nssds, a Guide To Key Issues
And Methods For Analysis:
A Prompt for Status Reviews and Dialogues.
DRAFT. 1 June 2000.
The first part of
this guide is a resource to assist lead organisations/teams, steering
committees, stakeholders and dialogue participants in identifying issues
for analysis and/or discussion during status reviews and dialogues.
It is presented in the form of a list of issues. But it is not
a blueprint or recipe that must be followed rigidly or in full. It aims
to provide a menu of important issues to be used as a prompt when lead
teams and steering committees design the particular approach and decide
the issues to be explored in individual countries.
Many of the suggested
issues arise from experience distilled from a wealth of past analyses
of strategy processes and have been shown to be critical factors in
good practice for nssds.
The second part
of this guide suggests methodologies for analysing the issues. These
have been tested in a range of countries by IIED and others and have
been shown to be effective tools in unpacking the factors which have
often underpinned effective strategies or which have impeded progress.
This guide should
be of assistance in “auditing” country contexts and in assessing the
extent to which nssd processes may already be taking place and whether
an enabling environment and capacity exists to develop and implement
an nssd process.
the text below, or click on these icons to view this document as an Acrobat
National Strategies for Sustainable Development
NATIONAL STRATEGIES FOR
A GUIDE TO KEY ISSUES AND METHODS FOR ANALYSIS
A Prompt for
Status Reviews and Dialogues
1 June 2000
to this guide
of key issues
of analysis of nssd
started and scope of analysis
the context of change
integrating institutions and initiatives
sustainable development processes
INTRODUCTION TO THIS GUIDE
The guide - a useful resource, not a blueprint
The first part of this guide
is a resource to assist lead organisations/teams, steering committees, stakeholders
and dialogue participants in identifying issues for analysis and/or discussion
during status reviews and dialogues. It is presented in the form of a list of
issues. But it is not a blueprint or recipe that must be followed rigidly or
in full. It aims to provide a menu of important issues to be used as a prompt
when lead teams and steering committees design the particular approach and decide
the issues to be explored in individual countries.
Many of the suggested issues
arise from experience distilled from a wealth of past analyses of strategy processes
and have been shown to be critical factors in good practice for nssds.
The second part of this
guide suggests methodologies for analysing the issues. These have been tested
in a range of countries by IIED and others and have been shown to be effective
tools in unpacking the factors which have often underpinned effective strategies
or which have impeded progress.
This guide should be of
assistance in "auditing" country contexts and in assessing the extent to which
nssd processes may already be taking place and whether an enabling environment
and capacity exists to develop and implement an nssd process.
A single guide
This single guide replaces
two draft topic guides prepared earlier in the project by the OECD DAC task
force on nssds. These contained separate lists of issues/questions as a possible
basis for consulting with in-country stakeholders during the status reviews
and dialogues. These topic guides were reviewed by participants attending the
First Planning Workshop in Arusha, Tanzania, in April 2000, and the Supplementary
First Planning Workshop in London in May 2000. A range of suggestions of additional
issues and for modification and restructuring were made and these are included
in the revised guide.
Many of the issues in this
new consolidated guide are related to process and methodology in developing
and implementing nssds, and information on these aspects will be important to
collate during the status reviews. Such information will be useful in preparation
for the second phase of the dialogues, to identify acceptable processes and
methodologies; key stakeholders and institutions; and the state of play of existing/planned
The significance of particular
issues is likely to be influenced by the stage that strategic processes have
reached in a country - some of the issues suggested will be more relevant to
process and design and others to implementation and impact. Lessons can be learnt
from all stages. The debate is likely to explore the extent to which appropriate
enabling environments exist but it is equally important that there exists commitment
and acceptable mechanisms to encourage wide consultation, participation and
representation in the process.
It should be stressed that
this guide can and should be adapted to the needs of individual countries as
appropriate, to provide a basis for a basis for debate and dialogue.
