Key takeaways from the keynote speakers
- Projects often operate in isolation based on specific agendas and aggregate some “schools of thinking” along specific targeted topics and would benefit from enhanced coordination and mediation with actors dealing with related topics that can have an incidence on the objectives of the project.
- The transformative potential of projects builds on a trajectory of actions and outcomes that need to be constantly registered and shared as the narrative of the project. This narrative that builds the theory of change also serves the purpose of advocating about the project with policy makers, which is a lengthy and sometimes slow process, depending how close or far the project is from targeted policy makers.
- Closeness helps informal and almost to permanent feeding of information to policy makers. Some of them may become involved in the project. Where policy makers are more distant from the project, for instance at regional or continental levels, a structured strategy has to be put in place.
- Policy outcomes are often broader than thought and can encompass, inter alia, renewed policies including the signature or adherence to international commitments, the creation of intermediary bodies, changes in processes and management of governmental agencies.
- Policy outcomes often happen based on policy windows where substantial change can be decided or implemented. These policy windows appear at their own pace onto which projects have very limited control. At the level of projects this requires to always be ready to engage and provide substantial information for policy makers to make decisions. This information should consist of robust data and sometimes capacity building and involvement of policy makers into projects, to ensure their best assessment and ownership of outcomes.
- Projects constantly seek this connection and coordination with policy makers and their agendas are most often designed to be aligned with those of the countries. However, some countries loosely enforce the agendas to which they are committed therefore putting projects in the complex situation of being custodians of those – often international – commitments for which they have limited resources. Donor funding and vigilance however brings support to projects as funding is provided to meet certain objectives agreed upon with the countries.
- Continued funding also ensures continuity in the generation of outcomes with projects building on results of previous ones and maintaining their trajectory. This length of time helps policy decision making processes maturing and provides repeated opportunities for policy windows to appear, even in situations where initial limited policy interest has narrowed projects to data collection.
- Trade-offs sometimes mean to let go of planned approaches to ensure that projects stick to an environment which is by nature changing. Projects that ensure from the onset that their activities are chosen based on converging points between national and international agendas, co-designed with beneficiaries, and where policy or decision makers are embedded in the project, are in a better position to seize policy windows when they appear while having less difficulties and needs to adjust.
Discussion
- How much does the situation of your project resounds with these takeaways?
- Have some sort of tensions or misalignment occurred between the innovation agendas supported by your project in the context where they are implemented and broader innovation agendas ? What were the circumstances ?
- How have you managed to plan and develop strategies to help synchronize agendas, using project activities as drivers for collective action ?
The recordings and presentations of the Webinar are available on the dedicated page.