Andrew BartlettAgricultural Policy Adviser, NUDP

Questioning Policy

A simple idea

We can improve the policy makingprocess by asking more

questions

Structure of this presentation Background about NUDP A breakthough in thinking Does policy matter? How is policy made? Questions we are afraid to ask Barriers to critical thinking How can we do a better job?

Background The Northern Upland Development Programme is

now operational, supported by 4 donor agencies NUDP has a component called ‘Strengthening

Government Agency Policy Making and Capitalization Capacity’

The Agricultural Policy Adviser started work in October this year

The framework proposed by the Adviser is based on the ‘4 breakthroughs’ announced at the 9th Party Congress

A breakthrough in policy making

A breakthrough in management of policy making

A breakthrough in human resources for policy making

A breakthrough in prioritizing poverty in policy

making

A breakthrough in thinking about

policy

The biggest challenge is…

… a breakthrough in thinking Asking questions is the key to achieving this

breakthrough Questioning has been used to improve thinking

throughout human history … … from the Socratic Method and the Kalama Sutta to Empirical Science and Marxist Dialectic This process is known as ‘critical thinking’

Critical thinking The word ‘critical’ has more than one meaning in

the English language… expressing disapproval Involving an objective analysis

It is the second meaning that we are talking about

let’s start now!

Does policy matter? It can be argued that government policy is no

longer a ‘driver of change’ Public research and extension has less influence

on agric development than regional economic integration, labour migration, and new channels of communication

The markets for maize, sugar, cassava and other commodities depend on decisions taken in Washington, Brussels and Beijing

Does policy matter? Nevertheless, the Government of Laos continues

to play a role in regulating change Policy allows some things to happen… … and blocks other things But is policy research focusing on the right

things? Macro-level policies have the biggest impact on

change processes Yet a lot of policy research focuses on the micro-

level

Levels of policy Visionary level

Eradicating poverty Achieving 8% growth Increasing forest cover Modernizing production

The key question at this level is ‘What are the goals we want to achieve?’

Levels of policy Strategic level

Granting land concessions Eradicating shifting cultivation Resettlement of villages Controlling market structures

The key question at this level is ‘How are we going to achieve our goals?’

Levels of policy Technical level level

Promoting specific crops or technologies Re-organising government structures Establishing khumban technical service centres Setting up production and marketing groups

The key question at this level is ‘Who cares? Most of these issues are inward looking They are about the functioning of MAF and

development projects, but have little or no impact on the lives of the majority of farmers

Are we stuck in the middle?

We spend a lot of time studying technical issues that interest ourselves

Are we doing enough to help policy makers at the strategic level?

Are we doing enough to provide farmers with practical options?

Perhaps we could do a better job if we understood the policy-making process

It’s a mystery to most foreigners

How is policy made?

But here are two hypotheses: Firstly, a lot of de facto policy

is made at the Provincial level

Here, visionary policy is not simply implemented, it is interpreted and adapted Consequently, policy at the strategic level is a contest between national goals and local interests

Secondly, there is a lot of reactive (rather than proactive) policy making

Leaders encounter a problem, or see something they like, and make a decision

Eg. promoting TSCs or adopting SRI Basing policy decisions on real-world problems

and models is a good idea… … providing these decisions are not impulsive or autocratic Ideally, these reactions should be treated as

proposals, as suggestions, as opinions

How is policy made?

Policy proposals need to be studied, tested, evaluated

The costs and benefits need to be calculated, and comparisons made with alternatives

In other words, proposals need to be the subject of critical thinking

But too often we find officials who are trying to implement something without knowing if it is possible or useful

Sometimes they don’t even understand what their boss wants, but they still try to do something

This is why we need a breakthrough!

How is policy made?

Questions we are afraid to ask

The bigger and bolder the question, the more likely we are to achieve a breakthrough in thinking

But are there some questions we are afraid to ask?

Like the following…

Do we need farmers?

