:
• preparation and formulation of proposals for legislation; • preparation and formulation of proposals for policies;
• discussion of draft legislation and policies with the relevant stakeholder’s groups;
• approval of legislation and policies; • enforcement of legislation;
• implementation of policies;
• design supporting measures and programs for implementation of legislation and policies;
• applying policy tools (like monitoring, evaluation, impact assessment, foresight, etc.); and
• evaluation of the impact of legislation and policies.
Their proposal setting, decision making, enforcement, implementation and subsidising, funding activities should be considered by the general public as objective and seriously neutral, transparent, evidence based, unbiased and fair. It explains why the majority of policy makers are ready to hear such advices, which support them to meet these requirements.
2.2 Segmentation of policy makers by their needs
As we have discussed in chapter 2.1.1, the policy cycle is a very complex process, which runs in a large, multi-layered governance system. High ranking officials are served by many civil servants and other external experts contracted just for a period of time or hired permanently to assist the policy formulation, implementation and evaluation phases.
We apply a broad definition of policy maker in this document: a person who is involved to any phase of the policy cycle and participates or contributes to the decision making related to the policy activities in the given phase. We may differentiate these persons by their influence to the decisions made: (1) those having direct or strong indirect impact, and (2) those having only indirect impact.
Category 1
People in the following positions belong typically to the first category (direct or strong indirect impact on decisions):
• high ranking ministry officials, like ministers, state secretaries, deputy and vice ministers, undersecretaries of state;
• chair persons of policy making bodies, or advisory committees of the government;
• heads of public authorities responsible for preparing policy decisions, or implementing policies; and
• chair persons of monitoring and/or evaluation committees of public policies. Category 2
People in the following positions belong typically to the second category (indirect impact on decisions):
• staff of the ministries involved into policy formulation, implementation and monitoring/evaluation (head of departments, senior analysts, etc.);
• staff of other public authorities (agencies, offices) responsible for policy formulation, implementation and monitoring/evaluation;
• members of policy making bodies, advisory committees of the government; • members of monitoring and/or evaluation committees of public policies.
People in Category 1 has no time for studying the situation in details themselves. They are not experts, do not speak and understand the language of the specific subject. (But be cautious, in some cases you may meet exemptions!). Usually they rely on the secondary source of information, mostly on their staff from Category 2. Persons in Category 2 are usually experts on the given subject, they know local, national, and in many cases international experts, participate at conferences, speak
the language and have deep knowledge about the issue you aim to discuss. External experts usually work full time on the specific area, therefore their knowledge in specific issues may be very detailed. However this may result in some limitations, e.g. being biased by their own priorities, or being too much focused on a specific area and lacking a balanced overview. They are aware of that. In most cases you may access to your target person (belonging to Category 1) only through them. They are much more ready for learning and discussing subjects in depth and if necessary spend long time on the given subject with an other expert, in particular with somebody who has a high reputation.
2.3 Establishing contacts with policy makers and building up trusted relationships with them
When you design your policy dialogue, consideration should be given to the most appropriate person who should be contacted during the whole process and who should be contacted first. (Cash and Clark 2001).
• Speak to the right person, if necessary use people to find people. This means you have to know to whom you should speak, is this person at a local, regional or national, trans-regional or European level?
• Some issues cut-across the responsibilities of several departments, so it should be assessed carefully at which entry point can and should you start the contact.
• In some situations it may be best to engage at a senior level, in others the ‘desk officers’ may be more appropriate contacts.
In designing your strategy how to approach the policy making process, follow these steps:
[A] Start with identifying your point of interests, than formulate your objectives (why you want to have a dialogue with policy makers?);
[B] Objectives - List all the potential policy makers through whom you think these objectives can be achieved;
[C] Decision power - Assess the level of influence of all these policy makers to the required decision making process;
[D] My relationship - Assess your personal relations with individuals on your list (major focus on the trust you have and the character of this relationship);
[E] Design your strategy for policy dialogue in the environment determined by the ‘my objectives’ – ‘necessary decision power’ – ‘my relationship’ triangle. The selection of contacted persons, the applied tools and channels, the approach must be decided as an optimum output of analysing this system. Some interest groups representing the common view of several organisations or individuals, such as civil organisations, food industry federations, associations, chambers of commerce, consumer organisations and in innovation and competitiveness related subjects, European Technology Platforms (ETPs) and national technology platforms (NTPs), etc. are more frequently invited for consultations on planned policies or evaluation of the impact of decisions than
These initiatives and interest groups usually have well established contacts with the relevant policy makers. A feasible and effective way of establishing contacts and presenting your suggestions to policy makers is to explain your proposals to the members of these interest groups, get them discussed, adjusted as necessary, accepted first. After being accepted by the ETP, NTPs or an other professional interest group they can be presented as the common view and proposal of this interest group, which increases the chance that they will reach the right person in policy making and that they will be considered seriously.