Status review phase(‘mapping’ what is going on: a first step)
The status review in each
country will be carried out by the in-country lead organisation/team. In summary,
the aim of the status review is to understand the following key issues:
Context - the political,
historical and administrative context of the country
Current situation of
the strategy(ies) - past and present strategy work in the country
Stakeholders - identifying
the real/key stakeholders and the extent to which they been involved in
the strategic processes, policy development and decision making.
Institutions and policy
processes - responsibilities for strategy implementation, institutional
relationships and existing integration. Decision making processes.
shared vision and investment - initial indicators of wider impact. Policy
provision for sustainable development.
Scope of review (which
strategies to focus on)
Through the course of the
discussions during the status review phase, key stakeholders, strategic processes,
institutions and key documents will need to be identified until a ‘map’ of the
country’s key nssd-related work is built up. As this map emerges, it will be
important to prioritise which strategies to focus on during further analysis
(it will be impossible to devote the same analytical effort to a lot of strategies)
and to consider how far back (in time) the search and analysis should reach.
It is probably worth undertaking a general sweep back over the last decade in
the first instance. As a rough guide;
If there is one clearly
dominant strategic planning process which initial review and discussions
indicate is by far the most important and has had great influence on development
in the country, then it would make sense to focus mainly on this (e.g. Vision
2020 in Ghana), but still to devote some effort to examining other processes
which it is felt will yield important lessons. It will probably be useful
to focus the analysis from a clear turning point or change of planning approach
which set this major strategic planning process on its current track (e.g.
a major shift in government policy, the establishment of a new cross-cutting
institution with influence and power).
If there are several
strategies which are seen as being of broadly similar importance and influence,
then it might be worthwhile covering all of these, at least at first, and
then selecting which one(s) to focus on (based on an assessment of importance,
influence and likelihood of deriving important and useful lessons).
During the initial assessment
of these past or current strategic planning processes, it will be important
to identify key cross-cutting issues which might be examined further during
the dialogues with stakeholders.
Each country lead organisation/team
will need to provide regular feedback to the country steering committee, and
present the findings of the status review to key stakeholders during the subsequent
dialogue phase. A report of the status review of the country’s nssd work should
be prepared (in English, French or Spanish – translations will be arranged by
IIED). This report should include recommendations for, or describe the approach
already initiated, for the dialogue, including stakeholders and institutions
to be involved, etc. IIED will liaise with each in-country lead team on the
emerging nature and structure of each dialogue and share this information with
the other countries.
This phase of the project
will help to limit the potential for duplication and also strengthen collaboration
with other donors. It will be important to design the review to cover private
sector initiatives, too, and not just government actions. This will help to
identify private sector stakeholders and initiatives and to bring them on board
at this early stage to strengthen the links between government and the private
1.4 Dialogue phase
In designing the project,
it was assumed that the dialogues would consist of a series of participatory
consultation exercises - the nature and format of which would be finalised during
the status review phase. The aim of these dialogues is to bring out lessons
learned from existing strategic processes and to identify areas of best practice
and common constraints/gaps. Individual countries will be responsible for determining
the nature and scope of the dialogue process, so the exact nature of these ‘forums’
will vary from country to country. However, they are likely to be a mix of workshops,
focus groups, roundtable exercises, discussions with individual key groups,
informal meetings, telephone consultations, and other participatory exercises.
To ensure that the output
of the dialogues can be co-ordinated into meaningful guidance, it is proposed
that the debates centre round a number of common areas. These can be summarised:
Process and participation
- Successful approaches (and why). What has not worked. What is acceptable.
Correlation between process and success.
Integration - extent to which issues have been addressed holistically. Institutional
capacity. Integration with national planning, policy development and decision
making processes. Legal frameworks.
Technical - extent
of knowledge and understanding of the state of resources, and the social
and cultural context. Monitoring progress.
Political and policy
commitment, and constituency. Policy changes. Shared visions and areas of
difference. Improved patterns of investment.
Role of donors - extent
of their involvement. What assistance and approaches have worked/not worked.
