As 2015 comes to its conclusion, the world is engaged in a battle for sustainability, but what political headway is being made in the field?
Editor’s Note: Steps Toward Green, recently published by EcoAgriculture Partners and the World Bank, discussed pathways for improving agri-environmental policy in East and Southeast Asia. Among the recommendations was for policymakers to invest in improved connections between agriculture and environmental research institutions and government agencies and programs. As intuitive as the suggestion sounds, in practice it is often difficult to accomplish. Based on her recent work with CGIAR, graduate student Amanda Grossi reflects on the various organizational challenges that hinder the integration of research, policy and action in development.
How can research be translated into actionable programs with beneficial impact on communities? A world assessment explores how research, policy, and action can work hand-in-hand to facilitate collaborative planning, as shown here in a Tanzanian village. Photo sourced from the ICRAF Flickr account, taken by Miika Makela.
Climate change, clean energy development, freshwater shortages, gender inequality, and extreme poverty are just a few challenges continuing to plague the front lines, but which also represent opportunities waiting to be seized. A victory against these obstacles will require carefully crafted, evidence-based, and informed decisions, as well as research institutions around the globe generating knowledge to support these efforts. However, in the fight for sustainable solutions, the question remains of whether we are truly mobilizing all of our resources to the fullest toward this end.
Theoretically, research guides policy and action, but how much of this specialized information is actually applied?
In a recent global assessment carried out of the outreach partners of the CGIAR program on Forests, Trees, and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA) this summer at the World Agroforestry Center’s headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, over one fourth (26%) of the participants discussed a gap either between research and policy or between policy and action as it manifests on the ground. These participants included representatives from a range of acting bodies, including: non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private businesses, global alliances and partnerships, government entities, a research and policy institution, and an intergovernmental organization (IGO).
Research centers provide a knowledge base for policy and action, but how much of that information is truly being applied in sustainability projects? Photo sourced from the EcoAgriculture Partners Flickr account.
Accounting for the gap between research and policy, some of the partners identified poor communication as a central problem. In particular, translating research findings into a language that is comprehensible and accessible to policymakers and decision-makers, especially for the articulation of national policy agendas, was pinpointed as a core issue. Additionally, some of the partners accounted for the divide between research and policy stemming from a lack of advocacy. There was a perception that while research centers (such as those in the CRP-FTA) excel at giving recommendations, the recommendations are not actively promoted to governments or decision-makers.
The evidence suggests that we are not, in fact, truly mobilizing the resources available to us as effectively as we could in achieving sustainable solutions.
The latter perception of poor advocacy on the part of research centers is of particular interest in that that the problem was identified so widely among participants of the assessment. The finding demonstrates that the research-policy-action gap is a significant problem that persists in afflicting the efficacy of development work, and that there is an opportunity to fill that gap waiting to be seized. In other words, the evidence suggests that we are not, in fact, truly mobilizing the resources available to us as effectively as we could in achieving sustainable solutions.
Research Centers are pillars of objective knowledge, but at their core are values that can be politically driven
But why is there a dearth of advocacy promoting and translating good research into good policies? Perhaps, engaging in advocacy directly risks entry into a political realm that may compromise the perceived neutrality and independence of research centers.
But are research institutions not already political in a way? Their agendas, while driven by assessments such as that of the FTA of partner needs, are also funded by donors who have their own agendas. And their walls are filled with people who have ideas and beliefs of their own.
We tend to think of institutions as things rather than people. While institutions may be housed in buildings and guided by rules and principles, their ultimate building blocks are value-driven people. Photo provided by EcoAgriculture Partners.
We tend to think of institutions as things rather than people—buildings without feeling, or abstract things with their own rules and energy. While institutions may be housed in buildings and guided by rules and principles, their ultimate building blocks are value-driven people. If the parts of the whole are motivated by convictions, then how can the whole, or institution, not be a reflection of these various ethical components? Instead of denying the subjectivity inherent in their walls, we might consider embracing it.
What if research centers engaged in activism to promote good recommendations to governments, businesses, and policymakers? Given the power and respect commanded by many research institutions around the globe, including those of the CGIAR, it seems to be a logical next step. One might even go as far as to suggest that is the responsibility of research centers to follow up on the actualization of evidence-based practices.
They say ‘Knowledge is Power,’ but how can research work within political spheres without compromising the integrity of information?
Yet, there is fear that such engagement would corrode the impartiality from which the power of such research institutions derives, and there are consequently elements of reluctance and paralysis when it comes to exhibiting strong advocacy. So the question is begged of what can be done to facilitate the transition from research to evidence-based policies that compel action on the ground.
The Peru Ministry of Environment and the World Agroforestry Centre entered an agreement to collaborate in climate change mitigation. This is an example of research centers working with government to apply research on the ground. Photo courtesy of World Agroforestry Centre on Flickr.
One possible solution is that research institutions might consider establishing and strengthening partnerships with organizations reputed with strong advocacy skills and in ideological line with their priorities. By engaging in advocacy through partnerships, rather than directly, research institutions can be one degree removed from politically-charged processes and maintain their academic integrity. For instance, fostering stronger collaborations with outreach partners in Flagship Project 5 such as the International Land Coalition, a global alliance incorporating many organizations (including those of civil society), could provide research institutions with much needed muscle to mobilize people and institutions toward equal land tenure for women as well as make headway on a range of other land-related issues, including agricultural development.
Institutionalizing knowledge by binding the links of the research-policy-action chain
The battle for sustainable solutions wages on in 2015, and the world continues to confront urgent problems. Research institutions have a responsibility to promote their achievement by facilitating the application of their knowledge base on the ground, either via their own channels or through the the mobilization of new and strengthened partnerships with advocacy-oriented groups. The ability to fortify the linkages along the research-policy-action chain represents a sleeping giant with the potential to make big changes and pushes toward sustainable development sooner rather than later.
Read More
FTA Needs Assessment Executive Summary
From the blog: New research finds lessons for policy action around Green Growth
Amanda Grossi is a Masters student with the School of International and Public Affairs of Columbia University. For her degree in Public Administration in Development Practice, she worked with the World Agroforestry Center in Nairobi, Kenya to assist in the development of Phase II of the CGIAR Program on Forests, Trees, and Agroforestry via a knowledge needs assessment of its outreach partners. Her academic and professional interest in food security, nutrition and rural development was fostered during her time with the Peace Corps, where she served as an agroforestry extension agent in Senegal.
Charles
October 7, 2015 at 2:14amNice piece! Comprehensive and into the point. Keep it up with the great work and sure u will be doing your ‘little thing’ to making the world a better place! And talking of activism you have Wangari Maathai among others to review on that aspect! Am sure you enjoyed running in Karura Forest while in Nairobi, tell you what its from her activism that Karura is there without her activism those trees would be sky scrappers.