Any professional organisation, expert or citizen can initiate a direct contact with a policy maker or decision maker. In this case the careful preparation is particularly important. The subject has to be summarised in a clear and concise way to achieve that the case will be assigned to the right person and considered properly. The reputation of the requesting organisation and/or person plays a significant role in getting a quick appointment with the right person. At innovation related issues the experience shows that representatives of independent non-profit making interest groups get appointments easier than individuals or individual profit making organisations, since the former ones are seen as more independent and neutral, having less inclination to promote their own business interests.
The following questions are useful to be considered in organising your pre communication to policy makers:
• Who are the key people to persuade?
• Who will make the decisions? Who is advising them? Who will prepare the information for them?
• What are the past experiences of these decision makers?
• What are the decision maker’s current attitudes? Are they neutral, friendly, hostile or apathetic?
• What is the most appropriate way to approach the decision maker?
• What are the work styles of the decision makers? Are they highly formal people who want everything in writing and all appointments scheduled in advance? Or are they more flexible, responding favourably to personal telephone calls and informal meetings?
• In which networks or groups is the decision maker participating?
• What programs or services are on the agenda in the short and mid term plans for improvement of the policy making organisations?
• What programs or services are causing problems and therefore need to be improved?
3. Implementation of the dialogue with policy makers
3.1 Formulation of the appropriate content and style of information, tools,
strategies for policy makers
During their policy preparation, implementation and impact evaluation activities policy makers shall demonstrate that they are neutral, impartial, and transparent. They have to demonstrate that they ensure fair business environment and do not favour any specific players of the business life, research community or civil society. Contractors for publicly founded expert work are usually selected through a public contest, or tendering activity.
Therefore public policy makers typically prefer to use inputs to their policy making and decision making process, - which make them well-informed and well-prepared to decide on selecting the optimal option(s) for policy setting and/or policy implementation,- rather than complete solutions. It is the prime task of policy makers to decide. Experts, innovation enhancing and supporting organisations should not look like to take over this task. Policy makers can easily demonstrate their independence and neutrality when they use inputs from different sources or referring to several stakeholder or lobby groups when they aim to prove the appropriateness of their recommendations. They prefer to receive expert opinions and information, what they can build into the proposals, decisions what they develop themselves. At the discussing of the content of the communication to policy makers on innovation it has to be considered that they have to develop answers for the following questions related to the policy actions designed to achieve the desired outcome:
• What? • Why? • How? • Where • When?
and make informal decision on that (adapted from UN 2005)).
By considering the policy cycle and the typical groups of policy makers the main types of inputs they can appreciate to receive through a policy dialogue with you (or other experts) are the followings:
• Statements, facts and data, which can be used for timely identification of problems;
• Statements, facts and data, procedures, methods, which can be used for analysing the challenges, including assessment of the related risks;
• Recommendations, guidelines, studies such as vision documents, strategies, implementation plans including estimation of costs and other necessary resources, solutions applied successfully in an other country or group of countries (which are similar situation as your country), which can be used for policy formulation;
• Tools for evaluation alternatives and supporting decision making;
• Methods, including test methods, procedures, guidelines, training programs and training materials, which support the enforcement of legislation and implementation of policies;
• Facts and data, and other information, which can be used for evaluation of the impact of implementing legislation and policies;
• Facts, statements, messages, recommendations, studies, training courses, which can be used for convincing and education of other stakeholders;
• Impact assessment studies and other tools for policy setting (foresight, technology assessment, monitoring and evaluation, etc.) during both design and implementation phases.
This list demonstrates clearly that not only complete solutions, but partial solutions, relevant studies, data, information, methods can also be valuable inputs for policy makers. (Adapted from the AgriFoodResults FP7 project)
When it is possible referring to the relevant parts of policy documents of the national government and EU may support the view of the institution, interest group.
