CONTRIBUTION OF THE FOR-LEARN PROJECT TO THE STUDY

Transcription

1 CONTRIBUTION OF THE FOR-LEARN PROJECT TO THE STUDY OF FORESIGHT IMPACT ON POLICY-MAKING Olivier Da Costa, Philine Warnke, Fabiana Scapolo, Cristiano Cagnin Institute for Prospective and Technological Studies Joint Research Centre / European Commission Edificio Expo / Calle Inca Garcilaso s/n E SEVILLA olivier.da-costa@ec.europa.eu Abstract The paper is introducing an ongoing EU research project aiming to improve Foresight knowledge and practice by supporting mutual learning on Foresight in Europe (FOR-LEARN 1 ). The FOR-LEARN project is composed of three inter-related modules: The FOR-LEARN Online Foresight Guide; The FOR-LEARN Online Query System; and The FOR-LEARN Mutual Learning Workshops. While the Online Guide and the Online Query System mainly aim to disseminate existing knowledge on Foresight and to support newcomers to the field, the concept of the Mutual Learning Workshops is to bring together Foresight practitioners and users for focussed and indepth discussions on currently relevant topics. These discussions aim to advance Foresight as a discipline. Within this frame, four workshops are being organised on the impact of Foresight on the policy-making process. After giving an overview over the various activities in the FOR-LEARN project, the paper discusses the main insights generated to date within these mutual learning workshops. Two crucial functions of Foresight for policy making are introduced and debated in depth: Policy informing: Foresight is generating insights regarding dynamics of change, future challenges and options as well as new ideas, and transmitting it to policy makers as an input into policy conceptualisation and design. Policy facilitating: Foresight enhances the capability of change within a certain policy field by building a common awareness of current situation and future challenges as well as new networks and visions amongst stakeholders. For each function challenges associated with its fulfilment through Foresight are discussed. Furthermore the relation between these functions and tensions arising from their combination within Foresight are highlighted. Some conceptual considerations suitable to address these challenges and tensions are discussed. Finally, possible approaches for Foresight practice in order to better achieve the targeted impact on policy making are outlined

2 The central insights can be summarised as follows: 1. The various functions that Foresight can have for policy cannot be addressed simultaneously. A Foresight exercise needs to be tailored with different phases addressing specific functions such as windows of policy interaction as well as windows of wider participation but also windows of expert-driven analysis. 2. Where a strong impact on policy strategy building is aimed at, the linkage to the policy implementation phase needs to be addressed more specifically in the Foresight design. In such cases it seems useful adding a function of strategic counselling to the above-listed functions. 3. Each Foresight exercise needs to explore more diligently the space of manoeuvre for shaping the future. Accepting this restriction will allow for better impact within these limits. 4. Particularly sensitive issues to be addressed by a Foresight exercise to have a high impact on policy making include: A thorough analysis of the policy context; A sensible involvement of policy makers; A careful move towards policy implementation. Keywords: Foresight, FOR-LEARN, policy-making, impact, mutual learning 1 Introduction This paper describes the activities and results from an ongoing European research project aiming at improving Foresight knowledge and practice through fostering mutual learning among practitioners and users (FOR-LEARN). The first section gives an overview of the different building blocks of the project. The second section is zooming at a particular issue that is the focus of the first phase of FOR-LEARN activities: the impact of Foresight on the policy-making process. This issue is crucial for the entire Foresight community since it is touching on the conception of Foresight as a strategic policy intelligence tool (Tübke et al 2001) which is a core concept of the field. The following aspects are dealt within this section: Revisiting the functions Foresight can have for policymaking; Rationale and challenges for each of these functions; Possible tensions within these functions. On the basis of this analytical discussion, the paper then explores within a third section the possibilities to translate the theoretical considerations into guidelines for Foresight practice. The aim is to support improvement in the design of Foresight in order to achieve the targeted impacts

