Impact case study database

The research has had an impact on the practices of specific organizations, especially Fairtrade and ISEAL, as well as on public understanding of certification schemes. Fairtrade has since changed its standards to pay far more attention to wages and working conditions in smallholder producer organizations. The research has also influenced the reform of the Ethiopian government policy for the coffee sector.

The Systematic Review [3.6] engaged representatives of the ISEAL Alliance as members of the project advisory group. ISEAL is the global membership organisation for certification schemes; most of the certifications covered in the Systematic Review are ISEAL members. Their involvement from the start facilitated the subsequent take-up of some key recommendations. In her testimonial, the ISEAL Director of Impacts explains how the organisation has used the review as a “core resource” to forming the gathering, analysis and presentation of the evidence on the effectiveness of certification systems [5.1]. The director explains how the research has inspired ISEAL “to improve the quality of future studies and study reports”, as well to “integrate a regular systematic mapping of the literature on sustainability standards into our own operations”. Throughout the assessment period, the Systematic Review contributed to ongoing internal ISEAL discussions about the complexity of impact pathways and how to improve standards in order to meet poverty reduction goals. It raised awareness of the limited rigorous research on the impacts of standards on workers, thus providing an impetus to their fundraising for more research - particularly on the impacts of activities undertaken by the standard systems beyond certification [5.1a]. Both projects have also shaped ISEAL commitments on how to communicate their impact more accurately to members, farmers, buyers and to the general public so that they are not misled. The report now sits on Evidensia, a platform founded in 2019 by the ISEAL Alliance, Rainforest Alliance and WWF with the support of the Global Environment Facility to improve research standards in the sector [5.1b]. The SOAS Systematic Review was cited in ISEAL’s presentation to the Global Sustainability Standards Symposium 2019 [5.1c, slides 13, 14, and 33]. Summing up the project’s impact, ISEAL writes that “Ultimately, this study provides much learning for sustainability standards and ISEAL will work with its member systems and the SOAS research team to learn from this review”. [5.1d p3].

ISEAL members such as UTZ (a certification scheme for the sustainable farming of coffee and cocoa) and Fairtrade also individually acknowledged the Systematic Review. Fairtrade confirmed in January 2020 [5.2] that their Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning team had used the Systematic Review in [text removed for publication]. In their response to the review, UTZ explains that it contains important lessons that can inform their work in different areas. Specifically, in relation to their work on monitoring and evaluation, UTZ stated that a key lesson of the study was “the need to continue our investment in our M&E capacity, in order to monitor improvements and innovations to certification and evaluate impact. We will use the findings of the review to refine our Theory of Change and to unpack the underlying pathways of change and how these work in different contexts, for different farmers”. Moreover, UTZ also committed to “align and collaborate with other stakeholders to pool evaluation resources” [5.3 p4].

After an initially hostile response, including legal threats that were then withdrawn and concerns that the FTEPR research findings might damage its reputation, Fairtrade acknowledged the utility of the SOAS research and engaged more constructively with its findings and recommendations. In June 2014, Harriet Lamb, then CEO of the Fairtrade Foundation, stated “We recognize and appreciate the insights their research gives into the type and conditions of employment of vulnerable farm workers […]; we hope that the SOAS data will help address […] how to better reach temporary labourers and casual workers and ensure benefits of trade include them” [5.4 p2]. A 2014 Fairtrade International and Flocert report (FLOCert being the independently governed audit and certification body for Fairtrade) cited the FTEPR research and recognized that workers in SPOs had been “largely overlooked”. Acknowledging that “Fairtrade’s work with farmers in cooperatives does not necessarily result in significant benefits trickling down to the workers”, the report noted that Fairtrade “will be working on this in 2015 and beyond” [p.24 – 5.5]. The annual Fairtrade report (2017) also cited the research and its findings concerning workers and wages in SPOs [p. 19 - 5.6]. During a Fairtrade 2018 consultation to review SPO standards, the need to address the situation of workers in SPOs was discussed – an issue not addressed at all in previous consultation rounds – although the consultation report indicates that many members (who are mainly farmers/employers) were resistant [5.7, p8].