When an input, a proposal or a solution based on new knowledge from innovation, innovation management or research results is presented by the innovation promoting and supporting organisations to policy makers including decision makers and advisors acting in policy making and legislation the use of the following structure of information is advised:
• What is the problem for which this input, recommendation or solution is offered?
• What are the areas of the potential application by policy makers?
• What are the tangible results or the practice for policy makers: data, findings, statements, methods, tools, recommendation, guidelines, etc.?
• How the new results can be used in policy making and legislation? What are the principles, stages, procedures, methods for the application? This has to be described only briefly in the style of a users’ instructions.
• What is new in the results/information/solution offered compared to the already available knowledge/information/solutions?
• What are the additional benefits for policy making compared to the former solutions? What are the benefits in general?
• Are there any risks, limitations associated with the application of the new knowledge, recommendations? It is crucial, that the innovation promoting supporting organisations, should be very honest about the risks, potential difficulties and limitations. Policy makers expect a fair overview of the benefits, risks and drawbacks. Delivering a reliable advice can be the basis of the future trust, while presenting an over-optimistic view may compromise the whole relationship in the future.
• Has somebody used this information, methods, recommendations before? Provide references of successful applications, if there are any, particularly from the area of policy making.
The value of the recommendations for policy makers based on new knowledge generated by research, creative thinking or innovation is significantly increased if they are integrated to the state of the art information on a specific problem including relevant legislation, risk assessment, databases, etc.
• Study relevant legislation and put your results into the context of legislation. To reach policy makers better you have to tailor your approach to ensure that new knowledge from innovation research providing the input for innovation and innovation management is relevant, the right people get to hear about it.
3.2 Successful practices of communication with policy makers
The key aspects of successful practices in establishing a dialogue with policy makers based on mutual recognition can be summarised as follows:
• Make your points clear and easily understandable for policy makers. Prepare a concise and meaningful concise message;
• Talk to the right person, if necessary use people to find people. This means you have to know to whom you should speak, is this person at a local, regional or national, trans-regional or European level?
• Emphasise what you can do for the policy makers;
• To have the maximum impact within the decision making process, advice has to arrive in a timely fashion. This suggests that close cooperation with policy-makers is desirable to agree schedules and achieve a close match to policy cycles.
• Trust is an important element of this relationship. Trust can be achieved by professional performance, fair, ethical and moderate behaviour, timely response to requests, keeping deadlines.
• In any type of communication with policy makers it is a priority that the proposal making organisation or person will be acknowledged as a reliable and authentic source of information on the subject – in this case on innovation. This issue has a major significance at communication via mass media.
• To build and sustain trust over time, all advisers on innovation representing different stakeholders such as industry, science and intermediary institute, etc need to meet the requirements of competence, trustworthiness, independence, objectivity and authority. Policy makers need to take account the advice in arriving at policy decisions, not cherry-picking from the advice to support pre-established policy positions, and should explain how the advice has been used in arriving at the policy decision. (Cash and Clark 2001)
• When a professional is participating in a consultation on policy making on behalf of an interest group or multi-stakeholder initiative providing advice or opinion on behalf of these multi-stakeholder bodies the opinion should reflect the common view of the body and not the individual view of the person representing the group of the stakeholders. Promotion of the organisation of the expert and its direct, specific business interest should always be avoided. This is a stringent ethical requirement, what the delegated experts of interest groups, associations should always considered before accepting the nomination for this job during carrying out this job.
• When mutual trust had already been established longer term, informal relationships can be built up. This provides an opportunity for regular exchange of views, when one of the parties, the policy maker or the expert lobbist requests it.
• Present various options, but make sure that you are well prepared. You must present various solutions to a problem and you must have the correct knowledge.
• Follow up your face-to-face contact with a short letter of thanks which summarises the main points of the meeting.
• Keep contact information up to date.
• Build proactive and long term relations with frequent interaction and feedback.
3.3 Channels and tools for dialogue with policy makers
The policy cycle in today’s public governments functions is in a fast changing environment with a wide range of communication activities and involving a large variety of communities, stakeholder groups and lobbying organisations. Discussions usually don’t stop at a border of the country. International experiences, good practices are looked for and welcomed. It is very important to take into consideration the available channels and tools when you design a dialogue with policy maker(s).