3 2 The FOR-LEARN project 2.1 Rationale and framework Foresight has started to become more widely used to support decision making at national and regional levels since the beginning of the 1990s. After more than ten years of Foresight practise, it appears timely to take stock of the developments of the discipline, its achievements and shortcomings and for reflecting on the consolidation of the know-how and on the improvement of its contribution to the policy-making process. The FOR-LEARN project was undertaken in this context. It is part of a wider portfolio of activities of the European Commission s Directorate General (DG) Research launched during the Sixth Framework Programme: the European S&T Foresight Knowledge Sharing Platform (KSP) 2. The KSP aims at better interconnecting and supporting Foresight programmes, initiatives and institutions in close co-operation with all relevant actors in Europe and, when necessary, orienting them towards common problematic, at inter-regional, trans-national or European level. The FOR-LEARN project is one of the central activities of the KSP. It is carried out by the Foresight group 3 of the Institute for Prospective and Technological Studies (IPTS) of the European Commission s DG Joint Research Centre (JRC). The basic idea behind FOR-LEARN is on the one hand to contribute to the development of the Foresight knowledge-base. This is achieved by contributing to the codification, assessment, and dissemination of the existing Foresight knowledge (including tacit knowledge) and by making practical knowledge on how to carry out Foresight more accessible to Foresight managers, users and stakeholders. This was addressed through the development of the Online Foresight Guide, which is described more in details in section On the other hand, it was felt necessary that the Foresight community of practitioners and users had the opportunity to join in order to reflect, share, consolidate and transfer experiences and lessons on Foresight process implementation, methodologies, and outcomes. With this rationale the Mutual Learning workshops (see section 2.2.3) aim to bring together experienced managers, practitioners and/or experts to reflect on Foresight-related issues which could contribute to advance the Foresight knowledge-base and improve the Foresight learning cycle (Figure 1). Furthermore the FOR-LEARN Mutual Learning workshops are aiming at creating a 'space' where newcomers to Foresight in need of support can benefit from the advice of more experienced practitioners to design, run and implement their own Foresight projects. 2.2 The FOR-LEARN approach The FOR-LEARN project is composed of three inter-related modules feeding each other. Together these modules are meant to establish a Foresight learning cycle (Figure 1). The Online Foresight Guide; The Online Query System;

4 The Mutual Learning Workshops. Figure 1: The Foresight Learning Cycle formed by the three FOR-LEARN modules WP1 Online Foresight guide Feedback to update the guide Expertise for the support to practitioners Foresight Learning Cycle WP3 Mutual Learning Workshop WP2 Online Query Knowledge gaps FOR-LEARN Online Foresight Guide Outline of the content The FOR-LEARN Online Foresight Guide 5 is a website presenting Foresight knowledge, knowhow and experiences to Foresight managers, practitioners, users and stakeholders. It is primarily targeting newcomers in this field. Accordingly, the emphasis is mainly on conveying practical knowledge on what for and how to carry out Foresight and less on formal definitions and academic debate. The information presented builds on knowledge collected through literature screening, real case analysis and interviews with Foresight experts and will be periodically updated until the end of the FOR-LEARN project. Currently the tool provides the following elements: Information about various conceptual aspects of Foresight such as what it is what it can do for you and what not. Practical guidance on how to design and carry out the different phases of a Foresight exercise (e.g. managing time, enrolling participants, costs and funding, communication strategy) Detailed description and implementation advises for a number of methods used in Foresight. 4 The FOR-LEARN online Foresight guide has been developed by JRC-IPTS Foresight team with support from an ESTO (European Science and Technology Observatory) project comprising the following institutions: PREST (project leader), Atlantis, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Futuribles, Malta Council for Science and Technology (MCST) and TNO

5 Case studies presenting past and current exercises, whether they are territorial or sectoral, emphasising practical information (i.e. landscape, designing the exercise, running the exercise, follow-up of the exercise) and lessons learned. Links to more academic discussions and references to go deeper into the issues which are currently being researched within the Foresight community. Supporting documents for Foresight practitioners such as presentations or checklists for downloading Challenges encountered in the elaboration of the guide When developing the guide the FOR-LEARN project team was able to build on a good stock of existing Foresight guidance literature such as the FOREN guide (2001) or the "Blueprints for Foresight Actions in the Regions" (2004). Nevertheless the generation of the online guide posed some specific challenges. First of all, it was necessary to synthesize the different definitions and diverse use of terms across the various sources and to establish a clear conceptual framework to discuss Foresight activities in a uniform way throughout the guide. The information from various sources had to be adapted into this framework. In addition the content of various academic references needed to be translated into an easy-to-understand language to be displayed on a website. Another challenge is closely related to the nature of Foresight knowledge. As Foresight is not a purely academic research field but also in large parts generated by a community of practice it is very much characterised by tacit knowledge embodied in the minds of experienced practitioners without being systematically formalised. A number of the reports elaborated by Foresight exercises do not contain information about the actual process and even less about mistakes made in the design and difficulties encountered. The "lessons learned" often remains within a narrow circle of the Foresight management team. However, this is exactly this tacit part of Foresight knowledge that is important to transfer to newcomers embarking in a Foresight of their own. This problem was addressed in the development of the guide through a systematic underpinning of abstract theoretical information with first hand experience from real Foresight exercises. Detailed descriptions of design decisions, their reasons and their success as well as lessons learned and pitfalls to be aware of are provided throughout the guide. Finally, establishing an adequate structure to display the information proved a substantial challenge. On the one hand it was demanded to come up with a clear and simple structure without loosing the necessary complexity and giving the false impression that a Foresight exercise is a simple, straightforward and linear process. On top of this it was crucial for the guide to create maximum added value to what is already available to be set up in a way to make the most of the potential of an online hypertext. This demanded a rethinking of the order of information as it is kept in conventional text documents and a careful consideration of the linkages between the various elements

