IMAWESA Improved Management of Agricultural Water in Eastern & Southern Africa Networking to Promote Water Management in Africa by: Prof. Bancy M. Mati Project Manager, IMAWESA Presented at the: 3rd African Drought Adaptation Forum of the African Drought Risk & Development Network 17-19 September 2008 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia IMAWESA 1
Contents 1. Introduction Defining Networking Why network? Two types of Networks Distinguishing features 2. Experiences from my Eight Years of Leadership in Networking Face-to-face versus electronic activities Donor and non-donor supported networks Features of networking in ESA 3. Lessons Learnt Where networking has worked Typical weaknesses Managing expectations Institutionalizing networking (sustainability) IMAWESA 2
DEFINING NETWORKING A network is any group of individuals and/or organizations that, on a voluntary basis exchange information or goods/services, or implement joint activities and organize themselves in such a way that the individual autonomy remains intact. A network may be used as a think-tank, for learning, advocacy, influencing policy, resource mobilization, or for project implementation IMAWESA 3
Why network? Africa is a continent fragmented by national boundaries, languages and cultural barriers Technological divides between scientists and farmers There is a lot of duplication of efforts, and missed opportunities Networks break these barriers and help establish human resource pools, their contacts and specific needs/facilities IMAWESA 4
A niche networking could fill Knowledge and experiences from decades of research and project implementation are not filtering up-wards to influence policy, are poorly infiltrating downwards to impact on poverty among smallholder farmers, and are not spreading outwards rapidly enough to reach many people quickly. IMAWESA 5
Two types of Networks i. Formal/centralized networks, tend to have a strong secretariat, whereby most of the communication is initiated by or passes through the secretariat, and ii. Informal/decentralized networks, have direct and systematic communication between the different members (e.g. Facebook). IMAWESA 6
NETWORKS distinguishing features In a network, members take part on a voluntary basis and carry out joint activities that cannot easily be done alone The network structure is often light and not very formal Most networks are thematic, bringing members of a specific discipline (e.g. soil scientists) Multi-sectoral networks e.g. IMAWESA, which bring together a wide cross-section of stakeholders are now quite common IMAWESA 7
Experiences from Eight years of Leadership in Networking Bancy M. Mati IMAWESA 8
Networks where Bancy had a leadership role 1. Kenya Rainwater Association KRA (2000-2002) 2. Institution of Engineers of Kenya - IEK (2000-2002) 3. Greater Horn of Africa Rainwater Partnership GHARP (2000-2002) 4. Southern and Eastern Africa Rainwater harvesting Network SEARNet (founder member, 2001) 5. Intensifying Rainfed Agriculture in Africa NIRAA (founder, 2003) 6. Global Water Partnership GWP (2004-2007) 7. Southern Africa Regional Irrigation and Drainage network SARIA (2006 date) 8. Improved Management of Agricultural Water in Eastern & Southern Africa IMAWESA (2005 date) IMAWESA 9
Face-to-face networks Before the coming of the Virtual Space, Networking involved: Face to face meetings e.g. annual conferences (e.g. SEARnet) Physical deliverables (books, pamphlets, posters posted to members) Membership fees to meet transaction costs (e.g. KRA) Activities on the ground to improve visibility (e.g. KRA) Strict rules and regulations regarding the conduct of members (e.g. IEK) Slow communication and sharing of knowledge A membership that was focused and visible IMAWESA 10
Physical contacts going out. in comes the virtual space Electronic sharing of knowledge A face-less membership Less expensive transaction costs Too much plagiarism Electronic networks Reach more people more quickly, and Easy to mobilize both members and non-members IMAWESA is at the cross-roads of physical & electronic networking IMAWESA 11
Donor - supported Networks Could be well-funded with a central secretariat Capable of mobilizing larger resources Danger of bending too much to donor demands Sustainability is dependent on donor funding availability Capable of implementing larger projects and international visibility Not subject to too much internal power struggles Most donor-funded networks are also associated with specific projects. Can be amorphous. IMAWESA 12
Non-donor supported Networks Tend to be membership networks with strict codes of conduct In ESA, unless professional bodies (e.g. lawyers), most membership networks are poorly funded Members have a say on the activities of the network They can be more sustainable and have local ownership IMAWESA 13
Features of networking in ESA Many networks seem to be created for donor-driven activities, and disappear with end of project Others are formed for the purpose of hosting a conference and some have folded soon after. Funding and sustainable activities are major constraints Membership can be fluid with little commitment Too many networks with sometimes duplication Very little to show on the ground for all these networks IMAWESA 14
Lessons Learnt IMAWESA 15
Where networking has worked When the need for the network is driven by a common problem experienced, sometimes by only a small number of persons When there is some homogeneity on the group, and membership is focused Where the network relies on resources generated from within Where there is commitment especially for those driving the process (they should expect to volunteer time and resources) Where there is institutional support (Govt, universities) Where donor funds seem to flow in unlimited IMAWESA 16
Typical weaknesses Where members are passive observers Too much donor-dependence Not setting boundaries as to what a network may not do Quality of the knowledge shared/ services delivered Shaky sources of funding Expecting too much Volunteerism from members Setting expectations of stakeholders too high. IMAWESA 17
Managing Expectations Not promising too much Engaging in activities which many members can participate (especially electronically) Ensuring the network has deliverables and acknowledging support, even minor ones Giving members space to reach each other in a more secure environment (unlike e-chat rooms) Forums for members to meet each other professionally or socially IMAWESA 18
Institutionalizing Networking (sustainability) Devising mechanisms for self-financing Turning the network into a service provider Enhancing ICT communication Getting political goodwill and support or being such a pain that the network has to be heard (advocacy) Devising a reward/compensation system (may be in kind) for those who volunteer/work Having long-term goals and objectives which are SMART Creativity and innovation to keep members and stakeholders motivated IMAWESA 19
Therefore... A network is a means to an end. If the benefits sought are achieved, then that network has served its purpose! IMAWESA 20
Thank You IMAWESA 21 www.asareca.org/imawesa