Different groups of stakeholders
may need to be involved at various points in the dialogue. The stakeholders
are likely to be representative of government, civil society and the private
sector. It may be necessary to pay particular attention to the participation
of vulnerable, poor, and minority groups, as well as ensure that participation
issues around gender and traditional authorities are not undermined.
The dialogues will be facilitated
and reported on by the lead organisations/teams. However a country may also
decide that different members of the steering committee participate in the consultation
exercises to take advantage of the opportunity it presents for feedback and
Preferably, the Steering
Committee should include a broad cross-section of representatives from government,
civil society and the private sector as well as donors. The Committee should
comprise individuals able to influence the strategy work within their organisations
and who are able to assume a role for the longer term donor-partner collaborations.
LIST OF KEY ISSUES
Some of the issues listed
below relate to general conditions in which strategic planning takes place (e.g.
context); others are concerned with particular aspects, parameters or consequences
of strategies. The singular and plural terms "strategy" and "strategies" are
Categories of issues
Issues are listed under
the following categories:
C. Integrating institutions and initiatives
Analysis and description
of the context within which strategies have been developed and implemented in
What is the historical,
political and administrative contexts in which particular strategies originated,
have been developed and implemented?
What development trends
and key factors have influenced change in the country (what are/have been
the dynamics of change)?
What is the regional
context (e.g. regional conflict, free trade areas, indigenous peoples) and
what is/has been its influence on national decision-making, policy-making
What is the nature of
the economy (e.g. state ownership, land tenure, major industries) and what
is its implications for social conditions?
What is the nature of
investment patterns within the country; and the parameters and paradigms
within which investment takes place?
What is the institutional,
technical and human capacity within the country?
What are the perceptions
of sustainable development amongst different stakeholders (and whether these
differ or have changed over time), their understanding of the concept and
What are the challenges
and priorities for development as perceived by different social groups and
players, and by people in different geographical areas
Political and institutional
What is the nature and
extent of political commitment to the objectives, processes, plans and budget
requirements of the strategy?
In what political forums has such commitment been given?
To what extent is the political commitment partisan or broad-based?
What are the sticking points?
What steering mechanisms
have been established and is what is the extent of consensus about them
To what extent has the
envisaged/planned strategy process been understood by all those involved,
and was it accepted?
What is the understanding
of institutions about their responsibilities for building on the strategy
(and other existing ones) and their consequent activities, for formulating
new strategies where relevant, for implementing them, and for monitoring
them? What rights, resources, capacity and effective relationships do
these institutions have to undertake this and are they sufficient?
How effective have the
institutions involved in strategy development and implementation been in
discharging the roles and responsibilities?
How effective is co-ordination:
- Between these institutions?
- Between strategic initiatives e.g. NCS, social action plans, etc.?
- Between these institutions and those central to planning and investment?
- Between institutions and donors?
How does the strategy
link to other national, local and regional strategies and how do such existing
strategies link into the planning and decision-making systems?
What are the linkages/overlaps/conflicts?
Are there any externally-supported strategic planning processes ongoing?
How do such processes relate to national processes?
What international and
cross-border issues and commitments have been considered?
How are these integrated in strategies
To what extent is there consistency and harmonisation in the way that different
strategies deal with such issues?
Effectiveness of regulations
What measures have been
included to ensure compliance with international agreements (e.g. covering
environmental issues, human rights, etc.)?
How have the opportunities presented by such agreements been maximised?
What measures have been
taken to increase public awareness of sustainable development and thus encourage
the development of consumer-driven or civil society-driven incentives?
What has been the success of any such measures?
Analysis and description
of the institutions, organisations, representative groups and individuals who
have been involved in developing and/or implementing strategies in the country,
i.e. who have been the main ‘drivers’ of sustainable development or who have
been resistant to it or omitted.
C INTEGRATING INSTITUTIONS AND INITIATIVES
Analysis and description
of the institutions in the country that are concerned with policy-making, planning,
and delivering development, and how these are evolving; and also of the initiatives
that provide useful links or fill institutional gaps.
