Session Report: Making Networks Work Within Institutions

Session on Making Networks Work Within Institutions, 23 January, 2009, 9.00 to 10.15 at Queen Juliana Room.

Comments by Cristina Sette

After three presentations (The Bluebar Group, FAO; IFAD Communities of Practice; Informal Commercialization and Agri-Business Interest Group, CABIG), a member of the audience asked presenters how senior management sees these initiatives, according to their perception.
Bluebar thinks that the informality is the success of this initiative. They don't need to interact with senior management for meeting once a month to interact and learn from each other. But they do need a facilitator to bring people together and carry on the interactions. IFAD is also informal but the group has a terms of reference. It is an output oriented group and their resources are very limited as they have no funds to cover costs with face to face interactions and no time for meeting. The CABIG group is also informal group.

The difference between the Bluebar group and the others is that the first is a network related to common interests and functions individuals perform in their units/departments. The others are related to a theme. Those groups are moving from an informal interaction to a formal network, however they have no funds to operate, using funds from other projects or sources.

Session Report: Leveraging Geographically Distributed Expertise through KS

Session on Leveraging Geographically Distributed Expertise through KS, 22 January, 2009, 10.45 to noon at Gabon Room.

Comments by Cristina Sette

The session was presented by German Escobar (IFAD - RIMISP), Tawfiq El-Zabri (IFAD - IDRC), Chase Palmeri (IFAD) and Huyen Tran (FAO).

German presented a network in Latin America which is currently in its 4th phase. The network involves the public and private sector, promotes learning and innovation, search results for problems and policy application, and value information. There is a part-time coordinator and am assistant involved in coordinating the network. The activities related to knowledge sharing and knowledge management happening at this project are the following:

• KM analysis at National level
• Bulletin (‘hosted’ independent from IFAD website)
• Electronic conferences (designed with farmers and developing programs, 1-3 years)
• Website library
• Communication Tools (evaluate each method/tools every 3 years; qualitative indicators).
• Field work to capture information
• Training facilitators

Chase presented the activities she is involved in Asia and the Pacific. The KS activities going on depend highly on connectivity and the commonalities between the several projects and are as following:

• Website
• Email
• Disseminate Info
• Face to Face
• Open to all members to participate

She mentioned the language constraints and the need to improve the network.

Huyen presented the global forum on food security which was created in October 2007. The forum is open to any user and has daily facilitated discussions (with invited subject matter specialists). It serves as a repository of information and also a way of involve people.
Some of the constraints are as following:

• connectivity
• involve more people (including FAO staff)
• improve the visibility of the forum

Asked about the quality control of the information posted, the group mentioned that the moderator of the forum does the quality control, who also summarizes the discussion and translates into Spanish and French. Two full time staff are involved in moderating the forum. Recent evaluation showed that the forum is considered very useful

Tawfig presented the network called Karianet and his experience on building a regional network. The motivation of people to participate in the network are related to learning and improving performance.The way the network works focus on processes, practionaires, documenting knowledge and working with pilot projects. The lessons:

• sustainability of the network:ownership, interest, symbolic membership fees, validate, involve private sector and rural communities.
• in 2004 a needs assessment was carried(ownership) together with activities on capacity building targetting project managers to help them reflect. The process was supported by a knowledge facilitator and activities were carried out face to face to build trust and confidence. Participants learned about their own projects, beginning a change in culture.
• The network concentrates on themes (e.g. M&E)
• Documents (Reports)- K products
• Demand driven
• Sustainability after end project:
• Topic relevant (views on it, stakeholders, share experiences)
• Thematic and Regional Network

Session Report: Leveraging Connections Among Networks by Nadejda Loumbeva

Leveraging Connections Among Networks
Facilitator - Nadejda Loumbeva
Day 2 at 13.45 in Espace Gabon


Process:
15 people (excluding the facilitator) participated in the session. 3 of those were presenters. We started off with describing the initiatives (ESCORENA network, e-Agriculture network, IMAWESA network). Then we moved onto a discussion. In the process of this, we used some of the computer and projector to show the websites of the featured networks.