6 2.2.2 FOR-LEARN Online Query System The FOR-LEARN Online Query System 6 provides individual and targeted support to Foresight practitioners, users or managers involved in Foresight activities, whether they are at local, regional, sectoral, national or trans-national level. They can contact the FOR-LEARN team from the JRC-IPTS Foresight group with any Foresight-related question according to the structure of the Online Foresight Guide. The team is answering the queries either through a direct answer or by providing other sources or contacts FOR-LEARN Mutual Learning Workshops The Mutual Learning workshops are bringing together experienced managers, practitioners and/or users for focussed and in-depth discussions on specific topics of particular current relevance for the Foresight body of knowledge. The topics are identified by the FOOR-LEARN team either through monitoring the enquiries received via the query system or through direct contacts with Foresight practitioners and users. Alternatively, the Mutual Learning workshops can be designed to deal with the specific needs of ongoing or planned exercises. This type of workshop is creating a space where newcomers to Foresight in need of support can benefit from the advice of more experienced practitioners to design, run and implement their own Foresight projects. These "bilateral support workshops" are not further discussed within this paper. An ongoing series of four problem-oriented FOR-LEARN Mutual Learning workshops is addressing the impact of Foresight on policy-making. The series started in December 2005 and will finalise in November This topic emerged from the interviews with Foresight experts carried out during the design of the Online Guide and through direct contacts with DG Research. It was selected because of the need of the Foresight community to reflect and discuss the effectiveness of the contribution of the Foresight approach to policy-making and its position within the policy-making system. Due attention has to be paid to the experiences from recent exercises and to the insights from the academic debate. Each workshop builds on the outputs of the previous ones and takes the issues from a different perspective with a specific group of participants: The first workshop with Foresight practitioners as well as scholars from neighbouring fields set the frame for the issues at stake by revisiting the positioning of strategic intelligence tools in the policy making process in the light of recent insights from policy research and innovation studies. The second one with Foresight scholars focussed on possible approaches of Foresight to ensure impact on policy and especially the adaptive Foresight proposed by Weber (2006). In the third workshop 7, the relationship between Foresight and policy-making will be directly discussed with policy-makers from their viewpoint These two last workshops have not taken place yet at the time of writing this paper

7 In the fourth and last workshop, the consolidated results will be presented to a larger audience from the field of strategic policy intelligence. The rest of the paper presents insights from these workshops in the context of the academic work available on those issues. 3 Impact of Foresight on policy making - Results from FOR- LEARN Mutual Learning 3.1 Why rethinking the impact of Foresight on policy-making? During the last decade Foresight has become increasingly used as a strategic policy intelligence instrument. In many countries it is now well established as a key instrument to support policymaking in particular in the fields of research, innovation and technology policy but also in other policy realms. However, in the course of its development Foresight has undergone a number of conceptual changes. While early Forecasting approaches adopted a rather linear understanding of technological development on the one hand and policy-making on the other, current Foresight theory is recognising the complexity and reflexivity of innovation processes and conceptualises policy making as a continuous reflexive learning process. It is no longer reckoned that technological trajectories can be easily forecasted nor is it taken for granted that innovation processes can be initiated or influenced in a straightforward manner through targeted research funding activities. Following these insights researchers and practitioners have increasingly been emphasising the role of Foresight as a process-oriented innovation policy instrument. In other words the focus has been shifting from the delivery of information on future developments as a base for priority setting to the mediation of self organisation among actors of an innovation arena. This has led to an increasing emphasis of the relevance of the Foresight process next to the actual formal product of the Foresight exercise. However, from the policy maker point of view, this development changes the perception of the actual contribution of Foresight to policy making. While classical Forecasting was able to claim a substantial input into the conceptualisation phase of research policy, the impact of Foresight on policy making is now spread over different phases of the policy-making process and much more difficult to pinpoint. After all, it is not traceable at first sight how policy making benefits from the Foresight process. This has lead to a kind of uneasiness among some practitioners regarding the credibility of Foresight as a policy support instrument. In order to convince policy makers who are, at the end of the day, the clients and sponsors for the majority of Foresight exercise to continue their engagement with Foresight it is necessary to convey clear messages on the usefulness and effectiveness of Foresight for policy-making. Furthermore, it is reckoned that only a clear conception of what kind of impact on policy making is intended will enable an adequate design of a Foresight exercise. Therefore, the clarification of the type of impact of Foresight on policy making appears as a necessary precondition for identifying good practice for Foresight design thus becoming a central element within the FOR- LEARN learning cycle