Current situation (of
What formal or informal
strategies/planning processes have been undertaken, are underway or planned
(national/local). For each
- When these were initiated and by whom?
– What was the time perspective (& components)?
– What was the main focus and aims, and why?
- In what way was it implemented?
- How was the process was monitored?
- What were the links to the global conventions (biodiversity, climate change,
If there is more than
one strategy focusing on sustainable development, then why ?
What proportion of the
implementation costs of strategies has been met from government’s recurrent
budget and what from donor funds ?
What are the opportunities
for complementarity of strategies and integration between them?
What are the links to Structural Adjustment Programmes, Comprehensive Development
Frameworks, Poverty Reduction Strategies and other initiatives
Were these planning processes completed?
Were there any binding agreements?
Roles, responsibilities and monitoring
What institutions were/are
involved in the process of strategy development and implementation (governmental,
non-governmental, private sector, etc., and including local/informal institutions)?
What other institutions
should have been included and which were not included that are relevant
to sustainable development?
What was the effectiveness
of different institutions in relation to their roles and responsibilities
regarding development and implementation of the strategy?
In what ways have different
institutions worked with each other and with partners in development (e.g.
Who was responsible
for strategy implementation and management?
How is progress being
What are the mechanisms for monitoring relevant indicators for results and
impact? What have mechanisms been introduced or improved?
What use is made of the results of monitoring?
Have any indicators
been developed or used?
Who established these?
What relevance do they have for civil society?
To what extent are the clear/user-friendly or abstract, and how has this aided
or impeded the participation of people?
Analysis and description
of the processes that are helping to carry the country towards sustainable development
Access to information
Quality of analysis
How adequate is the
information base and it quality for developing effective strategies? Are
there any variations in availability and quality of different information
What are the perceptions
of different stakeholder groups about the state of resources, trends in
their quality and quantity, and the pressures upon them? Is there convergence
or divergence in these views, and do groups have any visions for the future
of the natural resource base?
Nssd process management and effectiveness of capacity
From what perspective
has the process been driven (environmental, economic, interdisciplinary,
To what extent has there
been transparency in the management of the strategy (how has this been ensured
What good management
practices been employed in developing and implementing the strategy?
How effective and efficient were these?
To what extent is capacity
being efficiently and equitably utilised, and improved, to:
- Develop strategies with strong local ownership?
- Co-ordinate existing sectoral or issues-based strategies to improve their
efficiency in achieving sd?
- Encourage institutions to make their responses to relevant strategies?
- Implement strategy-related activities, in a way which is consistent with
strategy goals ?
- Monitor the impact of strategic processes and activities?
- Maintain the ‘big picture’ of strategy evolution?
- Review and ensure continuous improvement of the strategy?
To what extent was the
strategy process, as designed, an adequate/optimal vehicle to assure stakeholder
What approaches/ forums
have been used to engage stakeholders and how suitable were these to them?
What is their potential, constraints, limitations and alternatives?
Were stakeholders convinced
that it was worthwhile committing to engage in the process?
To what extent is there
continuing identification and participation of concerned stakeholders -
including government, elected bodies (e.g. parliamentarians), civil society
and market players at different levels, and representatives of global environmental
interests - in strategy preparation, planning, implementation, monitoring
To what extent does
representation meet acceptable criteria of identity-with-group and accountability-to-group?
What role did public
awareness campaigns have in encouraging stakeholder involvement in the process
and how has the process strengthened people’s participation in, and influence
over, the decision making process?
Quality of policies and
What clear policies,
plans, principles, standards and/or targets have been derived
from the strategy, and in formats which can best elicit positive responses
from those various institutions (government, market and civil society) which
are supposed to implement the strategy?
What systems are there
for defining priorities in environmental, economic and social terms, so
as to keep the number of strategy objectives (at any one time) manageable?
To what extent are these systems compatible with those for analysis and participation?