The 2016 completion review of Fairtrade’s Programme Partnership Arrangement with DFID, which was an opportunity to reflect on lessons learned over the previous period of DFID funded Fairtrade programmes, states that: “responding to research findings into working conditions and earnings of smallholder farmers, we have improved and revised the Hired Labour Standard with stronger protection and benefits for workers, launched a new project to improve the situation of workers within small farmer organizations and further improved our monitoring and evaluation systems to gather essential data on wages and working conditions to feed back into our work” [5.8 p27]. The revised Fairtrade Standard for SPO (April 2019) amended the threshold for application of the standard so that now producers employing at least 10 workers should be subject to monitoring of working conditions, “[to] ensure that a larger number of workers in SPO are covered by the requirements in the Standard”, to “strengthen the requirement [that producers give and provide employment contracts to permanent workers] and to promote decent work and reduction of risk of exploitative practices” [5.9 p9]. There has therefore been a clear shift in Fairtrade standards concerning wage employment in SPO, as recommended by the research.

FTEPR research also helped shape major reforms to the coffee sector in Ethiopia. After a presentation of the research to high-level policy officials and coffee sector stakeholders in Addis Ababa (in November 2013), Cramer and Sender were invited to present to the then Prime Minister and his senior advisor, Dr. Arkebe Oqubay. This led to a three-year engagement with the Prime Minister’s Office. The research team was involved in a coffee reform process led by Dr. Arkebe, for which Cramer and Sender wrote a coffee policy paper. A number of policy changes drew directly on the SOAS research findings and recommendations, including the transformation of the Jimma Agricultural Research Institute into a body with a singular focus on coffee; the need to exploit the potential for employment creation in coffee through prioritizing finance for exports; and allowing exporters and traders to invest directly in commercial coffee plantations [5.10].

The initial research (and the related public dispute with Fairtrade itself) has attracted extensive media and press attention and stimulated widespread international public debate. In May 2014 Christopher Cramer provided an overview of the Fairtrade research that was featured on the front page of The Observer [5.11a] as well as a letter to the Financial Times [5.11b]. The Observer article was shared online almost 500 times and led to an intense debate among readers appreciating or challenging the study and its findings. The now CEO of the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data commented: “blanket rejection of a careful and well-thought-out study […] is hardly an appropriate or adult response. The report does not reject the principle of Fair Trade but asks important questions about how it works in practice and there will be plenty of people wanting answers that have a convincing ring to them”. Another dedicated Guardian article [5.11c] was shared 1,234 times and attracted 338 comments from readers supporting or disagreeing with the research findings. One reader noted “this is a good article – it’s made me question my activities – but rather than turning my back on ethical shopping I would prefer reports like this to be used to put pressure on Fairtrade to do more to ensure that its producers are acting ethically through the chain...” [5.11d]. In June 2014 UK fair trade organization Traidcraft published a column [5.11e] in which they stated: “We welcome the research and we are keen to learn from it”. An online column in Forbes from contributor Tim Worstall (Fellow, Adam Smith Institute in London) reviewing the study findings was visited 23,787 times [5.11f]. The research was also covered by the Economist [5.11g] and other various print and online media in the UK, Europe, and the USA, for example in Der Spiegel [5.11h], in 2014 and beyond. In 2019 the research was again cited in a Financial Times report [5.11i] - the author noting that “Fairtrade International says it has since worked closely with the researchers to listen to their views and better understand some of their findings” – and in the Guardian [5.11j – shared 858 times ]. In March 2020 the research was cited by media covering an investigation on Starbucks, Nespresso and child labour. The research has also been used as a benchmark when discussing other research projects on Fairtrade and certification schemes on public online platforms such as Twitter [5.11k].