8 It appears therefore timely to exploit the large wealth of experience from process oriented Foresight practice of the last decade and to re-think the contribution of Foresight to policymaking in order to arrive at a new understanding on how Foresight is impacting on policy making and how this impact can best be achieved. 3.2 Identifying basic types of impact To set the frame for the discussion within the mutual learning workshops, a background document was developed introducing some initial hypotheses on different types of impact Foresight may expect on the policy-making process. In particular, four functions of Foresight for policy were distinguished. Although this was later expanded as a result of the mutual learning process, the initial set of functions is introduced within the next paragraphs. In the following section, the first two functions that were considered the most central ones will be discussed in more detail Policy informing Policy informing refers to the supply of anticipatory knowledge or intelligence such as the dynamics of change, future challenges, risks and opportunities, strengths and weaknesses of the current system for addressing those, visions for change and possible options. The aim is to improve the knowledge base of policy conceptualisation and design. Furthermore the provision of a wide range of new ideas stemming from a creative process that was activating a diverse range of knowledge sources is an important aspect of policy informing. Policy informing has long been considered the core function of Foresight. Traditionally, the information generated through Foresight is synthesised into formal products such as a reports. These products may comprise direct policy recommendations such as priority lists and action plans but also information contributing to policy design in a more indirect way such as scenarios of possible future developments, roadmaps towards different possible futures, lists of critical technologies or descriptions of visions of desirable futures Policy facilitating Besides supplying specific information as a support to policy design Foresight is supposed to transform in a certain way the field it is tackling that is formed by diverse actors and institutions concerned with the issues at stake. It is reckoned that a Foresight process will enhance the capability of the system under consideration (e.g. a territory, an industrial sector, a national research and innovation system) to change in phase with the specific policy under consideration. As, from the policy maker perspective, the main benefit from such an effect of Foresight is the improved chance for a smooth implementation of policy strategies due to a better responsiveness of actors in the field. We have coined this function "policy facilitating". The Foresight process is fulfilling this function in various ways: Foresight is thought to be very effective in creating linkages, interfaces, knowledge flows and networks between people or entities that may not have other opportunity to meet and exchange and may even have opposite interests. Furthermore it is expected that through the collective reasoning about the future, - 8 -

9 different interest groups develop a shared understanding of the current situation, the issues at stake and the future challenges or even share visions on desirable futures. On top of this, the individual participants in the Foresight process will develop more future-oriented attitudes, will make better informed choices and will be ready to better accept and encourage changes going in the direction of the shared visions. The two functions of policy informing and policy facilitating are symbolically represented on Figure 2. While policy informing is directed from the Foresight process towards policy, the function policy facilitating affects the arena of actors. Figure 2: Policy informing and policy facilitating functions Policy Policy informing R&D Education Companies Society Policy facilitating Improving the policy-making process Foresight intends to contribute to an improved mode of governance in a multi-layered and multiactor policy arena. This function aims at improving the transparency, legitimacy and efficiency of the policy-making process, thereby increasing the acceptance and credibility of policy decisions (Barré 2001). Another related important contribution is to legitimate the spending of budgets in the face of the increasing pressure on government spending (Martin and Johnston 1999). This function is closely related to the previous one because by involving various stakeholders into the intelligence-gathering and vision-building process it also improves the legitimacy of the policy-making process Symbolic function Finally, in certain political conditions Foresight is fulfilling a symbolic function. Through launching Foresight exercises policy makers aim to indicate to the public that their decision making is - 9 -

