journalistiek over mondiale samenwerking

After four years of interdisciplinary research across Africa, the SDG Interactions and Policy Interventions in Developing Countries programme concluded with a conference that looked beyond the evidence itself. Bringing together researchers, policymakers and practitioners, the discussions explored how knowledge on SDG interactions can support more coherent, inclusive and evidence-informed decision-making.

The international research programme, SDG Interactions and Policy Interventions in Developing Countries, funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, is nearing completion. This milestone was marked by the final conference, themed ‘Making SDG Interactions Work: From Evidence to Coherent and Inclusive Decisions’, organised by the Dutch Research Council, the Knowledge Broker and Vice Versa Global.

The final conference was held on 1–2 July 2026 at the historic Academy Building on Domplein, the ceremonial heart of Utrecht University. The building is associated with Anna Maria van Schurman, one of Europe’s first female scholars and a pioneer of women’s access to higher education. It provided a fitting backdrop for a conference centred on inclusion, evidence-informed decision-making, and the principle of putting the last first.

For the principal investigators involved, the programme’s final phase provided an opportunity to share ongoing research, reflect on the findings of their respective projects, consolidate lessons learned, and identify directions for future research and collaboration. 

The four-year programme brought together an overarching research initiative led by Prof. Dr Nicky Pouw of the University of Amsterdam, alongside three interconnected projects: Beyond Cherry-Picking: Governing SDG Interactions in East Africa, led by Prof. Dr Art Dewulf at Wageningen University & Research; From Climate Change to Conflict: Mitigation Through Insurance, led by Dr Karlijn Morsink at Utrecht University; and Improving Food and Nutrition Security by Enhancing Women’s Empowerment, led by Prof. Dr Robert Lensink at the University of Groningen.

The conference opened with a keynote address by Dr Maty Konte, a research economist at the World Bank Group, titled Financing Jobs and Growth in Africa: Turning Domestic Capital into Productive Investments. The keynote highlighted that while governments play a critical role in creating an enabling environment for economic growth in Africa, they cannot provide all the jobs needed. 

Instead, sustainable job creation depends largely on the private sector, with small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups serving as key drivers of employment, innovation and economic development.

Dr Konte also argued that Africa already possesses significant pools of domestic capital. The challenge, however, lies in developing the strategies, institutions and financing mechanisms needed to channel these resources into productive investments that reach smallholder farmers, informal sector entrepreneurs and other marginalised groups. 

While acknowledging the progress made in expanding access to finance and technology, he noted that the pace of change remains slower than required to meet the continent’s development aspirations. Accelerating this progress will require innovative financing approaches, intentional public-private partnerships, and more effective policies that mobilise domestic capital for inclusive and sustainable growth, including through taxation.

From Research to Policy-Relevant Insights (A research-focused day)

Researchers, including professors, postdoctoral researchers and PhD candidates, presented their findings across three thematic areas. The first focused on SDG interactions. Drawing on case studies from Ethiopia, Kenya, Bangladesh and Uganda, they presented empirical evidence illustrating how progress in one goal influences, creates synergies with, and generates trade-offs across others. 

The case studies examined women’s empowerment initiatives in Bangladesh, investments in sustainable dairy production in Kenya, landscape restoration in Ethiopia’s Lake Tana Basin, clean water and sanitation in informal settlements in Uganda, and the relationship between climate change and conflict in Kenya and Ethiopia.

Prof. Dr Nicky Pouw categorised these interactions as reinforcing (progress in one SDG accelerates progress in others), conditional (progress in one SDG depends on progress in others) and conflicting (progress in one SDG constrains progress in others).

Reinforcing interactions were illustrated through research on women’s empowerment in Ethiopia and Bangladesh. Researchers found that empowering women increased their decision-making power within households, leading to greater investment in nutritious food and better healthcare for their children. Access to information on clean water and sanitation was identified as an enabling condition that helped women make more informed decisions.

Conditional interactions were illustrated through research on conflicts among pastoral communities in Kenya and Ethiopia. The findings showed that climate change intensifies pressure on scarce resources such as land and water. Whether this pressure leads to conflict, however, depends largely on the strength of local institutions.

Conflicting interactions were illustrated by research on climate-smart dairy farming in Kenya. Researchers found that women’s participation in dairy farm management increased their workload, as they assumed additional responsibilities while continuing to shoulder their existing household duties.