Challenges to the process were:

• All three initiatives were incredibly complex and we had to struggle with ensuring these are being shared concisely and ''to-the-point'', in ways that encourage people to see linkages among them and discuss.
• Some of the presenters were taking a long time giving the background to their initiative. I had to work with them so that they focus more on the mechanisms underlying the network. It was a question of reinforcing them whenever they talked about mechanisms and gently stopping them when they would give away details that were (in my opinion!) distracting the discussion.
• The Espace Gabon room is difficult in terms of 1. having a few flip chart sheets written on at one and the same time (there is no where to put them but stick them to one of the walls) and 2. having all people see those sheets (all would sit in an oval around a big table and so some people would always have their backs on them). This was making difficult the synergy between notes I would take on these sheets (one for each network and a fourth one for challenges and lessons learnt) and the actual discussion. I guess it would have been good to enable the session in a way that is more holistic (i.e., people seeing all notes, and making connections among them whilst participating) however I do not think this worked.

Summary of some of the discussion:

IMAWESA network
http://www.asareca.org/swmnet/imawesa/home.php?LinkID=d3b978ca3a065922cf7c2c6e5d14aca4
http://www.asareca.org/swmnet/imawesa/downloads/20070524-648am-IMAWESA%20Brochure%20Final.pdf
This initiative aims to influence policies, attitudes and investment priorities in agricultural water management. This is intended to happen via different stakeholders (ministries and other public institutions, people on the ground, researchers) being brought together in the context of process documentation, dialogue, learning assessments, capacity building initiatives, peer reviews, amongst others. Such would create linkages between different stakeholders in agricultural water management to encourage and build upon. A few different organisations have joined in support of the initiative, one of which is IFAD. The initiative currently spans 23 countries. It has no online platform to more interactively connect the participating stakeholders and leverage their connections, however it is understood this may need to change in the near future.

ESCORENA network
http://www.escorena.net/
This network was established in 1974. ESCORENA is a network of 14 other networks, each of which is focused on researching and raising a particular crop (i.e., walnut network, flax and other bast plants network, olive network) or animal (i.e., buffalo network). The networks that are members of ESCORENA are all Europe-based but beginning to expand to other regions as well, in addition to being thematically focused quite specifically. The purpose of ESCORENA is to enable linkages among the participating networks that would be in terms of joint projects, sharing of knowledge, etc., in ways that add to these networks. It is also to enable a bigger body of research and agricultural knowledge to be continuously developed that would in itself represent an interest to outside parties (such as the European Commission). A challenge behind making the network work has been the lack of consistent and appropriate communication among all members (so far, this has been mostly during face-to-face meetings with an otherwise permanent email-based contact being maintained via a Coordination Centre) . The intention is to overcome this via an ESCORENA online platform (already created).

E-AGRICULTURE network
http://www.e-agriculture.org/home
The purpose of the e-agriculture network is to bring forward the use of ICT in rural development and food security and enable a dialogue on this within and among different groups. The network was officially launched in September 2007 by a few co-sponsoring organisations who believed in the importance of this issue. Individuals are able to join the network via the network's online platform. So far, there are about 4300 people from 154 countries who have joined the network. A challenge has been to keep the focus of the network clear, while at the same time meeting the variety of interests of those who are part of it. A critical part of the community is having face-to-face meetings (as part of larger events organized by other organizations), as well as the intention to support the establishment of regional e-agriculture communities in order to keep local issues and interests synchronized. In the meantime, e-agriculture.org would remain a global platform. The network frequently engages in on-line discussions and e-forums on issues related to ICT in agriculture. The demand for what topics to dialogue on comes from the network itself, and when necessary, expertise is brought in from outside the network. Some of this can lead to in-country interventions where local expertise is brought to the service of a local problem through the action of the network.