10 based on rational information 8. From the Foresight perspective this function is posing some problems. It has been argued that a prevalence of a symbolic function for Foresight is likely to hinder any kind of impact of policy informing (cf. Sanz-Menéndez et al 1999). However, it is crucial for the Foresight practitioner to be aware of the relevance of the symbolic function for the policy-maker point of view and to take it into account when designing the exercise. 4 Fulfilling the Foresight functions: rationale and challenges Large part of the debate within the mutual learning workshops was concentrating on the two functions of policy informing and policy facilitating. In the following paragraphs we will first debate the rationale for each function and the challenges associated with its provision. Finally, we will highlight some tensions between the various functions Foresight. 4.1 Policy informing Policy-making is challenging and taking place under intense constraints. Policy-makers are dealing with increasingly complex, multi-dimensional (S&T, cultural & social, political, economic, environmental), interconnected and interdependent issues. Uncertainties in every dimension are growing and at the same time the speed of changes is increasing. Growing complexity of the system that a particular policy is trying to influence does not allow applying direct steering without causing repercussions. Very often policy-makers work under severe time pressure and under the constraints of urgencies and short-term deadlines. For many policy makers is difficult to switch mode into longterm and holistic thinking, and this requires a strong determination and commitment. Plenty of reports and scientific papers are written and transmitted to policy-makers every year. They stem from many think-tanks, universities and research institutes. They cover any kind of issue that may have some kind of long-term or major implications, from GMOs to global warming, from ageing to current US deficit. From the side of the policy advisor or Foresight practitioner, this context has to be considered as external factors that s/he cannot really influence. The main role of Foresight is to make sure it can contribute to this context. Therefore, seen from the side of the policy advisors, information and knowledge for policymaking purposes is already plentiful and widely available. The issue to be addressed is not to 8 Foresight reports and exercises, as many other information pieces, are also symbols in the overall context of policy making. To have them, to possess information is a symbol and a representation of their competence for the decision making exercise. Moreover, the stock and quality of information and its use for justifying the decision making process is a way of symbolising or signalling that the process is legitimate, particularly when the decisions taken depart significantly from organisational and institutional habits and routines (Sanz-Menéndez et al 1999)

11 add up to the quantity of information but rather more in terms of being aware of the relevant information, covering it, synthesising it and making it operational. However, seen from the policy-maker side, the material provided from policy-advising is often not directly relevant or directly useable as an input to the decision-making. They have not the time, nor the mental availability to read, understand and synthesize long reports which each take the issues from different perspectives and whose quality and reliance can be uncertain. They cannot internalise the various points of view and advises which are transmitted to them. There has been much research on the reasons why scientific advisors and policy/decisionmakers rarely develop the types of relationships and information flows necessary for a full integration of scientific knowledge into the policy/decision-making process (Jacobs 2002). Some conditions for such a successful integration would include: Relevance: Are the scientists asking and answering the right questions? Accessibility of outputs: Are the data and the associated value-added analysis available to, understandable and easily useable by the policy/decision-makers? Are they focussed enough on the issues relevant for the policy-making space? Acceptability: Are the outputs seen as accurate and trustworthy? Would the policy/decisionmaker be able to defend his/her decision on this basis in the context in which s/he is operating? Context: Are the outputs useable and timely given the constraints and time window of policymaking? It might be mind-opening to present the situation as a bottleneck through the interface between the Academia on the one side and the policy-makers on the other (Figure 3). This is the interface between two communities having different cultures, vocabularies, processes, time dimensions and therefore the transmission of knowledge is difficult. It is not always productive to attempt at forcing results of Foresight or science-policy studies through this bottleneck to policy-makers. The relevant information and messages end up being over-simplified and over-formatted, thereby jeopardizing their significance for the policy which will be based on them. For instance, one can question whether the indicators or ranking developed on a wide range of subjects such as research, innovation, universities, transparency, are still reflecting underlying essential phenomena for a well-based policy-making. On the contrary, we believe that the differences between these two communities are fundamental and should be better understood, accepted as such and integrated from the onset into the design of Foresight activities. This means that the special interface should be the Foresight exercise itself. Daring an analogy with signal processing, when the transmission of a signal is insufficient, there are two different ways of improvement, either optimising the signal or increasing the bandwidth (Figure 3)

12 Figure 3: bottleneck in the transmission of knowledge to policy-making Increasing the bandwidth means that a greater quantity of information goes through. It would require an improvement of the credibility of Foresight and policy-advising, so that policy-makers will pay more attention to the material coming from this stream, or the creation of additional consultation mechanisms at different steps of policy-making. Optimising the signal means that the same quantity of information goes through but that it is richer in terms of content, or knowledge. This can be done by enhancing its quality, relevance, usability and timing, and also by specifically increasing the concentration of the listener, making things interesting rather than boring, using parallel channels of attention such as pictures or movies. In a nutshell we could summarise that policy-informing is all about transmitting complexity to policy-makers. 4.2 Policy facilitating The policy facilitating function of Foresight can be interpreted as part of the conceptualisation of Foresight as a systemic innovation policy instrument. Policy researchers have highlighted that the need for new types of innovation policy instruments is being driven by a number of structural changes in the socio-economic framework of policymaking. Of particular relevance are changing modes of knowledge generation and innovation, such as the increasing distribution of knowledge production and the growing diversity of knowledge sources. In parallel, emerging new models of governance, such as the multi-level governance driven by various political challenges including the European integration (Kuhlmann 2001) and in general the broadening of the decision-making processes (Smits 2001) is making the picture even more complex. As a consequence of the increasing complexity of systems, the traditional linear model of policy making incorporating successive phases like conceptualisation, implementation, evaluation and