The work of the Facility led by Hammond has improved the design and delivery of EU-funded migration and displacement programmes in the HoA. Research recommendations have shaped projects by intergovernmental organisations and donors related to development of borderlands, support for displaced persons in urban areas, and reintegration support for internally displaced persons and repatriated refugees. This work has led to regional approaches that promote social cohesion between migrant and displaced populations and their hosts, and create economic opportunities for mobile populations. Hammond’s related research on rural-urban migration has also led to award-winning secondary school teaching resources in the UK, developed with the Royal Geographical Society. A film commissioned by Hammond with film makers PositiveNegatives on migration in the HoA (“Life on the Move”) won the 2019 Research in Film Award (Social Media Category) [5.10e].

To maximize research uptake, the Facility pursued an innovative programme of ‘front-loaded advocacy,’ collaborating from the inception of the research with EU Trust Fund (EUTF) contributing states, EU delegations, governments in the region and NGOs. These actors have contributed to project design, framing of recommendations, and public briefing events including a major conference in Nairobi in 2019 (140 participants from the research, governmental, nongovernmental, and diplomatic communities) based on the Facility’s research. This collaboration has ensured receptivity to the research findings and maximized possibilities for uptake of recommendations.

Facility research was directly used as evidence in the design of key EUTF investments: 1) a EUR63,500,000 project to promote cross-border development collaboration in the HoA [5.1] and 2) a EUR3,000,000 project to support IGAD’s role in coordinating a regional approach to refugee management and protection. EUTF Manager Hans Stausboll stated that EU support to IGAD was “a result of this research” and that the research had “stimulated [IGAD’s] Member States into adopting remarkable policy commitments in favour of refugees particularly in the areas of education, health and livelihood.” [5.2]

Under Prof Hammond’s leadership, the Facility’s high profile advocacy work has influenced policy and practice on displacement. Prof Hammond was invited by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to moderate two plenary sessions at the first Global Refugee Forum (December 2019), one on Regional Responses to Refugee Hosting, the other on Durable Solutions. The Forum, attended by more than 3,000 participants, included heads of state, ministers, ambassadors and heads of international UN and nongovernmental organisations. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi acknowledged Hammond’s contribution to the success of the event in identifying solutions and comprehensive responses in action both as “moderator during high-level sessions” and for the “insights [Hammond] brought to the discussion” [5.3]. The Forum raised over 840 pledges for refugee support including job creation and education schemes, and the development of clean energy and infrastructure [5.3].

UNHCR’s Special Envoy for Africa, Ambassador Mohamed Affey, commended the Facility’s work by saying, “We’ve been very impressed by the reports that we have received regarding the return of the population of the Somalis who have been living in the refugee camps for many years. That research and the report that was generated as a result of the research that was done have been of use to me as a Special Envoy in my advocacy work” [5.4 time code: 00:01:33 – 00:01:50].

In December 2018, Hammond was invited to give written and oral evidence to the International Development Committee of the UK House of Commons enquiry on Refugees in East Africa. She argued that 1) post-Brexit, the UK’s continued support for displaced populations in East Africa was crucial; 2) migration within Africa is an essential livelihood strategy for maximizing resources and minimizing risk; 3) the right to safe mobility should be protected alongside efforts to prevent displacement and irregular migration; 4) asylum seekers in the UK should be allowed to work while they await a decision on their cases; and 5) there should be a more joined-up approach to supporting refugees in the UK and in regions of origin. These points were all included in the committee’s final report ‘Forced Displacement in Africa: Anchors Not Walls, where Hammond’s evidence was cited nine times [5.5]. As of 2020, work on several of these points was being implemented, including 1, 2 and 5 by the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office.

In the region, the work of the Facility has influenced debates and policies of information-based NGOs such as the Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat (ReDSS). Secretariat Manager of ReDss, Aude Galli stated the report on Return and (Re)integration after Displacement [3.2] “has concretely informed a number of durable solutions programing in Somalia, but also donors[‘] priorities and focus.” Galli also commended the Facility for “providing a platform bringing practitioners, policy- makers and researchers together to discuss the implications and recommendations from the research findings to inform and adapt our policy and programing work.” [5.6]

Responding to the Facility’s recommendation that IDPs and returnees need secure land tenure and should be integrated into local development plans, the Municipality of Baidoa in Somalia relocated 100 returnee families onto permanent plots in 2019, giving them secure tenure [5.7, pg 4]. Prof Hammond was also asked to advise on the drafting of Somalia’s National Policy on Refugees, Returnees and Displaced Persons; all 12 of her major recommendations were adopted into the final enacted policy in 2019 [5.8], including providing legal support to displaced people, extending protection to include social and economic vulnerability and extending food assistance to returnees for a full year after return.