OVERALL

• Lack of continued and appropriate funding may hurdle any network and especially initiatives as complex as the ones part of this session; financial support, as well as other in terms of coordination and facilitation, are crucial.
• In some cases, it may be good to get people to give something back to the community in return for learning and thus ensure there is continued practical support underlying the network.
• Sometimes network membership may grow way too quickly (when the network is open to everyone) and difficult to keep in synchrony and synergy; this may be overcome by keeping a good balance between supporting demand from within the network and providing some guidance and formats for different network activities.
• In other cases, despite there being many members to a network, there may not be involvement and participation in the network; in such cases leveraging the use of web platforms may be helpful.
• Is it possible to and how can we measure impact of such initiatives? the discussion seemed to agree on using secondary rather than primary indicators for impact, such as referencing the network in publications and other research centre activities.
• How can we monitor and evaluate? it would be better to focus on monitoring and evaluating the process underlying the network rather than its thematic focus and content; this would be more indicative of whether and how the network is a healthy environment for collaborative learning.
• A question on the importance of substance was raised, to pinpoint the importance of a clear purpose driving complex networking initiatives such as the ones featured in the session; unless there is a clear purpose to drive the dialogue, there is the danger of the network becoming a dry framework with no real substance to it.

Session Report - Leveraging Geographically Distributed Expertise Through Knowledge Sharing (Part I)

Session Report - Leveraging Geographically Distributed Expertise Through Knowledge Sharing (Part I) Day 2
Espace Gabon
Facilitator: Nadejda Loumbeva



Process:
About 15 people participated in the session. 3 of those were presenters. We started off with telling each other about the initiatives being presented (EastAgri network, Biotechnology Forum, SolutionExchange network). Then we moved to a discussion focused on making geographically distributed expertise through knowledge sharing work. In the process of this, we used some of the computer and projector to show the websites of the featured initiatives. I also took notes on several flipchart sheets, one for each network and one for the overall discussion and conclusions. Despite that the Espace Gabon room does not allow all participants to face several flip chart sheets all at once (you need to stick the flipchart sheets to the walls and so some participants would have their backs on them), we had no problem with participating in a shared discussion and following on notes being taken. This was because all participants were very willing to suit with a discursive and flexible session format. In the process of the session, this took a tendency towards a peer-assist, with the SolutionExchange and the Biotechnology Forum presenters offering insights to the EastAgri presenter on starting off and maintaining network online discussions. If I could do this again, I would spare some of the time we spent on telling each other about the initiatives being presented and cut straight to challenges and opportunities.

Summary of some of the discussion:

EASTAGRI network: http://www.eastagri.org/

EastAgri is a network of financial institutions investing in agriculture and agribusiness in Central and Eastern Europe. Currently, the network has 24 institutional members, of which some are international organisations (i.e., IFAD, FAO), some are private sector organisations (i.e., Rabobank), some are bilateral organisations, and some are international financial institutions (i.e., European Investment Bank). Country ministries are also part of the network. EastAgri is intended as a flexible and informal platform via which good practices and lessons learnt in institutional investment in agriculture and agribusiness in the region are shared and institutional synergies are found. So far, members of the network have come together in the context of several annual meetings. There have also been the opportunities of study tours within member countries to learn about a specific agribusiness aspect. The coordinators of the network have been using google analytics to track EastAgri website visits and thus judge about the popularity of the website and its underlying initiative; the number of website hits has been steadily increasing. In addition, the EastAgri website has a password-protected member section; it has nevertheless been difficult to get network members to communicate/participate in online discussions. A next step would be to explore online communication opportunities with the network members.