To what extent have
opportunities for win-win activities supporting poverty alleviation,
economic growth and environmental conservation been well-defined with those
institutions best placed to act on them? For example, have conservation
and poverty alleviation strategies been brought together?
What systems have been
established for addressing the hard trade-offs - identifying them, debating
them, planning action or compensating for the costs of inaction?
What links are there
between strategies and existing donor-supported programmes and with investment
What early and tactical
implementation of promising initiatives has been undertaken (which will
both help build support for the strategy process and test its principles
What is the transition
plan or tactics to get from the current situation to the situation envisaged
in the strategy?
What role(s) have donors
played in the development and implementation of the strategies, e.g.. providing
funds for the process, technical support for strategy development and./or
implementation?; and was their role useful?
Was donor involvement
connected to any conditionalities (i.e for the agreement/release of funding)?
How can donor involvement
be made more effective?
IMPACTS OF STRATEGY
Analysis and description
of changes that have been the result of the development or implementation of
strategies or have been induced by them.
What areas do stakeholders
believe are being influenced - positively or negatively - by the strategy/strategies?
- Ecological processes
- Resource quantity/productivity
- Economic efficiency
- Poverty and inequity
- Human resource development/capacity
- Human health
- Local culture
- Indigenous communities
- Vulnerable groups
- Gender issues
- Rural livelihoods
METHODS OF ANALYSIS OF NSSDs
This section is based on
a presentation by Stephen Bass of IIED on analysing nssds made at the First
Planning Workshop in Arusha (April 2000) and Supplementary First Planning Workshop
in London (May 2000). The presentation was based on IIED’s experience of participatory
policy analysis in many countries, and specifically on approaches tested in
the 1999-2000 review of Pakistan’s NCS.
Analysis of past and current
strategies can be used for various purposes, e.g.:
To audit process(es),
performance and outcomes to provide a basis for review, learning, monitoring
To inform the better
design of future (next generation) strategies;
For comparison between
strategies and with experience elsewhere;
To provide baseline
information for future reviews; and
To identify key issues
for debate amongst stakeholders.
The methods/approaches described
in this section can be used, as appropriate, during the status reviews and/or
dialogues. Lead organisations/teams will be able to select those methods most
appropriate to their needs.
Some principles for analysis
Experience shows that strategy
analysis is most effective if:
It is undertaken in
a participatory manner – to encourage wide ownership and to obtain information
that might otherwise remain ‘hidden’;
by an independent body might be more acceptable, in initial stages or where
there are areas of contention;
It looks both backwards
(at what has happened to see what has worked well and less well and why)
and forwards (to identify how current and future nssd approaches can be
It builds on existing
information and experiences;
It focuses on processes
and impacts as well as inputs/outputs;
Analyses are commissioned
or agreed/endorsed at the highest level (i.e. by key government ministries)
– to ensure that the results are agreed to be needed, are anticipated and
are likely to be used;
A Steering Committee
is involved in agreeing the scope of analysis and in overseeing the process
so as to ensure inputs are obtained from a broad range of perspectives and
the results are verified;
There is a secretariat
or coordinating team to coordinate the process (but not necessarily to undertake
3.2 Framework for analyses
It has been found useful
to organise the analysis of nssds according to five important themes: context,
actors, integrating institutions and initiatives, processes, and impacts of
strategies. Table 3.1 suggests some of the issues/aspects which could be examined
under these themes. Many of the categories and key issues listed in the section
2 can be related to these themes and can be drawn upon in customising a framework
for analysis and debate in individual countries.
Table 3.1: Analytical
INTEGRATING INSTITUTIONS & INITIATIVES
- Economic/ market
- Civil society
Their motivation, powers, and capability for sustainable
- Cross-sector initiatives e.g. Nssd, PRSP, CDF – national
- Coordination mechanisms
- Capacity- building
Analysing and debating issues
under these five themes will be important during both the status reviews and
dialogues. However, analysis of the context, actors and integrating institutions
and initiatives will be particularly key elements of the status review
and best undertaken by the lead team (or by consultants) through literature
review, research, and interviews with key informants and institutions that have
been involved in the development and/or implementation of strategies and other
By comparison, analysing/assessing
the processes and strategy impacts will be particularly key aspects of the dialogues
with stakeholders during meetings, group sessions and workshops/seminars.
