Knowledge and innovation management in the policy debate on biofuel sustainability in Mozambique: what roles for researchers?

Abstract

This paper explores the relationship between knowledge management (KM) and innovation management (IM) in policy processes. By describing and analysing the roles of researchers as knowledge and innovation managers in policy processes we also contribute to the debate on how researchers can enhance their effective contribution to policy processes. Empirical data for the paper were gathered between December 2008 and November 2010. During that period, two of this paper's authors conducted participatory action research whilst supporting the Mozambican inter-ministerial Subgroup Sustainability Criteria in developing a sustainability framework for biofuel production in Mozambique. We conclude that KM and IM are mutually reinforcing and inextricably bound: KM can provide the basis for engaging in IM activities or roles, which may -- consequently -- create an enabling environment for more effective KM in policy processes. The active embedding of researchers in policy processes an action-oriented research approach and systematic reflection can enable researchers to continuously determine what (combination of) KM and IM strategies or roles can enhance the actionability of research in, and the quality of the policy process. To do so successfully, a process-based research approach and strategic management of the boundary between research and policy are key.

Acknowledgements

This research is part of the strategic research programme ‘Sustainable spatial development of ecosystems, landscapes, seas and regions’ funded by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation (former Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Food Quality). The research also formed part of the ‘Competing Claims–Competing Models’ programme jointly funded by Wageningen University and Research Centre and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS).

The authors acknowledge the valuable contributions and support of CEPAGRI, members of the Mozambican Subgroup Sustainability Criteria, GTZ-ProBEC, and all the investors, farmers, extension workers, researchers, NGO representatives and policy-makers that collaborated with us and provided data and insights necessary for this study.

Notes

1.Van Buuren et al. (2004, p. 14) describe four KM strategies. We chose to combine ‘boundary work’ and making ‘timely and accurate connections between research process and policy negotiations’.

2.The innovation systems literature mainly refers to ‘innovation brokers’ (cf. Klerkx et al. 2009).

3.Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS), the Mozambican Centre for the Promotion of Agricultural Investment (CEPAGRI), which is part of the Mozambican Ministry of Agricultural (MINAG), and Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR).

4.National Council for Sustainable Development (CONDES), part of the Mozambican Ministry for Coordination of Environmental Affairs (MICOA).

5.‘We’ refers to the researcher from Wageningen University and a Technical Advisor from GTZ-ProBEC; the Programme for Basic Energy and Conservation (ProBEC) of the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) – http://www.probec.org. GTZ-ProBEC provided technical support to the SADC Energy Sector and SADC Biofuel Taskforce.

6.Woodhill (2004, p. 47) defines social learning as: ‘[B]ringing together different stakeholders (actors) who have an interest in a problem situation and engaging them in processes of dialogue and collective learning that can improve innovation, decision-making and action’.

7.We first compared frameworks by the Roundtable of Sustainable Biofuels (RSB), the EU policy framework for sustainable biomass production the Dutch Cramer Criteria and the UK's Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) (see: Schut et al. 2010a, p. 16). As the EU and RSB frameworks were in the process of being developed, we studied the policy proposal by the Counsel of the European Union (17086/08 of December 11, 2008), and Version Zero of the RSB. During a later phase in the research, we also studied biofuel sustainability frameworks developed by the Better Sugarcane Initiative (BSI), the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) and SADC.

8.This procedure links the processes for awarding land titles and approving investment proposals of large-scale commercial agricultural projects (Schut et al. 2010c, p. 5154).

9.The original terms of references stated that civil society organisations and the private sector would be part of the SSC. It is also important to notice that the NBPS stressed the government's intention to actively collaborate with civil society organisations and private sector in the development of biofuel sustainability criteria.

10.Note that the presentation at the SADC Biofuel Taskforce workshop took place in August 2010, shortly before the stakeholder consultation workshops in Nampula and Beira.