Training materials for the Policy Research Centre, National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI), Lao PDR

1. Andrew Bartlett
Agricultural Policy Adviser, NUDP
Questioning Policy

2. A simple idea
We can improve the policy making
process by asking more
questions

3. 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?

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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’

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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?’

11. 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?’

12. 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

13. 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?

14.  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

15.  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?

16.  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?

17. 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…

18. Do we need farmers?

19. 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?

20. Where did all the trees go?

21. 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?

22. Do dams affect food supply?

23. 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?

24. Are there any positive cases?
Can we learn
from rubber?

25. 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?

26. 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

27. 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 &
 Consequently, there is no point is asking questions…
… either there is no answer
… or it has already been decided!

28. 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

29. 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

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

31. 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
but will they read this?
 If they don’t read it, how can they analyse it?

32. 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

33. 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

34. A simple conclusion…
Open policy making =
a breakthrough in thinking

35. Andrew Bartlett
Agricultural Policy Adviser, NUDP
Any Questions?