The second thematic area centred on policy coherence, highlighting the importance of aligning policies and institutions to manage the complex interactions among the SDGs. The presentations explored different governance mechanisms, including inter-donor coordination, aid modalities, accountability mechanisms for sustainable dairy development in Kenya, and donor-recipient interactions within the water-energy-food (WEF) nexus in Uganda.

Across these case studies, policy coherence emerged as a cross-cutting concern, demonstrating that governing SDG interactions requires coordinated action across sectors, actors and levels of governance. The presentation on how international forest and landscape restoration regimes shape Ethiopia’s domestic policies further illustrated that policy coherence is a dynamic and negotiated process. 

Global restoration agendas are translated into national policies through interactions between international actors and domestic institutions, often influencing policy priorities and implementation approaches.

The third thematic area focused on inclusive development. Evidence from the research projects showed that although policy interventions aim to improve the well-being of diverse and often marginalised groups, the resulting opportunities and benefits are not distributed equally. The most vulnerable communities continue to bear the greatest costs of development trade-offs, experiencing them directly in their daily lives.

Together, the three thematic areas provided a comprehensive overview of how SDG interactions, policy coherence and inclusive development play out in practice, offering context-specific insights from across the participating countries.

Guided by moderator Dr Ellen Mangnus, the closing panel reflected on the key insights emerging from the diverse country case studies and thematic discussions. The panel highlighted the need for coordination across all levels of governance.

Prof. Dr Art Dewulf emphasised the importance of locally led alignment mechanisms, where coordination and integration are built from the bottom up and grounded in local realities. Dr Karlijn Morsink highlighted the role of governments in providing strategic direction, including how donors coordinate through co-sequencing and division of labour when implementing development interventions. She also stressed the importance of understanding SDG interactions within their specific contexts.

Representing Prof. Dr Robert Lensink, Dr Kritika Saxena highlighted the context-specific nature of SDG interactions. She noted that social, institutional and cultural conditions differ significantly, meaning that an intervention aimed at women’s empowerment, for example, produced different outcomes in Bangladesh and Ethiopia.

From Insights to Decisions (An Interactive policy/action-oriented day)

Building on the researchers’ presentations, the discussions shifted towards translating research insights into practical decision-making. The programme featured policy panels, dialogue tables and co-creation labs. Moderators Bram Peters and Rachel Gitundu challenged participants to reflect on the lessons emerging from the different projects and consider how these insights could help policymakers navigate SDG interactions, strengthen policy coherence and promote inclusive development.

An opening round of participant reflections on the previous day’s presentations highlighted several recurring themes. These included the importance of context-specific approaches, the need for locally led coordination mechanisms, and the value of examining household-level dynamics and power relations in greater detail. 

Participants also raised important questions about the role of data in research, the extent to which research findings are transferable across contexts, and the importance of community engagement throughout the research process.

In her keynote address, Dr Isayvani Naicker, who has followed the programme since its inception, shared her personal journey as a Black woman scientist and as someone shaped by a non-inclusive society. Drawing on her professional experience, she reflected that while politics and activism each have an important role to play, influencing policy is equally critical.

She argued that strengthening diversity requires meaningful citizen participation, not only in evidence-based policymaking but also in evidence-informed dialogue. Researchers, she suggested, should embrace their role as a bridge between policy and politics while recognising the value of citizen participation throughout the policymaking process.

In Dr Naicker’s view, citizens possess valuable knowledge that should inform public policy. Engaging them throughout the policy process not only improves the quality of evidence available to policymakers but also helps citizens better understand how policy decisions are made, encouraging more active participation. She argued that democratising policymaking ultimately leads to stronger and more responsive public policy.

She further challenged researchers to consider how their rich empirical findings could be translated into policy influence. How, she asked, could researchers ensure that the voices and interests of the communities they study are meaningfully represented in policymaking? While acknowledging that influencing policy is rarely straightforward, she emphasised that translating research into policy should not be left solely to policy brokers or lobbyists. 

Instead, it should be viewed as a shared responsibility that supports collective reasoning and enables policymakers to make better-informed choices between competing policy options.