BIOTECHNOLOGY FORUM: http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp

The FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture (FAO Biotechnology Forum) was established in March 2000 with the aim of providing quality balanced information on agricultural biotechnology in developing countries and to make a neutral platform available for people to exchange views and experiences on the subject. It has hosted 15 moderated e-mail conferences so far on biotechnology and topics such as bioenergy, water or genetic resources. Membership of the Forum is currently about 3,000 people and is open to everyone. Greatest participation in its conferences is from people working in universities and research institutes, although all other relevant stakeholders are also involved in the discussions, and they are more or less evenly distributed worldwide (for example 1/4 of messages have come from Europe and 1/4 from Asia). Normally between 10-20% of Forum members subscribe to any one of the e-conferences. The e-conference topics are chosen by the FAO Working Group on Biotechnology and the choice is motivated by factors such as the actuality of the topic and potential interest for FAO member states. Prior to each conference, a document summarising the latest scientific research and background on the chosen topic is sent to all Forum members. Each online conference is moderated, to ensure the messages posted are clear, understandable and follow acceptable standards for an e-mail discussion and to allow the moderator to add relevant explanations and scientific information. There has, in general, been little need to reject messages. After each e-conference, a summary document is sent by email to all Forum members as well as put on the Forum website. The Forum has a very well organised structure and process which has apparently worked very well with the nature of the Forum's membership. At least in part, this may also be due to the very clear purpose behind the Forum.

SOLUTION EXCHANGE: http://www.solutionexchange-un.net.in/en/Food-&-Nutrition-Security/introduction.html

Solution Exchange, an initiative of the United Nations Agencies in India for the harnessing the power and passion of Communities of Practice to help attain India’s development objectives and the Millennium Development Goals. There are 11 communities with a total of 15,000 members as part of Solution Exchange. The Food and Nutrition Security Community of Practice is facilitated by FAO and co facilitated by Nutrition Foundation of India. The purpose of this community is to enable sharing of experiential knowledge that helps meeting of the respective Millennium Goal. The main principle underlying the Solution Exchange communities is ''knowledge on demand'', i.e., what is discussed within the community is driven by its members. Members send email-based questions to the moderator of the community, which is then circulated to the members via an email distribution list. Anyone can join the community and participate in e-discussions (which aim to answer questions being asked to the community by community members). Face to face discussions are also organized to facilitate further collaborations and knowledge sharing among members. During those meetings, methodologies such as fish bowls, knowledge café, open space, appreciative inquiry, AAR and peer assists have been used in order to get people to know each other better and develop a sense for their community.

OVERALL:
- Ensuring participation in online discussions can be very challenging - important to identify a strong case for members to seek to know about and learn from each other (what's in it for me?) as well as be aware of good practices in online facilitation.
- It is important that network/community activities, discussions, etc., are driven by incentives and demand. This would make them effective at leveraging the knowledge of network/community members.
- For networks/communities to work well, it is important to develop their face to face aspect in addition to their online aspect. This would be via workshops, round tables, and informal meetings.
- When starting an online discussion, it is important to ensure the issue of discussion is topical and one in which at least most members are interested in. In addition, circulating a document summarising background research, if appropriate, can help to get members involved in the topic. The participation of a known expert in the online discussion can help, too, as well as network/community members leveraging their own networks to participate in the discussion.
- It is good to keep e-conferences 2 to 4 weeks long.
- It may be challenging for network/community members to share failures, despite that sharing failures is good, too!
- It may be challenging for network/community members coming from different sectors (public vs. private) to communicate and exchange, either face to face or online. Overcoming sector barriers is important, by building strong incentives for collaboration and then building on this with online facilitation and community building activities.
- The fact that network/community members may speak different languages and not always English can be a great challenge. This can be tackled by enabling sub-communities form driven by different languages, then cross-fertilising among them as much as possible.
- Liability disclaimers can be a good way of enabling open and free discussion on somewhat sensitive issues (more generally, so long as a specific issue is not being debated, there may not be the need for a disclaimer)
- When networks/communities have a broad membership, it may be difficult to keep them focused when a topic/issue is being discussed. In such cases, it is good to work as closely with the network/community as possible in order to keep the focus of the discussion clear and explain to individual members why a certain post may be inappropriate, etc.
- Often, community/network moderation/facilitation is a full-time job, especially when it has an e-conference component. A considerable part of this may be taken by ''IT management'', or the management of information related to the network, online moderation, discussion summaries, etc.
- Monitoring and evaluation are important for keeping track of progress. It may be better to base those on community process rather than on content; however, depending on how clear the network/community objectives are, it may be good to also monitor and evaluate for content in addition to process.