3.3.1 Channels of communication with policy makers
Communication channels are the means, through which the dialogue (flow of information, message) between you and the targeted policy maker(s) is carried out (adapted from AgriFoodResults 2011).
There is not a universally effective communication strategy: different communication processes and channels will reach different age and gender groups depending on the social, economic, political and geographical context and will have a different impact on achieving your objectives. What works in one situation may not work in another one. (UN 2005).
There are several ways to communicate with policy makers, but not all are appropriate for all types of policy makers. For example, a face-to-face meeting or a visit is more suitable to ministers, other high-ranking government officials and
individual parliamentarians whereas presentations, workshops, trainings and conferences are more appropriate to staff.
In selecting the appropriate channel ensure that the people you want to reach have an access to it;
• understand it easily. trust it and
• believe it that the medium is appropriate for the message. The main communication channels are the following:
• Personal interactions; • Networks;
• Internet; • Mass media.
3.3.2 Communication tools:
Communication tools represent the formats, structure and presentation of the content as the research result is provided to user to make it easily useable. (Adapted from AgriFoodResults 2011)
Communication tools are:
• personnel visits, face-to-face meetings and discussions • trainings organised for policy makers;
• expert advice through industry, NGOs or scientific expert advice directly or through government advisory panels;
• voluntary vocational initiatives;
• advisory boards of project, technology, multi-stakeholder initiatives for foresight studies;
• guidelines, manuals;
• inventories of successful cases; • aidio-visual tools;
• press releases, press conferences; • scientific journals, trade magazins • newspapers;
• TV and radio interviews, reports, expert discussion, education programs. The communication channels and tools are presented jointly in the following sub-chapters.
Personal interactions
This involves direct, face-to-face contact and allows questions and answers and clarification of meaning. It helps to ensure mutual understanding. This channel has two major forms: person-to-person and group communication (usually at events). The person-to-person (interpersonal) communication includes direct conversation between you and the policy maker(s). This kind of communication is the most appropriate when we want to send messages to policy makers and stakeholders on
details. Personal visits, face-to-face meetings and discussion are the best method to find out about policy priorities or to identify possible areas for potential collaboration. This channel is the most effective one, you can keep the flow of information under control, you may react directly to questions and answers of the policy maker’s, and the impact may be far the largest. It may take place in a planned way on an organised meeting (visiting the policy makers or the policy maker visits you or your organisation) or on an occasional basis, taking advantage of an opportunity at a meeting organised for an other purpose (short conversation, chatting at the coffee break of a conference, or at a trade fair, or at a reception). The planned meetings require careful preparation and it depends also on the availability of the policy makers. At the occasional meetings clear concise formation of the main message by the lobbyist, innovation expert is necessary,
Personal visits, face-to-face meetings and discussions:
At the planned meetings you need to talk to the right person and should prepare a face-to-face communication, by having a bullet point brief ready. It´s more effective to talk face-to-face than sending an email or make a call, but it is necessary a first approach by phone or email before your face-to-face meeting. In this way, you can transfer information faster and better. Personal visits work better when a good, professional working relationship is existing already between the parties. This can be developed through participating in expert panels, advisory boards, etc.
The group communication is strongly linked to events. Policy maker(s) participate(s) and listen(s), contribute(s) by questioning and commenting the presentations, or they may present their policies. This is part of their learning curve. This type of dialogue may result in stronger linkages between you and the policy maker and build trust for future dialogue or the continuation of the dialogue started at the event. The organization of workshops, seminars and conferences are good communication tools to share your achievements with policy makers in the field. Feedback can be received from them, but they can also hear the view of the users, other experts on a particular issue. Group communication is an appropriate forum for policy makers for collecting information.
Trainings organised for policy makers:
These events should target a specific audience, in this case, policy makers. Organising training can be a useful tool to inform policy makers. It can help , experts acting as trainers to understand policy makers’ needs and help to develop skills how to talk to them and establish a networking relationship with them that can facilitate on-going discussion and sharing of good practices.
Expert advice through industry, NGOs or scientific panels:
Interaction with industry, some NGOs and scientific panels can be an appropriate means to provide input for research and innovation policies. The organizations operating these panels can be useful partners in innovation enhancing activities and also in innovation projects and usually have privileged contacts with policy makers and other stakeholders, so they can be an intermediary to reach policy makers. It is advised to send proposals, position papers and reports to them. Participation in voluntary industry panels provides the opportunity to meet policy makers regularly.