Dr Naicker’s reflections sparked a lively discussion on the politicisation of science and the legitimacy of researchers engaging in policy. Dr Nowella Anyango-van Zwieten questioned what role researchers and academics should play, noting that choosing to act as a bridge between politics and policy is itself an inherently political act.

The discussion underscored that, regardless of one’s position on this question, reflecting on positionality is essential. Participants also agreed that the conventional role of science, knowledge and expertise deserves renewed consideration. Dr Naicker concluded by calling for a new narrative in which science does more than generate evidence. It should also produce knowledge that actively informs transformative societal change while embracing diverse knowledge systems. 

The Evaluative Decision framework (Inclusion First SDG interactions Navigator)

Having established that SDG interactions shape development outcomes, Prof. Dr Nicky Pouw argued that policymakers now face a different challenge: not whether priorities should be set, but how to prioritise wisely in an era of shrinking development budgets.

Drawing on four years of evidence synthesis across the three research projects, she observed that existing SDG interaction frameworks typically begin by asking which goals interact. The Inclusion First SDG Interactions Navigator deliberately reverses this logic by starting with people, sectors or landscapes, rather than the goals themselves.

To address the question of where to invest under increasingly constrained development budgets, Prof. Dr Nicky Pouw and Dr Melanie van Driel introduced the Inclusion First SDG Interactions Navigator. The framework is built around five guiding principles: put the last first; do no harm; reduce inequalities; recognise complexity and context; and remain accountable for long-term sustainable well-being.

According to Prof. Dr Pouw, SDG interactions are never neutral. The same intervention can produce very different outcomes depending on gender, poverty, power relations and local realities. Beginning with those most at risk of being left behind therefore changes how policy priorities are identified and how trade-offs are assessed.

The Navigator is built around five guiding questions. First, who is most at risk of being left behind? Rather than assuming who belongs to a target group, policymakers should identify those genuinely at risk within a specific intervention context and ensure that their perspectives inform policy choices from the outset. Dr van Driel emphasised the importance of making this assessment early rather than relying on preconceived assumptions about target groups.

Second, does the proposed intervention reflect the lived realities of those most affected, taking into account local context, power relations and enabling conditions? Evidence presented throughout the conference showed that interventions which overlook these factors frequently fail to achieve their intended outcomes.

Third, what SDG interactions are likely to emerge? Policymakers should consider reinforcing, conditional, conflicting and temporal interactions, and assess how these may influence the effectiveness of an intervention over time.

Fourth, who benefits, who bears the costs, and what unintended consequences may arise? These questions encourage policymakers to assess distributional impacts alongside potential unintended effects before decisions are made.

Fifth, what governance and adaptive actions are required to align, coordinate, learn and adapt? Rather than assuming that integrated policy design alone is sufficient to ‘leave no one behind’, the Navigator deliberately places inclusion at the beginning of decision-making. 

It encourages policymakers to ‘put the last first’ by identifying those facing the greatest barriers and understanding their priorities. Only then should they assess how SDG interactions can maximise synergies while avoiding unintended harm.

While the Navigator presents these questions sequentially, Dr van Driel clarified that they should not be viewed as a linear process. Instead, they are iterative and should be revisited continuously in consultation with the relevant stakeholders. 

The presenters emphasised that the Navigator is not intended as a technical checklist but as a practical conversation tool that helps policymakers ask better questions before making difficult investment decisions.

Thematic Policy Panels: The transition to decision-making (Researchers, policy makers and expert perspectives)

Three thematic policy panels followed, bringing together perspectives from research, policy and practice on the opportunities and challenges of evidence-informed decision-making.

The first panel explored the interactions that emerge when climate action (SDG 13) intersects with conflict dynamics (SDG 16), and what these interactions mean for policy. Dr Nathan Jensen, Senior Research Fellow at the Jameel Observatory, highlighted that empirical evidence points to a complex relationship between climate change and conflict. 

Resource scarcity can intensify competition and contribute to conflict, but resource abundance can also generate tensions and contestation. This apparent contradiction presents difficult choices for policymakers.

Dr Kevin Shikuku, Senior Scientist and Development Economist at the International Livestock Research Institute, discussed insurance products as a potential mechanism for mitigating drought-related conflicts. However, this raised a broader question: how should policymakers understand and respond to conflicts arising from resource abundance? 

