GUIDELINE TO ESTABLISH

Transcription

1 GUIDELINE TO ESTABLISH DIALOGUE WITH POLICY MAKERS Version 3.0 CAPINFOOD project Number of Work Package: Task: Deliverable Dissemination: WP Enhancing dialogue for improving governance Internal document Deliverable Due Date: Task leader: Contributing partners CBHU TETALAP, UB, FED Version Submission date Status Comments from final

2 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 András Sebők, Campden BRI Magyarország Nonprofit Kft.

3 Table of contents Executive Summary... 2 Introduction Process of establishing and maintaining dialogue with policy makershiba! A könyvjelző nem létezik. 2. Preparations for the dialogue Specific nature of activities of policy makers and their needs for input from non-governmental sources The policy cycle The learning curve of policy makers: Inputs for policy makers from non-government sources Segmentation of policy makers by their needs Establishing contacts with policy makers and building up trusted relationships with them Implementation of the dialogue with policy makers Formulation of the appropriate content and style of information, tools, strategies for policy makers Successful practices of communication with policy makers Channels and tools for dialogue with policy makers Channels of communication with policy makers Communication tools: Glossary References Annexes 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

4 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 nongovernmental 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. 2

5 Figure 1. Process of establishing and maintaining dialogue with policy makers 3

6 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; 4

7 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? 5

8 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 implementation,- rather than complete solutions. They prefer to receive expert 6

9 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 policymakers 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 7

10 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; inventories of successful cases; audio-visual tools; 8

11 press releases, press conferences; scientific journals, trade magazins newspapers; TV and radio interviews, reports, expert discussion, education programs. 9

12 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; 10

13 Figure 1. Process of establishing and maintaining dialogue with policy makers 11

14 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. 12

15 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 13

16 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 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. 14

17 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 15

18 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 16

19 it is expected that stakeholders of innovation should be consulted during the development and evaluation of alternatives 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? Figure 4: The learning process of policy makers through dialogue 17

20 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 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. 18

21 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 19

22 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 individuals or private organisations in themselves. 20

23 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? How will your information benefit the decision maker? 21

24 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; Expert opinions for all stages of formulation and implementation of policies and legislation; 22

25 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. 23

26 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 policymakers 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) 24

27 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) 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 25