Hammond’s related research on rural-urban migration was used to develop a suite of award-winning teaching materials for secondary school students in collaboration with the Royal Geographical Society. These included a 2019 Teach Company award (curriculum impact category), Scottish Association of Geography Teachers Overall Winner [5.9a] and finalist for the 2020 BETT awards [5.9b]. The film’ Life on the move’ produced in partnership with PositiveNegatives was awarded the 2019 AHRC Research in Film Award for ‘Best Social Media Short’ [5.9c and d]. The teaching materials included two posters on urban migration distributed to every secondary school (5500 schools) in England and Wales, teaching videos featuring lectures by Hammond and other project researchers, 2,500 copies of comics produced by partners PositiveNegatives, and infographics [5.10a]. The project also hosted two public exhibitions (October and December 2018 – 969 attendees), a major Fellows’ lecture at the Royal Geographical Society (Oct 2018, 441 attendees, 171 online views) [5.10b] Student attendees to the exhibition, which was paired with a workshop on the themes covered, praised the way that the human migration stories were presented. Two students from Westminster Academy said, ‘The exhibition was really good and eye-opening to social issues we may not think about on a daily basis. Enables students to reflect on global issues’ [5.10c, p6]. Another student said that the exhibition ‘helped me decide whether to do Geography’ [at A-level] [5.10c, p3].

The research led to 1) direct policy actions by the Ministers of Finance of the Vulnerable Twenty Group (V20) of 48 climate-vulnerable developing countries that are home to 1.2 billion people. It also 2) influenced the work of several international financial organisations; 3) led the UK government to commission a study on the role of climate risk transparency in preparation of COP26, and 4) led to an award of funding by a research network aiming to support central banks and supervisors in their work to manage climate risk and mobilise finance to support the transition to a sustainable economy through innovative research. 5) the research was picked up by a wide range of international media and thereby contributed to raising awareness of the problem in business, finance, civil society and public policy.

The initial research [3.1, 3.2] was commissioned by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in collaboration with the V20. The resulting policy report was launched in London on 2 July 2018. The report’s findings were referred to in a Ministerial Communique after a meeting of the V20 Ministers of Finance at the Annual Meetings of the World Bank Group and IMF in October 2018. Urging states to act fast, the Communique states: “According to a July 2018 UNEP-mandated report, developed further to the V20 Ministers’ focus on the development policy consequences of green financing, climate change risks could severely penalize V20 economies with 1 dollar of additional costs due to climate vulnerability for every 10 dollars paid in interest. That penalty will double within the coming decade due to rising climate risks with concrete negative consequences for our growth and development prospects.” [5.1 p1].

Volz was subsequently invited to present the report’s findings to a meeting of the V20 Finance Ministers at the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP) in Katowice in December 2018. The V20 Finance Ministers further discussed the report’s policy implications at a Ministerial Dialogue at the Spring Meetings of the World Bank Group and IMF in April 2019. The press release makes direct reference to the research findings on the cost of climate vulnerability: “In the last ten years, climate vulnerability has cost V20 countries an additional US$62 billion in interest payments alone, […] reducing countries’ ability to invest in climate change mitigation and adaptation measures.” [5.2 p1]. and announced in a press release that they would launch new financial instruments. In response to the problem identified in the research, the V20 press release announced an ambitious programme of new financial instruments, in collaboration with international partners such as the World Bank and other multilateral development banks (MDBs). Proposals include an “Accelerated Financing Mechanism (AFM) for Maximal Resilience & a 100% Renewable Energy Transition to upscale existing risk mitigation tools, guarantees and blended finance facilities” in addition to “a new menu of instruments within MDBs and other development banks for adaptation, resilience and renewable energy projects.” [5.2 p2]. Such instruments would ensure continued global economic growth in the face of increasing threats from climate change. Work by the V20 on the AFM is still ongoing, and in 2020, the V20 Secretariat commissioned a concept update paper for the AFM, again with reference to the project’s research.

