England, in post-Brexit mode, has taken a bold step in assessing the practicalities of co-design for broad policy change. However, national policy making systems are not structured for such a democratic process. Consequently, co-designing policy is a new challenge for the civil service. So this study of co-design for Environmental Land Management schemes is an important policy step forward.
Analysis revealed a mismatch between the principles and practices of environmental land management and co-design.
Policy co-design requires changes in government institutional cultures and practices.
This example of co-design processes is both broad and complex. The policy is about phasing out direct payments made to farmers and land managers. It’s also about creating a different system that aligns with other policy goals such as zero carbon emissions.
The Government’s co-design policy puts the responsibility on policy makers to be open to new ideas and ways of working. However, open policy making across the public services is not well defined. It seems the concept of open policy making has failed its commitment to less powerful groups. Indeed, it has given rise to involving the private sector elite experts.
Some of this failure is due to budget cuts across the public sector. Experienced staff were lost and then replaced with “experts”. Consequently, staff prefer the old consultation methods which are quicker and cheaper to run. Co-design methods, when done well, take more time and resources.
Three of the key challenges were:
- lack of shared decision making in empowering stakeholders
- confidentiality requirements causing barriers
- insufficient transparency in how stakeholder views were used, or not
Co-design for long term objectives
This important study highlights the need for ongoing commitment to long term policy development using co-design methods. It also highlights the importance of co-design for longer term objectives that need culture change to be effective. Without culture change the sustainability of the scheme or policy will be compromised.
The title of the paper is, Ideals and practicalities of policy co-design – Developing England’s post-Brexit Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes. This is a significant piece of research with many lessons for policy makers and others involved in co-design processes. It goes beyond the co-design methods for individual projects, to broad-based policy aimed at long term outcomes and culture change.
Future of co-designing policy change
To enhance co-design methodologies the focus should be on refining and expanding them to ensure applicability across diverse policy domains. The role of emerging technologies could offer some assistance in different ways to facilitate co-design methods. The complexities of power dynamics and their impact on policy outcomes is another important factor to consider.
“This could be more achievable if policy-makers prioritize capacity building among stakeholders to facilitate their active participation in co-design processes. Providing training and resources to community members, especially those from underrepresented groups, will empower them to contribute meaningfully to policy development.”
From the abstract
There are few examples of where co-design has been applied to active policy development on a large scale. England’s post-Brexit Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes offers a fascinating ‘laboratory’ to analyse how co-design at this scale works in practice.
This paper offers the first in-depth empirical assessment of the process from the perspectives of both the policy makers and stakeholders. We provide critical insights on ‘pragmatic’ applications of co-design to active policy development. We reflect on what this tells us about the wider processes of policy development that may need to change. That is, if we want to accommodate this more ‘democratic’ approach.
Our analysis identified key barriers to co-design and revealed a mismatch between the principles and practices of ‘co-design’ in the initial development of ELM.
Challenges were: 1. A lack of shared decision-making and empowering stakeholders to contribute to problem-definitions. 2. Confidentiality requirements that introduced barriers to information-sharing. 3. Insufficient transparency and feedback on what happened to stakeholder’s contributions in terms of policy development. 4. An absence of detail on the schemes, including proposed approaches, payment rates, advice, baseline measures, the kinds of ‘outcomes’ expected, and monitoring mechanisms. 5. A repetition of themes that participants had already discussed.
Many of these mismatches may be common to other policy arenas. We argue that improved application of policy co-design in government will rely on wider changes to political processes and the institutional culture and practices within the civil service.