13 then modification to start a new cycle, is no longer adequate. Policy and strategy development are more and more interpreted as continuous reflexive learning process. It has been argued that to cope with the increasing complexity of dynamics of change traditional steering approaches need to be complemented by systemic instruments (Smits and Kuhlmann 2004). Instead of targeting specific elements of an innovation system, such as demand or supply side institutions, systemic instruments focus on the overall system capability and thereby on the quality of linkages between elements and the innovation process thereby enhancing the capability for self-organisation of the targeted policy field. More concretely, systemic instruments focus on the promotion of linkages, communication and co-operation between societal actors within a specific arena of change or transition. They provide platforms for learning and experimenting and stimulate the emergence of common visions. Furthermore they can serve to establish a specific infrastructure of distributed intelligence that can be accessed by various stakeholder groups, among them policy makers, according to their needs. In the specific case of innovation policy, systemic instruments will foster interactions between various actors such as users and producers of new products and services (Smits 2001) or science and technology actors, thus improving the overall co-ordination and the flow of knowledge (Webster 2002) of the innovation system. While the idea of systemic instruments has been developed in an innovation policy context, the argument is clearly valid for many other policy fields such as environmental policy (EC 2003, Kerkhof and Wieczorek 2004). Considering the achievements attributed to the Foresight process there is a clear potential for Foresight to function as a systemic innovation policy instrument. The ability of Foresight for wiring up innovation systems has long been pointed out (Martin and Johnston 1999) and is now widely recognised among researchers and practitioners. However, the function that Foresight is fulfilling as a systemic instrument is clearly differing from the "policy informing" one. Instead of giving input as a base of policy design it is facilitating the implementation of policy by working within the arena of change (see also figure 2), while "policy informing" is achieved through handing over formal products. Hence, "policy facilitating" is mainly achieved through the Foresight process. To sum up systemic instruments support policy makers in dealing with the increasing complexity of the dynamics of change (Smits and Kuhlmann 2004) by creating a better responsiveness of actors within the targeted field and thereby enabling a more effective implementation of policy strategies. 4.3 Relating the different functions The renewed focus on Foresight as a policy facilitating or change enabling instrument is raising questions concerning the classical policy informing function of Foresight. We would like to highlight some insights on the connection between these two functions within a Foresight exercise. Policy informing has always been - and still is - considered by many Foresight practitioners and users to be the core function of Foresight. The process benefits from the policy facilitating function are often taken for granted, or even considered as less important. However, there are other reasons for sticking to the classical informing function of Foresight. Most notably the creation of formal products aiming at informing policy decision making is often binding together the entire Foresight exercise. Actors are motivated to participate in the Foresight exercise by the

14 possibility to directly influence policy and will not engage for the sake of networking alone. Therefore, it is not desirable to give less emphasis to the policy informing function and just content oneself with improving the framework conditions for policy-making through networking among actors. The Foresight approach could loose its credibility and momentum if there is no real direct influence on policy decision making. As Barré and Salo (2002) put it: a policy aiming at enabling the actors must be a policy that the actors themselves have contributed to define and shape. This implies that there is a need for Foresight to function as a systemic policy instrument without loosing its capability to transmit information for the policy design phase. However, this may prove to be a major challenge for Foresight design. Arguably, it was relatively straightforward for classical forecasting studies or more formal expert-based Foresight approaches to come up with concrete guidelines and policy recommendations such as priority lists and action plans. However, this is more problematic for process oriented Foresight exercises that are designed primarily with the intention of building networks, developing visions or changing mindsets and attitudes. As Weber (2002) has observed In many of these cases there has been very limited impact on decision-making, in others this link has been made in a far too mechanistic way. Therefore a special effort is needed to achieve anticipatory intelligence from an exercise that is primarily targeting the facilitation of policy. One possibility may be to create specific interfaces for translating outcomes from the collective process into policy oriented information. Policy researchers could be involved in the creation of such interfaces. Another possible tension is associated with the embedding of Foresight into democratic decision making. One of the strong statements commonly made by Foresight practitioners is their ability and ambition to shape the future. However, the general goals should stem from a democratic process. The issue of deliberative versus representative democracy arises at this stage. Taking away some of the decision responsibility from parliaments and policy makers to move it to participatory processes has deep consequences. Foresight needs to be careful to be embedded into democratic decision making and not becoming a means to circumvent it (Barré 2001). Finally, as pointed out by Sanz-Menéndez (et al 1999) there is a clear tension between the symbolic function of Foresight and the ability for policy informing as, in case the symbolic function is dominating policy makers, these will consume any kind of information without acting upon it. In the current state of Foresight theory and practice it seems therefore to be a kind of tension between different orientations of Foresight. This ambivalence is problematic for Foresight practice as there is a danger that exercises are started with wrong expectations on impact and outcome. All along the process the Foresight practitioners might struggle with conflicting demands and ultimately exercises might be considered as failures although their achievements could actually be of high value for policy. 5 Foresight for policy impact - some basic insights In the second Mutual Learning workshop, various possibilities for Foresight to escape these dilemmas and reconcile these seemingly contradictory objectives within the same exercise have been considered. In the following paragraphs we are going to outline the central conceptual arguments that were developed while the following section 6 will highlight more practical conclusions that were generated