The Ministerial Brief of the same meeting also refers to the cost of capital problem identified by the research: “A new financing mechanism proposed for access by V20 members facing capital challenges with adaptation and mitigation projects serving V20 goals that are inhibited by higher relative costs of capital due to interest rates and debt maturity/tenures.” [5.3 p1]. Moreover, the V20 Ministers agreed on Workplan Priorities including “Address high costs of capital and mismatch of loan maturities to enable more private & public climate investments” and “Follow-up work on UNEP report on climate risk implications for cost of capital (V20 Regional Consultations in 2019-20)”. [5.4].

To translate these workplan priorities into action, during New York Climate Week in September 2019, the V20 announced the launch of a Sustainable Insurance Facility to protect micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in vulnerable economies. In the announcement, the V20 referred again explicitly to our research findings [5.5 p5]. The research also contributed to a dialogue between the V20 and the IMF. In May 2020, the V20 Secretariat commissioned Volz to lead a study for the V20 to support the development of a V20-IMF Joint Action Agenda on Transition Risks and Climate-related Financial and Fiscal Stability [3.7].

The research has influenced the work of several international financial organisations in this area. Notably, the research instigated follow-up research at the World Bank Group on how climate and environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors are incorporated into both credit rating agencies’ scoring and ESG index composition. Specifically, it informed the World Bank’s methodology for looking into how natural capital wealth is incorporated into sovereign bond pricing. It contributed to the development of a Sovereign ESG Data Portal launched by the World Bank in October 2019 to encourage and facilitate further analysis and improve data quality in this field [5.6]. It also led to work by the World Bank on a proposal for a “TCFD for Sovereigns”, analogous to the Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate Related Disclosures (TCFD) [5.7]. Building on the SOAS research, the Interamerican Development Bank (IDB) conducted internal analysis on the impact of climate risk on the cost of capital with a focus on Latin American and Caribbean countries. The research also led the IDB to consider how to integrate climate change into its risk analysis framework and “prompted a preliminary investigation on the IDB credit rating to its sovereign exposure in the region.” [5.8]. The research also influenced the work of international bodies such as the Global Commission on Adaptation, where it “reinforced [an] emphasis on the urgent need to strengthen the capacities of finance ministries and central banks in mitigating and managing macro-fiscal and financial sector risks related to climate change” [5.9].

In response to the research findings, in May 2020 the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID, now Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, FCDO) commissioned a study by Climate Finance Advisors, Benefit LLC on Understanding the Role of Climate Risk Transparency on Capital Pricing for Developing Countries [5.10a, 5.10c]. With this, DFID tried to obtain a better understanding of how greater transparency around climate risks may affect the cost of capital in climate vulnerable countries, the problem identified in our research. The study was also intended to help inform the UK government’s policies aimed at improving the framework conditions for scaling up private financing for adaptation and mitigation in vulnerable countries, in preparation of the 26th UN Conference of the Parties (COP26) on Climate Change. DFID invited Volz to join an Expert Review Panel to advise on this study. The COP26 and its preparations were delayed by a year as a result of COVID-19 and will now take place in November 2021 [5.10b]. The project’s research is cited in the preparatory report, which was published in November 2020 [5.10c, pp11, 22].

The initial research [3.1, 3.2, 3.3] led to the award of peer-reviewed funding in May 2019 by the International Network for Sustainable Financial Policy Insights, Research and Exchange (INSPIRE), an independent research network hosted by the ClimateWorks Foundation and the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics, established to support the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) in its work to manage climate risk and mobilise finance to support the transition to a sustainable economy through research. The new research [3.4, 3.5] was conducted by Volz and research partners at the Asian Development Bank Institute, WWF Singapore, and 427 in 2019-2020. The report, which included a chapter on macrofinancial risk in the ten countries forming the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and its policy recommendations were endorsed in a foreword by the Deputy Secretary General of ASEAN [3.4]. The report [3.4] was originally scheduled to be launched at the Annual Conference of the NGFS hosted by the Bank of Thailand in Bangkok in April 2020. Due to COVID-19, the conference had to be cancelled and the launch was delayed until the Annual Meetings of the IMF and World Bank in October 2020.