While insurance schemes have shown promise in addressing conflicts associated with resource scarcity, researchers highlighted the need for further evidence on how such approaches can be scaled. This is particularly important where conflicts extend beyond geographical boundaries.

Dr Reinier van Hoffen, Senior Advisor at the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, cautioned that the success of scaling initiatives during periods of intensive programme support does not necessarily translate into long-term sustainability or effectiveness.

He argued that interventions should be designed with long-term resilience in mind by strengthening local knowledge systems and creating conditions that enable programmes to adapt as contexts evolve. Rather than assuming that early success will endure, researchers and practitioners should continue generating evidence that supports responsible scaling and helps prevent future implementation failures.

The second panel focused on the interactions between gender (SDG 5), food, and inequalities (SDG 10), examining distributional outcomes and the question of who risks being left behind by development interventions.

Prof. Dr Robert Lensink highlighted how certain groups, particularly extremely poor and vulnerable populations in remote areas, may be excluded from interventions. Drawing on experiences from Bangladesh involving microfinance organisations, he noted that initiatives aimed at women’s empowerment may not achieve their intended outcomes without a deeper understanding of household dynamics and social structures. 

Even where women are identified as beneficiaries and efforts are made to engage husbands, restrictive gender norms, family hierarchies and controlling household relationships can limit the extent to which empowerment is realised.

Dr Kenda Cunningham of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Dr Daniel Pfaff of GIZ observed similar patterns across market systems, where development interventions often create both winners and losers. 

Efforts to improve food safety within value chains, for example, can make scaling more difficult if they unintentionally threaten the livelihoods of small vendors. Dr Pfaff therefore emphasised the importance of contextualising policy goals and identifying locally appropriate pathways for achieving them. Understanding local knowledge systems, cultural practices and their intersections is essential.

The panel also highlighted the importance of project timelines. Short project cycles often leave little room for meaningful learning and adaptation. In programmes lasting only three years, there is rarely sufficient time to move beyond baseline and endline assessments, limiting opportunities for mid-course reflection, adjustment and learning. 

Longer-term programming, by contrast, creates space for continuous learning, enabling implementers to test assumptions, incorporate emerging evidence, and adapt interventions throughout implementation.

The third panel focused on what policy coherence means in practice and how institutions prioritise when goals and sectors pull in different directions.

According to Dr Daniel Wiegant, a consultant at the World Bank and advisor to the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment, policy coherence must be purpose-driven. Drawing on a landscape perspective, he argued that governments must balance immediate human needs, such as food production and employment, with the protection of public goods. These include stable microclimates, resilient ecosystems, and clean and reliable water resources that support agriculture.

This creates inherent tensions between short-term development priorities and long-term environmental sustainability. Dr Wiegant therefore argued that governments should adopt spatially explicit development pathways that integrate sectors and governance levels.

Mr Aytenew Tatek, Policy Advisor at the Dutch Embassy in Ethiopia, noted that misalignment between donor and recipient priorities persists because of differing policy objectives and power relations. 

Using Ethiopia as an example, he observed that the Dutch government’s development priorities have shifted towards a smaller number of sectors where it believes it can add the greatest value. In response, the Ethiopian government has also had to reassess its policy environment and prioritise its own sectors accordingly.

Looking at policy coherence from a continental perspective, Ms Sarah Hamouda, Continental Governance Officer at the African Union Peer Review Mechanism, observed persistent challenges in aligning implementation of the SDGs with Agenda 2063. She also noted that the African Union has limited authority to intervene directly.

Drawing on experiences from Ghana, Namibia, South Africa and Kenya, Ms Hamouda observed that all four countries have strong political commitment and comprehensive national development plans. However, implementation remains challenging. 

Key obstacles include aligning national planning with budgeting processes, strengthening decentralised governance, and, in Kenya’s case, effectively cascading national priorities to the county level. She further observed that a whole-of-society approach remains insufficiently embedded across these countries, particularly in those with decentralised planning systems.

Dialogue tables: Collective reflection on future actions (key insights and dilemmas)

During the dialogue tables, participants worked in mixed groups to examine how key dilemmas play out in real-world policy and practice. The discussions explored a range of interconnected challenges, including how to ensure meaningful representation and inclusion in decision-making, who has the legitimacy to set policy priorities, and what role researchers should play in policy dialogue.