The impacts of nssds are
most likely to result from the processes employed in their development and implementation.
Table 3.2 illustrates how assessments of impacts might be integrated with assessments
of processes. In some instances, a ‘process’ assessment might be the most practical
– the issue then is to ensure some thought is given to the emerging or potential
impacts of those processes. In other instances, stakeholders might point to
significant on-the-ground impacts. The issue then is to think through which
processes were key in leading up to those impacts, and whether those impacts
were connected to any strategy.
Thus, it is important to
note that this table is shown for illustrative purposes only - it is not intended
to suggest that such a rigid matrix should be employed and completed in a ritualistic
way. Rather, it provides a framework for organising the compilation of nssd
Table 3.2: Linking
Impacts with Processes
Ecological processes protected
Environmental health improved
Economic efficiency improved
Getting started and scope of analysis
The choice of how to proceed
will be determined by the existence/absence of strategies (whatever their nature,
nssd, conservation strategy, environmental action plan, PRSP, etc) and for how
long they have been in existence.
Where a strategy or several
If the strategy is recent,
it may be best to focus on the actors involved and the quality of
the processes being followed to bring actors together (‘policy communities’)
to move towards sustainable development. It may be too soon to assess any
If a strategy is many
years old, then it will be possible to also assess the impacts, changes
in the context and if integration has improved.
Where there is no distinct
strategy, or if existing strategies are defunct, ignored or were never implemented:
3.4 Assessing Context and Impact
This will help to explore
the dynamics that determine the ability of a strategy to induce or respond to
change. Various approaches can be followed:
Review of existing
information – to be found in a range of documents and sources such
as state of environment reports, in databases, policy/programme reviews,
participatory assessments, etc.
Focus group discussions,
e.g. 1-day meetings with interest groups such as government departments,
business owners, investors, community groups, NGOs, donors (in sample geographical
areas) to discuss such issues as:
- changes in popularity of or support for sustainable development policies
- major trends such as globalisation, decentralisation, regional affairs,
etc, that may be new or more significant since the strategy was formulated.
- examples of success in the transition to sustainable development, i.e. impacts
- examples in which changed approaches key to sustainable development have
integrated into mainstream decision-making (e.g. environment issues
taken into account in key economic decision-making; more participatory planning)
- the initiatives and processes which led to such successes and ‘mainstreaming’
[Note: such examples will help to develop indicators of sustainable development,
because they will reveal the kinds of things which stakeholders have been
monitoring – directly or indirectly – in relation to changes they believe
This will reveal who are
the main ‘drivers’ of sustainable development, who is resistant to change, who
has been left out of strategy processes that could make a useful contribution,
etc. We need to be able to assess whether the strategy is still in a ‘supply-push’
phase or if it is dealing with stakeholder ‘demand pull’. Methods include:
analysis (see Box 3.1)can provide important information on:
- the motivations and interests of actors
– the means they use to secure their interests (e.g. rights, responsibilities,
- the pressures on them to change and the constraints to making changes (e.g.
Power analysis –
involves ‘mapping’ the influenceof stakeholders in making decisions
about the nssd (and sustainable development more generally). Power analysis
is best started and completed within focus groups with the details provided
Figure 3.1 provides an
example of power analysis for forestry policy in Pakistan; noting which groups
have the closest influence on policy decisions, and their roles in this.
Box 3.1: Nssd stakeholder analysis
Stakeholder analysis involves the identification of the
key stakeholders in the development and/or implementation of a strategy,
an assessment of their interests, and the ways in which these interests
affect the riskiness and viability of the strategy. The stakeholders
are the persons, groups or institutions with interests in a project or
– in the case of strategies – processes.