After the Share Fair - Session Report: Developing Sustainable Knowledge Networks - Peer Assist

Developing Sustainable Knowledge Networks - Peer Assist
Assistee: Walter Klemm, FAO.
Date: January 20th 2009
Facilitator: Nadejda Loumbeva

Problem:
The Cashmere Forum is an initiative to connect cashmere producers in Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Northern India with high end cashmere product sellers in richer countries such as Switzerland or Northern Italy to enable exchange of good practices, learning and better promotion of local cashmere products. Although a website with some non-sophisticated discussion forum features has been developed in support of the initiative, there is still a lot room for deploying the idea. One aspect is that, eventually, local cashmere producers/associations would have a focal point who speaks English and works with the website and forum, through which he or she would connect his village and association with other villages and associations, countries and continents. Clearly, though, this is just one aspect to get right. There are others who should be carefully planned, too. The idea also raises some difficult questions which need to be confronted.

Assisters: Huyen Tran, FAO; John Preissing, FAO; Jan Lundivs, Expert on Culture and Development; Kristin Kolshus, FAO




Summary of points and suggestions:

The discussion led to a number of points and observations. Looking at them now almost two months after the Share Fair, myself and the assistee, Walter Klemm, greatly appreciate them for their depth, as well as broad and constructive perspective.

Enabling the network:
- Is there a business case? Why do we need this network ...? Who would provide financial support?

- Are we sure there are no similar networks already existing on the ground? If yes, then why re-invent the wheel? Or, how would ''competition'' from other initiatives be addressed? In what way would the Cashmere Forum address a need which has not been met, so far ...? In what ways would it compete with/work together with already existing national and international networks ...?

- Provided that there is clearly a case for the Cashmere Forum, how would the initiative be marketed? How would the network be set up? How would buy-in for using the tools be got?

- The fact that there would be a website, and a forum, does not mean that people will use it, and especially people who are not familiar with information and communication technologies -> How to breach that barrier? By first and foremost carefully examining the needs of the target communities, then creating momentum, identifying champions who are passionate about making the idea happen and providing training. Working with local governments and other interested institutions in order to provide a web of multiple and all-sided support(s) would be important, too.

- How would language issues be addressed? Would people contribute directly online? Would there be translation of their inputs? What about get-togethers of members of the community/communities? Would there be interpretation as part of such ...?

- How would people connect with each other? How would each feel a valued part of the initiative ...? How would the communication and exchange framework (in terms of each community having a focal point ...) ensure all views are represented adequately ...?
How would a common ground be established ...? What would be the incentives behind being part of the Cashmere Forum network and leveraging it and growing it?

- Is the online (web) modality the best one? What about rural radio which has shown highly effective in supporting community formation and development at grassroots ...?

- If there were to be an online system and forum, would it not be a good idea to ask its primary users about how it should be ...?



Developing the rationale behind the network and initiative:

- How would a strong and convincing business case be articulated? Would this relate to local religions, cultures and fair-trade, at all ...?

- How would cashmere shawls be marketed in order to generate higher income for the target communities? Would these shawls be luxury products? Would these shawls be fairly traded? What would be their quality and should this be improved in order to pass for luxury?

- Would any of this frame under climate change?

- Would it be a good idea to contact the FAO IDWG on specialty products ...?

- Should there not be some research done on including goat-breeding aspects in the interaction framework (i.e., breeding specimens from India and China)...? Perhaps this may be one aspect the network members and participants would exchange on ...? (i.e., work with extensionists and technical experts)

- Should retailers be part of the network, as well? After all, they would know about consumer demand and so would be able to properly feed this into cashmere production communities for these to take into account as they develop their products.

- Should wool producers also be part of the network ... ? Should there not be different perspective incorporated, all aimed at improving the livelihoods of the main stakeholders...?