The research findings were widely reported on in the media, generating almost 60 pieces of global coverage, including by The Economist [5.11 pp1-3], the Financial Times [5.11 p4], Reuters [5.11 pp5-6], and UN Climate Change News [5.11 pp7-8]. This contributed to rising awareness of the problem in business, finance, civil society and public policy, but also highlighted the potential for virtuous circles: that low cost or affordable borrowing by vulnerable countries to invest in climate adaptation will “help bring down the cost of their borrowing” [5.11 p6].

The work of Professor Goodhand and Dr Meehan in the EBPD research project provided a strong evidence base and a set of analytical frameworks that informed the shaping of the new UK Government policy approach to support stabilisation as well as country-level strategic decision-making for UK Government interventions in conflict-affected contexts. The research also influenced the work of peacebuilding agencies such as the NGO Conciliation Resources and was embedded in the training of UK Government staff in various departments such as the (former) Department for International Development (DFID) and Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), and the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

The research was fundamental in shaping the 2018 UK Government’s Approach to Stabilisation: A guide for policy makers and practitioners [5.1]. The Minister of State for International Development, Rt Hon. Alistair Burt MP, endorsed these guidelines as setting out the UK Government’s ‘latest thinking on how the UK sees the role of stabilisation in conflict-affected contexts’ [5.2 p2], acknowledging their importance for responding to the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq and the findings of the Iraq Inquiry. Recalling one of **[3.1]**’s key findings, Rt Hon. Burt stated that ‘understanding conflict and ending violence requires a total focus on the politics and the power holders at play’ and praised the centrality of this work to set the conditions for more sustainable transitions out of conflict [5.2 p4].

The guidelines drew heavily upon the terminology, concepts, analytical framework and core arguments developed in the research [3.1, 3.2]. This included an explicit need to acknowledge and confront the difficult policy trade-offs that exist between efforts to stabilise violent conflict in the short-term, and efforts to provide the foundations for longer-term stability and inclusive development [5.1 pp5, 9, 11, 49, 58–59, 85, 87, 92]. It also included the need to think and work politically and to acknowledge the centrality of elite bargaining processes to the dynamics of violent conflict and stabilisation [5.1 pp27, 38, 87–107]. Other core arguments used included the danger that externally-driven peace agreements and reforms can be destabilising if they misalign with the underlying distribution of power in conflict-affected contexts [5.1 pp8–9, 20, 29, 65, 87, 92]; and the destabilising impact of large-scale militarised interventions [5.1 pp9, 61, 65].

The guidelines explicitly cited Goodhand, Meehan and Cheng’s research [3.1] as providing ‘helpful analytical frameworks for analysts and policy makers’ working in conflict contexts as well as a fundamental evidence base [5.1 p90]. The research underscored the guidelines’ foundational stabilisation principles [5.1 pp9 and 89] and was cited as a tool for approaches to political deal-making [5.1 pp92, 94 and 97]. Rt Hon. Alistair Burt MP also expressed being ‘especially pleased to see the development of a strong evidence base to underpin the Guide . . . and the collaborative and engaged way my team have sought advice and input from experts outside government’ [5.3 p2]. As noted in the written supporting statement by Ed Hadley, Conflict and Stabilisation Advisor, it is rare for academic research to translate so directly into policy, and the project ‘stands as a shining example of academic/government engagement and interaction’ [5.4 p2]. The research also had a positive impact on strengthening the reputation of the Stabilisation Unit. The 2018 Annual Qualitative Assessment of HMG [Her Majesty’s Government]’s Stabilisation Unit described the SU’s Lessons Team as a ‘key HMG thought leader on current stabilisation’, explicitly citing the EBPD project as a ‘good example’ of this [5.5 p6], and also indicating that the project had been ‘well-received by SU stakeholders’ [5.5 p3].The report also attained significant media attention in the UK and internationally; for example, it received deep coverage by The Guardian [5.6] as well as foreign press [5.7].