Do we need farmers? There are now 2,135 land concessions covering

1.6 million ha. These concessions are creating a new class of

rural workers in Laos. They don’t make any decisions, they simply provide labour in return for cash

They work on plantations, or they work in factories, in Laos or Thailand

In Marxist terms we can call them ‘wage slaves’ Is this an acceptable and inevitable cost of

modernization? of turning land into capital? of economic growth?

Does agriculture need farmers or labourers?

Where did all the trees go?

Where did all the trees go? The target for forest cover continues to be 70%,

last achieved 50 years ago Despite all the good work of the Forestry

Department, most of us know that…. … the target is not realistic But are we allowed to say that? Can we openly discuss the role of corrupt officials

rather than continuing to blame swidden farmers? Can we discuss those reports that say the

Vietnamese military is involved in illegal logging?

Do dams affect food supply?

Do dams affect food supply? The ‘Battery of ASEAN’ is a visionary policy. More

than 70 dams are planned There have already been negative impacts on rice

and fish, two basic foods for Lao people Is it possible to carry out an objective analysis of

the trade-offs between hydropower and agriculture?

Is a win-win situation a practical reality or mere propaganda?

Questions have already been asked by CSOs at the Agric Sector Meeting this month

Is MAF ready to respond?

Are there any positive cases?

Can we learn from rubber?

Can we learn from rubber? The rubber boom began in 2003 and 2004 Important studies were completed in 2005 (Alton

et al), 2006 (Manivong & Cramb), 2007 (NAFRI) and 2008 (Weiyi Shi)

Is is now accepted that there are negative social and environmental impacts from rubber plantations

In May this year, MAF announced a cap of 300,000 ha for rubber, and the new sector strategy focuses on smallholders rather than large concessions

This is good news, but could we have reached these conclusions a bit earlier?

Barriers to critical thinking

Whatever, it is characteristic of traditional and authoritarian regimes, where questioning policy is seen as criticism of the Church/King/Party/Dear Leader

The ‘myth of infallibility’ is one of the things that sustains these regimes

Some might say there is a cultural barrier, a respect for authority

Others might say the barrier is fear of the consequences

Barriers to critical thinking As a result, many Govt officials have learned to

avoid having a clear

opinion Or, alternatively, they view things in

BLACK &WHITE Consequently, there is no point is asking

questions… … either there is no answer … or it has already been decided!

How can we do a better job? Firstly, those in power must show their

subordinates that it is safe to ask questions Critical thinking should be

rewarded, not punished Without this change, there

will be no breakthrough

How can we do a better job? Secondly, if de facto policy is created through

interpretation of goals at the Provincial level, we need to engage with the contestants in the field

The learning alliance facilitated by SADU is a good example, bringing together a wide range of stakeholders within a province to discuss tricky issues like market regulations

EMRIP has made similar achievements working with rice millers and farmer groups in the south

What matters at the end of the day is not how policy is written, but how it is understood

How can we do a better job? Thirdly, development projects and programmes

should create spaces where critical thinking is not only permitted, but also encouraged

Eg. change the way we organise meetingsthese people are asking questions are these?

And we could make greater use of web 2.0 eg. blogs, discussion groups and other social media

How can we do a better job? Fourthly, we need to produce materials that are

stimulating not soporific Shorter reports, policy briefs, fact sheets… with

bullet points, pictures, fact boxes and info-graphics

people will read this but will they read this?

If they don’t read it, how can they analyse it?

How can we do a better job? Fifthly, we need to promote analytical concepts

and techniques that will help people to think in

colour Concepts and techniques that help people

understand different perspectives, alternatives, options, choices

Scenarios Force-fields Narratives Trade-offs

Uncertainty Values

A simple conclusion… Policy making should be more ’open’ Open has more than one meaning:

Accessible (i.e. participatory and transparent) Candid (i.e. honest and forthright)

We need both

Open policy-making involves asking questions Open policy-making involves critical thinking

A simple conclusion…

Open policy making = a breakthrough in thinking

Andrew BartlettAgricultural Policy Adviser, NUDP

Any Questions?