 The Land at Scale program aims to strengthen essential land governance components for men, women, and youth to contribute to structural, just, sustainable, and inclusive change at scale in lower and middle income countries, regions, and landscapes. This program is supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands and the Netherlands Enterprise Agency. Knowledge management is essential to the effective implementation of the Land at Scale program. It is conceived in a comprehensive and adaptive way that integrates documentation, learning, and sharing. Knowledge management means bringing in state-of-the-art insights to strengthen interventions, reaching out to make relevant knowledge available to the right people at the right time, and sharing lessons learned in the program with a wide audience. In this series of short videos, we explore three key aspects of the knowledge management program within Land at Scale. These are adaptive programming, South-South exchange, and monitoring and evaluation. Each of the video presents evidence and insights from experts working in the land governance sector. This video is focused on adaptive programming and how it is informed by knowledge management. Adaptive programming uses lessons learned throughout an intervention to adjust the program for continued effectiveness of program outcomes. In this video, we have asked a range of questions to partners to gain insights about their experiences. I think we use adaptive management in two ways. It really depends on the focus of the program. For a legend, the knowledge management was often about evidence across countries, not just in a single country, and it was about disseminating information to a wide range of stakeholders. That was, we would use our experience, mainly to think about which audience we were trying to reach and also which were the topics that were coming up in debates, where we were identifying gaps in the evidence, and then we would build on that knowledge because as we filled in gaps in the evidence, we would often identify further questions. So that's one way that we would use that process to adapt. In the context of Prindex, where we're much more directly engaged with country actors and helping to support the design of targeted effective program interventions, that's very much about making sure that we select the writing country partners and that we rely on them to guide us about what are the burning questions in their own context, but again, using the research that we produce to identify where the main levers may be and what are the main issues that need to be addressed. So for example, with Prindex's first global database on citizens' perceptions of tenure security, we were able to identify which countries have particularly high levels of tenure insecurity and then use that to guide efforts to focus on particular countries for deep dive efforts to dig deeper into those questions. So for example, Burkina Faso, which has the highest level of tenure insecurity across the 140 countries surveyed, we're now working with the German government to understand what drives insecurity in Burkina Faso. Really legend as a whole had to adapt considerably to circumstances that changed quite radically from when it was designed and during the first year of implementation and really we had to focus on developing really background policy knowledge. Some additional research, you could call it knowledge management, drawing on the practical experiences of land programs throughout the world, but particularly DFID land programs. Active research into emerging issues such as land corruption, advancing technology and its applications in land administration and particularly around questions of responsible agricultural investment or responsible land-based investment in developing countries, particularly in Africa. And that was the kind of policy focus that DFID wanted. So legend as a whole had to adjust to that and in order to try to support informed, well-informed and effective intervention strategies or provide some basis for DFID or its successor organization, DFCDO, to do that in practice and for its partners to do that. That did involve quite a lot of knowledge management work, background research and publications, a strong effort on communicating these and sharing these with key stakeholders, particularly DFID, who were the main audience. There were secondary audiences, including civil society, including the private sector, but really them and other international organizations and donors, but the main audience where the DFID advises both in country and at the center. The thematic area where we work is really complex. Securing tenure is a complex issue and it cross a court. There is some time political, there are some times cross a court different social and institutions. So this complexity comes with a lot of authenticity and how this project or our programs are unfolding in the different contexts and what are the different enabling environment or conditions that will help us to fulfill or achieve our target. So one key aspect in this is what are the political environment? Is the political environment conducive enough? What are the differences to ecological content that we work? And what is the capacity of our partners vis-à-vis their relations with other stakeholders and their constituencies where they work to motion this? So these are the key elements that we take in order to understand how we can adapt projects. And in the tenure facility program so far we've been able in practice try to bring this into the different project that we support. For example, one key element is during this COVID, our project and partners, they really suffer around during COVID and it was a high time how do we adapt the project and to really accommodate the pandemic and then so that we can do implementation. One of the key elements we do, we had a budget, we look at the project costs and budget and maybe extend some percentage of the budget where the partners can use it to support their consistencies to be their preparedness to face the COVID, which was not part of the project planning. Another aspect of adaptation that we really do is that how do we bring government and government agencies together to work with our partners and so that they can be part of this. So we create spaces for dialogue when there is a political tension. The third element is that we enable our partners, support our partners to be able to adapt their project to the uniqueness of their context. In ILC, knowledge management plays an important role for the network. In fact, ILC is a coalition of members which is now composed of more than 300 members in between civil society organizations, people's organizations, multilateral institutions, international NGOs, research centers, etc. So knowledge management and learning are in fact adapted in ILC to this particular nature of ILC being a network. So because we really want to promote knowledge exchange and learning between ILC members, we do our best to create space and channels through which this can happen. For the overall project implementation, knowledge management is absolutely key and it is important that it is done systematically and you have a way of reflecting on the learning, reflecting on the knowledge that you are gathering to be able to identify the most important questions that you then need to look at to be able to tailor your project interventions. In our case, when I think about legend, we pressed pause about halfway through the project. In the first part of the project, the efforts on knowledge management had been about generating a lot of new evidence and then we felt that we needed to pivot to be able to use and apply that evidence more concretely, more systematically to reach a wider set of audiences