15 5.1 Tailoring Foresight for various types of impact Within the mutual learning workshops a common understanding emerged that Foresight can and should address both basic functions of policy informing and policy facilitating. However, it was stressed that not everything can be achieved simultaneously and with the same approach. It seems crucial that within Foresight design there is a clear understanding on which type of impact is being targeted within each particular Foresight activity. A possible approach suggested by Barré (2001) is to concentrate on specific policy needs in an exercise. Different types of Foresight exercises could be tailored to serve different functions for policy. However within the mutual learning workshops the discussion concentrated on the possibility of tailoring Foresight exercises in a way to fulfil both functions within the same exercise. To achieve this it was suggested to break down an exercise into different but closely related phases each targeting a specific type of impact. So e.g. a rather open and public panel debate that aims at policy facilitating could be complemented by a more targeted scenario building workshop with a smaller group of policy makers to derive strategic information. In this way, the overall exercise will be tailored towards optimum policy impact. Elements that could be introduced to adapt the design to the specific need of impact include: Windows of wide participation. Windows of policy interaction serving as protected spaces (e.g. like the Hothouses in the UK) for policymakers to discuss and also to see how to target and get explicit their own hidden agendas. They could take place at strategic phases of the process or close to the decisions. This issue is highly dependent of the political culture and such an untransparent practice would not be acceptable in Nordic countries. Windows of seclusion which could serve both needs of idea generation and expertbased analysis without the constraint for consensus building and translation into policy. "Windows of creativity" where there is no pressure to come up with concrete implementation The overall approach is illustrated in Figure 4, which shows different phases of a fictitious Foresight exercise where the X-axis represents various functions and the Y-axis represents the diversity and level of participation within the exercise. The dotted circle on the bottom symbolises the phases where participation is low whereas the one above symbolises the open process. Other characteristics of the exercise such as the nature of the tool applied (e.g. level of creativity) could be mapped onto the various phases in a similar way

16 Figure 4: an example of a tailored process in a Foresight exercise Diversity and level of Participation Large societal debate Phase IV: Making choices Citizen participation Stakeholder expert groups Phase II: Exploration Phase V: Implementation and coordination A few decisionmakers Phase I: Diagnosis Phase III: Strategic orientation From vision to action Diagnosis Vision How to get there + recommendations Measures, actions 5.2 Establish inroads to policy Even within a "tailored" Foresight exercise it will be necessary to think about inroads to policy at different stages in order to achieve a better impact of Foresight on policy making. One basic need identified is to line up more diligently with other policy processes such as ongoing planning processes already in place. Another one is the targeted tackling of hidden agendas. It was also agreed that for policy makers the normative dimension of anticipatory intelligence is important as they need to link future options to their political objectives. Accordingly, it was suggested that to improve the usefulness of Foresight to policy making, the normative dimension should be better addressed. In this direction, the idea was raised to develop disguised training for policy makers on Foresight in order to raise awareness about its potentials as a policy support tool. There was also a feeling among participants that policy makers need to be more open towards Foresight activities to fully benefit from them. Whether this last point is also relevant for other policysupport tools is interesting but remains open. There needs to be a clear understanding that the exercise will be of use primarily for those, either policy makers or other stakeholders, who get involved and participate. Possibly there could be a kind of collaboration contract to promote this kind of understanding from the outset. This could be further developed by e.g. including policy experts into the Foresight process to work out possible implications for actual policy making. However, most of the academic authors and participants to the workshop, along with many other researchers, do stress the need for further investigations into this issue and the refinement of their proposed solutions