By representing the views of the industry supported by new knowledge based on structured information collected by the industry, supported also by research results and scientific opinion good working relationships and trust can be established.
Expert advice directly or through government advisory panels;
Policy makers frequently use the advice of experts whom they know and trust and discuss the issues where they need vocational help. These panels with government expert bodies are made of well acknowledged specialists of the subject, together with the representatives of the industry and NGOs. Invitation to these panels is made by merrit. Participation is voluntary and needs investment of time. In return members of these advisory panels get an access to the latest technical and policy information, opinion of the other members of the panel and good understanding of the current hot issues. The extracted essentials of the new knowledge generated by research and innovation projects, which are relevant to policy formulation can be built into the professional opinion of the experts participating in the panel.
Advisory boards of projects, voluntary, multi-stakeholder initiatives
Experience has provided proof that a sense of co-ownership generated by participating in a project or into the discussion of a voluntary initiative has a positive impact on the willingness of decision-makers to support the future dissemination and use of its outcomes and results. So involving the policy makers into the project or discussion into a proposal of a voluntary initiative of several groups of stakeholders is useful. The most simple way to get decision-makers involved is by setting up an advisory group, where they can keep their independence. If your project proposal development or survey is aimed at achieving impact at a national or regional level, then it is important to invite organisations at the appropriate level.
Networks
Nowadays the number of inter-linkages of different types of stakeholders is growing. The demand for involving external expertise to the policy cycle is higher and higher, the communication among the interested stakeholders’ groups has become very intensive and the governments are under pressure to open up their operation to the wide society. Networking is one of the tools to handle this situation effectively.
The existing networks are important communication channels for any dialogue with policy makers. Some of the networks have specifically set up for this purpose, others are not, but can be used for that as well.
Some policy makers participate in thematic networks dealing with subjects in their professional expertise and are ready to discuss their view on emerging issues with other stakeholders.
An other type of network, in which they are ready to participate is represented by those civil, non-profit initiatives, which aimed to help the implementation of governmental policies such as networks on promoting the production and market
access of traditional foods, enhancing the technical solutions for the digital society, etc.
Nowadays there are some specific non-profit making interest groups and initiatives, which are considered by the public administration as reliable sources of information on research and innovation issues, particularly at European level. These initiatives are aimed to unify all stakeholders for enhancing innovation. They are pretended to represent a balanced view of different stakeholders, approaches of knowledge users, knowledge providers, supply chain partners and follow EU and national policy objectives and policies systematically. These are European and National Technology Platforms (NTPs) and public-private partnership (PPP) assemblies.
Case study: ETP Food for Life and its National Technology Platforms
European Technology Platforms (ETPs) are spontaneous pan-European initiatives, with an approach driven bottom-up and pursuing enhanced competitiveness through collaboration of all stakeholders, growth and transfer of knowledge and skills to support innovation and economic growth of the industrial sector. The focus of the activity is innovation, while the glue is industry (industry led). Main actors involved are: companies, research institutions, the financial world, public authorities, national and local society, media, consumers. The stakeholders agree on a Vision Document, a Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda, that outlines the medium and long term needs of the industry for research and innovation to handle the main business, environmental and social challenges and in an, Implementation Action Plan, mobilizing human and financial resources.
The ETP "Food for Life", under the umbrella of the FoodDrinkEurope (Confederation of Agricultural and Food Industries of the EU), unifying different stakeholders of the innovation in the food sector with the representatives of actors of the agri-food sector (food businesses, animal husbandry and agro-chemical companies, industrial companies of transformation, national authorities and governments, representatives of industry distribution, service providers, consumer organizations, universities and research centres), aims to define the scenarios in the food industry from now to 2020 with projections to 2030.
The Vision Document of "Food for Life", presented in Brussels on 5 July 2005, identified seven strategic areas for strengthening the competitiveness of the food sector through research, technology and innovation: Food and Health, Quality and food preparation, Food and Consumer, Food Security, Sustainability of energy production, food supply chain management, Communications, Training and Technology Transfer.
On September 13, 2007 the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) of the ETP "Food for Life" was presented in Brussels, a dynamic document and innovative for the realization of the Vision Document. This document was revised recently by considering the new concept of the Horizon 2020 and the new Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA). It was presented on 20th September 2012 in Brussels. In October 2008 the Implementation Action Plan of the ETP “Food for Life” was presented, a detailed plan that describes the requirements in terms of research, training and dissemination necessary for the implementation of the Vision Document and Strategic Research Agenda.