and to make sure that the evidence was relevant for those debates and that was done very closely in partnership with the UK government which is very keen on adaptive management, recognizes the need for that. So that was a really useful example for us of how we were working closely with the donors to be able to reflect on what we had done. I think in that moment that we pressed pause to reflect, we also realized that we needed to group our efforts, our learning into a few more focused points. We reflected on which products, which evidence had had the most impact, had been most relevant to people's thinking and practice and then we were able to draw on that learning to say, right, these are the areas that we're going to be focusing on over the next two or three years and I would thoroughly recommend that there are moments for pause and reflection built into any project with the ability to actually look honestly at what you're doing and say, well, we tried that, it wasn't successful but that's fine. At that, what were the learnings that we got from that that we can apply going forwards and have that honest conversation in a safe space. So knowledge management didn't really play a very systematic role across legend as a whole in reflecting and learning about project implementation. It was more reflection and learning about policy and learning from other projects, other activities and factoring that knowledge into DFID's resource bank and their planning, but we were able to spend some time focusing on the lessons from the major DFID land programs that had taken place over the previous five to 10 years and those that were still ongoing to really look closely at the outcomes largely based on evaluation reports, review reports, existing documentation but also drawing on the team's knowledge and in particular bringing in people who were directly engaged in implementation of these programs. So we are just a funding mechanism and provide technical support and then we ensure that our planners integrate learning as a key element in their project monitoring and evaluation. In going forward, we are developing certain guidelines on how we better support structured and streamline our project and partners to be able to conduct this type of learning in a sequence manner during the project cycle. In terms of changing program strategy, the reflection and learning have definitely led to either a pivot or a narrowing of focus. When we were working in the first couple of years of Prindex, there was a huge amount of learning about, again, the audiences, the most relevant questions and we have often had these moments of reflection. Actually, not necessarily in the same way as we did with Legends, sort of pressing pause to reflect but more about continuous reflection and learning with monthly meetings, longer, more extended six-monthly meetings and then constant refreshing of our strategy. So we have an integrated research communications and funding strategy and constantly checking in to see whether we were achieving those aims. So looking at the communication statistics, looking at which research had most impact and then thinking about how to plan our resources for the next six months to be able to build on that learning. So one of the issues that we had, when we first started with Prindex, I mean, Prindex started as a way of responding to the needs for data for SDG indicator 1.4.2 and 5.8. And we realized quite quickly that we needed to expand our focus way beyond that our data would be very, very important for more citizen-led efforts to set up a data ecosystem that we could feed into efforts to inform on the progress of the voluntary guidelines and that most importantly that our data was going to be important for citizens, academics and government officials to think about national policy. And again, quite quickly, we realized that having nationally representative samples was a really important way to identify the scale and the nature of the problem of 10-year insecurity. But then we needed to dive into particular countries quickly to be able to get more regionally or intra-country representative samples. Yeah, there were two challenge fund projects in Sierra Leone and I think both of them have generated lessons and wider interest and experience in Sierra Leone and amongst both the NGOs and the companies involved, which is very, very positive. And other stakeholders in Sierra Leone and other international stakeholders are now looking at those lessons. So that is clearly a win that the bulletin played a key role in communicating a wide range of up-to-date information from the program and from other sources to DFID and highlighting issues that DFID advisors at country level or in the center specialist advisors might well be interested in. But we tried to craft that bulletin in such a way that it would be readable and interesting to a much wider audience as well. And so in terms of fairly up-to-date reporting on developments on the ground in context, a lot of effort went into that. And I think it produced good results in its own terms. We have cases or different cases in that our project that the political climate and the political environment really affected project implementation as a key challenge. And most of our panel have been able to maneuver that challenge. One way is through dialoguing. It's really important to emphasize this. One way is to identify lantern new champions within the government agency, within the different government settings as entry points to start initiating this type of dialogue and bringing certain understanding why this is really important. There are challenges when you do have, when you're adapting your strategy because often your original strategy is based on a particular team structure and composition. It's based on assumptions of networks that you will need and the entry points. And then the resource allocation that underpins all of that. So when you do change your strategy, you have to look at all of those different components and say, do we still have the right team structure and composition? Do we need to either bring in new people or change what the existing team is already doing? You then need to look at your networks and again verify whether they are fit for purpose, whether you need to expand them, whether you need to focus in on particular actors. And it takes time to develop new networks and build up a relationship of trust and establish your credibility in those networks. And certainly we have found that again with Prindex, we have had to be very, very agile, very responsive to new opportunities that we think need to be addressed. And that, yes, I think the, so these internal processes of changing resource allocation, which can be done reasonably easily. And if you have the whole team on board and you have a very strong program management capacity, then you can do that fairly quickly. I think it is that more externally focused change that can take more time. And that really does need to be built into any adaptation that a program is taking on board. And that needs to be, you know, there needs to be strong support from the funders for that program to do that in recognition of the time that it can take. And we are in the process of revising our developing our new strategy. And I think we, during this process, we are taking into consideration all these practical examples. And we are also involving our partners into our strategic process, which is happening now, to also inform us with all these examples and the different scenarios and what have happened in the approach. So this information will help us to systematically revive and develop the new strategy for 2023 to 2020, at which we really be informed by the lessons in this study and with the contribution of our project partners.