17 5.3 Moving into policy implementation The interface with the policy implementation phase is crucial for ensuring impact and enhancing the ability to shape. There is a need to explore how Foresight can be further developed to tackle this interface. If Foresight aims at impacting strategic policy decisions, there is a clear need to go beyond vision building and to offer clear recommendations for action. This issue is still being debated within the Foresight community and it is likely that there is no one-size-fits-all exercise. The appropriate position of Foresight versus policy implementation has to be reconsidered in each specific case. A quite elaborated step forward in this direction is the concept adaptive Foresight (Weber 2006) as a way to get closer to user/client needs. The basic idea is to add a process cycle to complement Foresight with a phase of strategic counselling where the results are translated into policy strategies. A protected space in this phase will enable policymakers to open up their hidden agendas, e.g. explain their positioning towards other ministries. Thereby, it is possible to go beyond information provision to support forward looking counselling for policy making. By including such an implementation module exercises can be individualised ( adapted ) for different policymaking bodies but also for other organisations such as firms. In a way this is bridging the gap between informing, facilitating and improving the process by creating an additional function. However it might be necessary to complement Foresight with approaches aiming at steering evolutionary processes towards specific objectives such as transition management (Kerkhof & Wieczorek 2005, Kemp & Rotmans 2004), if it is developing towards a tool for assisting policy implementation as well as conceptualisation. While the need to tackle the interface to policy implementation was shared among the Foresight practitioners there were also cautioning remarks. In particular it was emphasised that Foresight should protect its creative dimension which might be jeopardized if Foresight is to get more deeply involved in the daily business and constraints of implementation. This is after all what distinguishes Foresight from planning. In the framework of tailoring Foresight discussed above this could be achieved by actively providing open spaces for unrestricted creativity. 5.4 Shaping within boundaries Within the relevant literature it is often emphasised that Foresight should be closely linked to action and decision making, mainly targeting public policy (FOREN 2001). Foresight exercises are expected not only to provide information to policy but also to develop concrete policy recommendations or even to suggest precise policy instruments. Studies without connection to possible actions, purely analytical studies of possible futures, are not considered as fullyfledged Foresight (Havas 2005). While this action-oriented attitude of Foresight was clearly acknowledged in the FOR-LEARN workshops it was suggested that there may be a need to rethink the way Foresight can actually achieve change. It was felt that, especially for small countries, it does not make sense to attempt to influence the whole socio-economic framework but rather to make a stronger effort to analyse what can be shaped within this framework. To achieve a realistic impact it is crucial to reflect on the right balance between shaping the future and adapting to constraints for the target area (e.g. country, region, sector, thematic field). Through acknowledging the constraints of acting upon the future it becomes possible to shape the aspects that are accessible more effectively. If these are identified it becomes possible to focus the exercise on these aspects that can indeed be shaped. Sometimes there may be more

18 possibilities to change than obvious at first sight, but sometimes it will also be less. To sum up, It is critical to clearly acknowledge what are the external limiting factors to ensure the achievement of a realistic impact. The more the limitations of Foresight are clarified and acknowledged, the more it can concentrate on the issues where there is actually room for manoeuvre, thereby optimising its efforts and real impacts. 6 Good practises for policy-impact While the considerations above were of a more conceptual nature and will be subject to further debate within the FOR-LEARN process some clear recommendation for Foresight practise could be derived from the insights that were already generated. 6.1 Analysis of the policy context A careful analysis of the political context during the design phase of a Foresight exercise is essential to ensure the future impact on policy making. The system where the exercise is embedded has to be understood as well as the one on which it is supposed to have an impact (in the case of R&D priorities this is often the same structure). Decision-making practises are usually context-specific and not codified and have to be understood in order to prepare the field for the exercise to have an impact. The culture of decision-making within ministries/agencies matters for the positioning of Foresight. Also, it is very important to position Foresight within the complex process of policy strategy building and to link up with other activities. 6.2 Involvement of policy makers The first straightforward hint for easing the tension between the informing and facilitating functions could be to involve policy makers into the exercise more directly. However, how close should an exercise be to the policymaking process is a highly-debated topic. There are arguments and experiences supporting both directions: involvement of policy makers as barrier and enabler of policy impact. The two positions in the debate are summarised hereafter. If policy-makers are more intimately involved into the Foresight exercise, they become part of the learning process and draw their own conclusion for their decision making needs. In policymaking circles, as in many other places, there is a strong not invented here effect. If the advice is coming out of the blue, it might not be understood and therefore certainly not be embraced and translated into decisions by policy-makers. They have to feel the ownership for the output and this is only possible if they are actively involved in the whole process from the outset. On the other hand, Foresight practitioners have argued that Foresight activities should be separated and even keep its distance from the decision-making process. Their independency is the only guarantee that their results can be perceived as balanced and neutral. A tight involvement of policy-makers within the Foresight process might result in steering the whole