The different DGs of the EU take the ETP Food for Life as a representative and authentic consultation partner. The Board and the secretariat of the ETP is systematically and regularly informed and consulted about the EU innovation policy related concepts, plans, proposals and the representatives of the ETP are invited to expert consultations on EU innovation policy issues.
National Technology Platforms are industry led initiatives unifying all stakeholders for a research programme, focused on serving the R+D needs of the industry through generating new knowledge and solutions, which can be implemented in innovation projects.
National (Food) Technology Platforms and networks of members of food industry federations include not only the Technology Pioneers and the Leading Technology Users, but
National food industry federations play an important role in managing the N(F)TPs and they use frequently the expert of providers assistance on research and technology, which are closely related to them.
Thematic clubs, associations (such as local food, slow food, etc,) are increasingly popular, in which policy makers can be involved as private persons. However the information circulated there may add new inputs to their knowledge and personal attitude.
Social networks (Linkedin, Twitter, Facebook, etc.) have a rapidly growing popularity, particularly at the young generation.
Policy makers participate in these networks as private persons. Effective communication through social networks requires a dedicated, full time person, who has a good understanding of the subject and authorised with a certain level of decision-making autonomy. An on-going presence should be maintained by this person, with regular news and actions several times a week and ability to react quickly, ideally within 4 hours. The status of recognition of these networks is currently controversial, since the information published there is not validated. However more and more professional organisations use these networks for raising awareness on new issues and results. The influence and impact of these social networks can’t be neglected.
Foresight studies
Technology foresight studies provide a specific framework for a dialogue between policy makers and various stakeholders of the innovation: Foresight studies are usually initiated and funded by the governments, who invite representatives of different stakeholder groups and experts from the society. Foresight covers activities aiming at
• thinking • debating,
• shaping the future. (CORDIS 2007) Thinking the future:
Forecasting, technology assessment, future studies and other forward looking exercises try to identify long term trends and thus to guide decision making. Foresight studies that emerged in the recent years mostly in Europe aims at identifying today’s research and innovation priorities on the basis of scenarios of future developments in science and technology, society and economy.
Debating the future:
Foresight is a participative process involving different stakeholders. This latter may include public authorities, industry, research organisations, non-governmental organisations, etc. The process can be organised at different levels: cross-national, national or regional. Open discussion between participants is encouraged, for example in the form of panels.
Shaping the future:
Foresight aims at identifying possible futures, imaging desirable futures and defining strategies. Results are generally led into public decision making (for example, which research priorities deserve public funding), but they also help participants themselves to develop or adjust their strategy.
During the Foresight activities a regular discussion is established between the policy makers and the representatives of the different stakeholders of innovation. This relationship can be maintained and developed for a further dialogue.
Case study: Foresight study in the agri-food sector in Serbia Defining users - Segmentation of policy makers by their needs
The first obvious user for a Foresight exercise is the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development (MESTD), but other stakeholders will also be interested in the outcomes. However, an outcome may be considered appropriate for one audience but inappropriate for another. Therefore, when starting to design the exercise it is vital to consider who else will be using the results and for what purpose. A clear understanding of potential users can help us to design the exercise in a way that maximizes the benefits from the outcomes.
The different focus of a Foresight exercise helps in defining the format of the desired outcome in relation to possible users. The table 1 illustrates possible users of the Foresight exercise in Agri-food sector in the Republic of Serbia for a variety of different focuses. The members of the user groups can help to define the outcomes being aimed for.
Table 1: Possible users of the Foresight exercise in the agri-food sector in the Republic of Serbia for a variety of different focuses
Foresight focus Social Issue Technological Issue
Sectoral Territorial vision
Potential Foresight users
Policy makers Policy makers Policy makers Policy makers Consumer Associations Universities Industry, Agriculture, … Territorial Associations Knowledge infrastructure Research organizations Chamber of Commerce Trade unions Industry SMEs
Resources to be mobilized in the exercise
Participants who can be involved into this exercise as experts are associations and bodies representing various sectors of society – networks, consumer/citizen groups, business associations, credit unions, chambers of commerce, leading personalities in the community