Primary stakeholders are those ultimately likely
to be affected, either positively (beneficiaries) or negatively (e.g.
those involuntarily resettled). They can be categorised according to gender,
social or income classes, occupational or service use groups, and these
categories may overlap in many activities (e.g. minor forest users and
Secondary stakeholders are the intermediaries in
the process (e.g. funding, implementing, monitoring and advocacy organisations,
NGOs, private sector organisations, politicians, local leaders). Also
included are groups often marginalised from decision-making processes
(e.g. the old and the poor, women, children, and itinerant groups such
as pastoralists) – some of these may also be considered as primary stakeholders.
Some key individuals will have personal interests as well as formal institutional
objectives (e.g. heads of departments or agencies). There may be some
people who fall into both categories, as when civil servants try to acquire
land in a new scheme.
Stakeholder analysis, undertaken at the beginning of a
process or activity can help to:
There are several steps in stakeholder analysis. They might
begin as a desk exercise, but should open out to include participatory approaches:
- Draw out, at an early stage, the interests of stakeholders
in relation to problems/issues which the process or activity is seeking
- Identify conflicts of interests (actual or potential)
between stakeholders which will influence the riskiness of the initiative
before efforts (or funds) are committed;
- Identify relations between stakeholders which can be
built upon, and may enable coalitions of sponsorship, ownership and
- Assess the appropriate type of participation by different
stakeholders and the role(s) each might play, at successive stages of
the development and implementation of an initiative.
- Drawing up a stakeholder table – listing the stakeholders
(primary and secondary) and identifying their interests (overt and hidden).
Each stakeholder may have several interests - in relation to the problems
being addressed by the project or process.;
- Developing a matrix to ‘map’ each stakeholder’s
importance to the success of the process and their relative power/influence
(see Figure 3.5) and indicating what priority should be given to meeting
- Identifying risks and assumptions which will affect
the design and success of any actions, e.g. what is the assumed role
or response of key stakeholders if a policy, plan or project is to be
successful?, Are these roles plausible and realistic? What negative
responses might be expected given the interests of particular stakeholders?
How probable are they, and what impact would these have on the activity?
- Identifying appropriate stakeholder participation,
e.g. partnership in the case of stakeholders with high importance and
influence, consult or inform those with high influence but with low
Figure 3.1: Power
analysis: influence of forest policy in Pakistan
Assessing integrating institutions and initiatives
This will help provide information
on the ‘institutional landscape’ in the country and how it is evolving. It will
also indicate which initiatives form useful links and fill institutional gaps.
Figure 3.2: Institutional map of entities involved in
the Pakistan NCS
(click on the image
view a full-size version in Acrobat PDF format)
Assessing sustainable development processes
The following methods (Table
3.1) can help to assess the quality and extent of processes leading to sustainable
development. Assessors must be open to the variety of sources of such processes.
For example, whilst an nssd might have a formal communications programme, changes
in awareness about sustainable development might actually result from other
processes such as participation in meetings, or from formal communications programmes
that are not connected to the strategy. However, there will always be
a problem of establishing links between specific processes and impacts: hence
the need to consult with many people to build up the picture, and to assess
broad changes over time.
Table 3.1: Methods for
assessing sustainable development processes
with the public, to assess changing awareness of SD issues; review media/curricula
for SD contents; interviews on influence of Nssd documents/activities
Participation in sustainable
development debate and action
sample interviews on changes in representation, transparency, accountability,
political commitment – ask ‘whose strategy is it?’ to ascertain ‘ownership’
Analyse shifts in
decisions of key bodies during the strategy period
Investment in sustainable
plans, allocations & disbursement; interview business sector people
on spontaneous investment
Analyse recent policies
and programmes for sustainable development indicators, and coherence between
them, and how this has changed over time.
Interview on quality
of Nssd process management – its coherence, pacing, adaptability, etc
Interviews on changes
in attitude and skills connected to training/technology
Information and learning
Assess policy, planning,
management and monitoring ssystems used by key bodies for evidence of
changing demand/use of information/indicators; quality and regularity