Behind the Scenes, Kenya IDP Report - Danish Refugee Council

Chapter 1: Introductioncannot be distinguished from the objectives andactivities of the advocacy sub-group of the PWGID.The strength of RCK as a partner in this sub-groupcould be ascribed to several factors, such as itsextensive experience in advocacy and policy development,most notably with the developmentof the Refugees Act in 2006. Its programming forthat period had the technical and financial supportof the Danish Refugee Council Great Lakes CivilSociety Project and its approach and long standingrelationship with relevant stakeholders includingGovernment Ministries, civil society, UN bodiesand the IDP communities was close and constantenough to influence and garner support for certaininitiatives and thus lend legitimacy to its actionsand the process at large. For instance, RCK soughtto address issues emerging at the local level suchas the flawed profiling exercise by the Government.RCK worked with partners to develop an abridgedversion of, and other IEC materials, on the draftpolicy. The IEC materials were disseminatedthrough its training sessions on peacebuilding andreconciliation with peace committee members inUasin Gishu County and other training sessions forstate and non-state actors on the rights of refugeesand other forced migrants. RCK also engaged withformal and informal channels to maintain knowledgeon the process and intervene where possiblewith this advocacy expertise. For instance, RCKbenefited from the Executive Director’s previousengagements with the Minister of State for SpecialProgrammes (MoSSP) in the development of theSexual Offences Act. 6 These established relationshipsand facilitated the organisation of high levelmeetings at short notice, helped the sub-group accesstimely information such as the status of thedraft policy within the MoSSP and made it easierfor RCK to mobilise the relevant ministry staff toparticipate in the key workshops and meetings relatedto advocacy around the draft IDP Policy.In the same spirit, the MoSSP recognised the roleof RCK in the process of developing the policyframework and subsequently invited RCK to contributeto critical technical meetings that pushedthe policy forward at different stages. Key meetingsincluded the first committee meeting of theParliamentary Select Committee on the Resettlementof IDPs in Naivasha in February 2011, and theworkshop between the MoSSP and the Ministry ofLand to build consensus around the provisions ofthe draft IDP Policy for both ministries in order toresubmit it to Cabinet in August 2012. RCK staffalso followed parliamentary proceedings duringtwo of the three readings of the IDP Bill in parliament.They regularly prepared briefing notes andshared with the advocacy sub-group to keep theminformed of progress of both the Policy and theBill.1.5.4. Theoretical and ConceptualFrameworkIn this study and report, “policy” will be understoodin a very broad sense to include generalpolicy, specific policy, laws, institutions and governmentpractice. Unless otherwise specified,therefore, reference to a policy framework includesreference to the Constitution, legislation,institutional set up and practices, whether in writtenform or not, existing in a single document orscattered across numerous sources, and whetherimplemented in an ad hoc manner or sustainedand guided by some objective work-plans. It alsoincludes failure by the Government to take particularaction or courses of action (omission).In analysing the role of CSOs, this study greatlyrelied on a five-stage policy development cyclewhich covers setting the agenda for policy development;formulating the policy; adopting the policy;implementing the policy; and evaluating thepolicy. 7 By using the cycle, this report systemicallyassesses and re-examines the policy developmentprocess for ease of reference and adaptability forapplication in other contexts.The analysis in this report greatly benefited fromthe approach outlined in the Brookings Institution’smanual for law and policymakers especiallyin assessing the standard of protection offeredthrough policy interventions. 8 While seeking to establishbest practices that could be utilised beyondthe national level, this study remained consciousof the primary obligation on the State to provideprotection and humanitarian assistance to internallydisplaced persons within their jurisdiction. 9At the heart of policymaking lies consensus-building,which is achieved through a consultative andparticipatory approach. This study views participationin policymaking as a continuum, with actorstaking part in the process to different extentsdepending on the surrounding circumstances andtheir inherent capabilities or disadvantages. As acontinuum, participation in policy encompassesa wide range of scenarios which may include: exchangeof information; public consultation andengagement; shared decisions and shared jurisdiction.Based on this, different actors would necessarilyengage with the policy development processto varying extents. This continuum was used to assessthe extent to which stakeholders participatedin the process of developing the policy framework.1.5.5. Shortcomings of theMethodologyThe study encountered some methodological challenges.First, there were several advancementsmade on the part of the Government towards thepolicy which were not properly documented. Thestudy would have benefited from engaging withmore Government stakeholders as key informantsthat could have shed light on the internal dynamicsthat affected the policy development process.This was not done on two accounts: first, becauseGovernment actors were scattered across numerousministries, sometimes with uncoordinated approaches,and second because of time constraints.For instance, while the PSC and its membersplayed an important role in the policy developmentprocess, it was not clear what their exact motivationwas nor what criteria were used to identifythe original members of the committee.Secondly, though the interviews with the respondentstargeted persons and institutions that hadbeen significantly involved in the policy developmentprocess, at the time of the study some ofthese respondents had moved to work with otherorganisations or in other sectors. This affected tosome extent the respondents’ understanding ofthe two processes.Thirdly, as some persons interviewed had beeninvolved in the process of developing the policyframework, there was a great risk of bias in theirassessment of the process. The study, however,greatly benefited from these persons who had theinstitutional memory of the process and remainkey proponents of the process.4Behind the Scenes – Lessons Learnt from Developing a National Policy Framework on Internal Displacement in Kenya 5