Participants also reflected on the challenge of integrating research evidence into resource-constrained policymaking, where competing priorities and limited institutional capacity often shape decision-making. Other recurring themes included addressing the gap between policy objectives and implementation, strengthening coordination across sectors and institutions, and identifying practical ways to translate policy into action.

During the final plenary, participants reflected on the broader lessons emerging from the conference. A recurring theme was the importance of active listening and meaningful engagement with stakeholders, particularly women and local communities. Participants emphasised that effective interventions should be grounded in an understanding of the priorities identified by communities themselves, rather than assumptions imposed from outside.

Another key insight was the need to make trade-offs explicit and support decision-making with robust evidence. Rather than avoiding difficult choices, researchers and policymakers should openly acknowledge competing objectives and use evidence to inform transparent and balanced decisions.

The discussions also reinforced the importance of context-specific approaches. Participants stressed that interventions should be informed by comprehensive needs assessments, local knowledge systems, and an up-to-date understanding of the economic, political and institutional processes that shape decision-making. They also cautioned that well-intentioned solutions can generate unintended consequences, reinforcing the need for adaptive governance, continuous learning and ongoing monitoring throughout implementation.

The plenary further recognised that different stakeholder groups hold diverse perspectives, priorities and visions of development. Navigating these differences requires meaningful collaboration with civil society organisations, which play a vital role as knowledge partners and as bridges between policymakers and local communities.

Finally, participants highlighted the importance of examining power dynamics across different levels of governance. Beyond formal institutional arrangements, attention should also be paid to power relations within communities and households, where many implementation challenges and opportunities ultimately emerge. 

Despite the complexity of these governance challenges, the plenary concluded on an optimistic note, expressing confidence that the lessons generated through the programme would help shape future policy and practice.

Co-Creation Labs: Recommendations for Policymakers

The co-creation labs shifted the conversation from understanding complexity to making practical policy choices. Working in thematic groups, participants identified key policy challenges, assessed competing priorities, and developed concrete, evidence-based recommendations.

Several recommendations emerged from the co-creation labs. Participants agreed that policymakers should reverse the policy perspective by ‘putting the last first’, embedding equity considerations throughout the policy cycle by systematically identifying groups that are excluded or disproportionately affected and ensuring that interventions respond to their needs and priorities. 

They also stressed that policy priorities should be grounded in a deep understanding of context, informed by context-specific needs assessments, local institutional realities and stakeholder perspectives rather than one-size-fits-all approaches.

The discussions further highlighted the need to explicitly account for trade-offs and spillover effects by anticipating their costs, budgeting for mitigation measures where possible, and making transparent decisions about which trade-offs are acceptable and why. 

Participants also called for stronger knowledge brokering to bridge the gap between research, policy and practice through the translation of evidence into actionable policy options and by facilitating continuous dialogue among researchers, policymakers and practitioners.

Another key recommendation was to recognise and integrate local knowledge systems. Policy design and implementation should build on local knowledge, cultural practices and community experience to ensure that interventions are both legitimate and contextually appropriate. 

Rather than creating parallel systems, policymakers were also encouraged to strengthen existing governance arrangements, coordination mechanisms and institutional capacities to improve implementation.

Finally, participants emphasised the need for greater flexibility in both programming and financing. Policies and programmes should acknowledge uncertainty by incorporating mechanisms for continuous learning, regular review and adaptation as new evidence emerges. 

Likewise, donors and governments should support flexible budgeting and incremental funding approaches that enable programmes to respond to unintended consequences and changing implementation contexts without compromising accountability. 

Reforms should also be sequenced strategically, with interventions prioritised according to readiness, capacity and emerging evidence, and adjusted over time as circumstances evolve.

Reflecting on four years of interdisciplinary collaboration, Prof. Dr Nicky Pouw concluded that the programme demonstrates the practical value of evidence on SDG interactions. 

Rather than merely describing complexity, such evidence helps policymakers navigate difficult choices. ‘When resources are scarce, the question is no longer whether we should prioritise, but how we prioritise wisely. Start with people. Navigate interventions. Put the last first.’

The final conference marked the culmination of four years of collaborative research. However, the dialogue, partnerships and collaborations established through the programme will continue, providing a foundation for future research, policy engagement and collective action.

Case Studies from the different presenters on day 1 and pictures of both days can be found here.