Through its impact on shaping the ‘UK Approach’ to Stabilisation, Cheng, Goodhand and Meehan’s work also influenced UK Government strategies and interventions in conflict-affected contexts. The SU conducted a careful internal monitoring of research uptake from the EBPD project. As reported by Ed Hadley, the framework for analysing elite bargaining in conflict contexts [3.1, 3.2] underpinned Joint Analysis of Conflict and Stability (JACS) reports conducted by the SU in Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Mali and Somalia [5.4 p1]. The JACS is a strategic assessment used to underpin UK National Security Council Strategies. Furthermore, [5.1] underpinned the UK Government’s new stabilisation strategy in Libya and Syria [5.4 p1]. Ed Hadley also noted that in countries such as Mali and Yemen the core principles of [5.1] guided discussions between Senior SU Advisors implementing partners delivering programmes, providing a realistic framework for UK Government engagement in-country [5.4 p2]. Had this not occurred, he stated, there was a clear risk that unrealistic and apolitical programmatic interventions would have been implemented. For example, in Mali, SU advisors used the EBPD framework to engage with Adam Smith International, the implementing partner tasked with developing a stabilisation programme in Central Mali, ensuring that the framework was used as a ‘checklist’ to design interventions that were more conflict sensitive. [5.1] also shaped conflict analysis and the designing of UK Government conflict interventions in Syria, and underpinned parts of the 2020–2024 UK Government Strategy on Afghanistan [5.4 p1]. Country-level strategic government documents are classified and cannot be made available; however, Ed Hadley noted in his supporting statement that ‘the project’s robust evidence base enabled substantive challenge to existing policy and has enabled alternative policy approaches to be considered’ [5.4 p1].

In November 2016, Goodhand and Meehan were commissioned (alongside Walton at Bath University, and Plonski at Queen Mary University of London) by Conciliation Resources – an international NGO committed to stopping violent conflict and creating more peaceful societies – to produce a publication entitled ‘Borderlands and Peacebuilding’ as part of Conciliation Resources’ flagship Accord Series. Co-edited by the Senior Adviser Peace and Transition Processes and others at Conciliation Resources, it was published in November 2018 [5.9]. It played a further important role in disseminating key aspects of Goodhand and Meehan’s research on war-to-peace transitions to policy makers and practitioners working on peacebuilding, and the resulting cross-border peacebuilding concepts trialled by the NGO has received ‘positive feedback from the FCDO’ (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) [5.10]. [5.1] was used extensively to inform the development of the Stabilisation Leaders’ Forum ‘Stabilisation principles’ and shared definition of stabilisation, cementing the UK’s reputation as a ‘thought leader’ in this area. The forum is a group made up of the Heads of over 12 stabilisation-focused organisations – including from Germany, US, Canada, France, Denmark and Sweden – referred to as government-to-government exchanges by Hadley [5.4 p2].

Goodhand and Meehan’s research also had a direct impact on the training that the UK Government provides to staff across various government departments including DFID, FCO and MoD. Indeed, between 2018 and 2020, Goodhand and Meehan developed training materials and delivered training for more than 60 government employees as part of the SU’s quarterly ‘Conflict and Stabilisation’ training course [5.4 p2, 5.8]. The SU also held briefing sessions on the EBPD report [3.1] with colleagues across government and country offices. This included sessions at the Defence Academy; in Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan; at the UK Government’s Conflict Stability and Security Fund (CSSF) Global Workshop; for the Joint Funds Unit (which administers the CSSF); and at DFID Governance and Conflict Cadre conferences. Hadley points out that ‘[a] daylong annual gathering of SU Senior Advisors focused entirely on [5.1] and its core precepts’ [5.4 p2].