KS Workshop Seeds - KS Workshop Fruits

Vanessa Meadu who works for ASB (Partnerships for the Tropical Forest Margins) and who is based at The World Agroforestry Center in Nairobi, attended the KS Workshop and got quickly known among participants as THE Flickr resource person.. She said nice things about her workshop experience like:
“I had a fantastic time in Addis and found the workshop to be extremely invigorating. I feel like I can approach my work with new enthusiasm,  and also new skills!” and: “The KS workshop has really helped at least sow the seeds for how to do things.”  But Vanessa did not only have fun and it seems that the seeds that were sowed collectively are carrying quickly fruits:
Vanessa shared with us proudly her brand new ASB blog! The blog is replacing the news section of the ASB website and features an interesting tool. The delicious account that she created feeds directly into the blog, which means that every time that a bookmark is created on delicious, it appears as a blog post. Vanessa says she has started to get ASB scientists excited about the collective bookmarking approach. 

Some interesting tips on how to train scientists in Web 2.0 tools can certainly be found in Pete Shelton’s recent post: Three lessons from a year of teaching 2.0 to researchers

Well done Vanessa!

 

“IFPRI’s call to shake-up research”: IFPRI’s Knowledge and Innovation Conference featured in the New Agriculturalist

“IFPRI’s call to shake-up research” is the name of the article in the most recent edition of the New Agriculturalist magazine highlighting the recently held ‘Advancing Agriculture in Developing countries through Knowledge and Innovation conference’, by IFPRI in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in April 2008.

The conference, as seen by the New Agriculturalist was part of ‘the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) now joining the growing chorus‘ on necessary changes in agricultural research by ‘issuing its own “roadmap” for development, which champions the importance of innovation and the pressing need to make scientific research relevant to farmers‘.

One key objective that was pointed out in the conference was the need to “identify and promote better research...” since the “academic accomplishments of isolated laboratory staff have often found no practical use, with new findings often failing to trickle down to smallholders. If and when they have, some technologies have either been inappropriate or farmers have lacked the human and financial resources to implement them.” (Source: Article)

The article points out that the conference was looking for ways to address these problems. Some highlights of approaches proposed included:

• encouragement for researchers (including students) to talk to farmers and find ways of linking indigenous knowledge with more formal research processes and findings
• fundamental change in research structures and processes so that research is tailored to the needs of farmers and scientists have the technical skills to deal with them

More information about the conference, including key documents, can be found on the IFPRI Conference website

The topic of the event is closely aligned with the principles embodied in the ICT-KM program and its interventions. The ICT-KM is trying to support the “focus on changing systems” by Centres such as IFPRI and the CGIAR as a whole through learning about, sharing knowledge, providing technology and giving support in the types of tools, technologies, approaches, and systemic changes which can bring about and support such changes.

The ICT-KM program through the Knowledge Sharing in Research project provided funds to support this important event. In addition Enrica Porcari-CGIAR CIO and Leader of the ICT-KM program- represented the program at the event, gave a presentation on ICT-KM interventions, and chaired a session.

To see the ICT-KM interventions abstract -view ifpri-abstract-final

To see the ICT-KM interventions presentation-view(Note size = 1.5 MB) ictkm_kiard-addis-1-april1

The ICT-KM interventions presented will be featured in a chapter of the book which will be coming out of the Conference.

 

Institutional Knowledge Sharing: A Framework for Action

The Institutional KS project is suggesting and looking for feedback on a framework for action that has two main objectives:

• Imbed KS action into a strategic and practical  framework.
• Create a baseline for monitoring and evaluation of future KM/KS interventions.

This is an initial attempt which should be fine-tuned over the next months through:

• Discussions with the ICT-KM Program, and a wider KS practitioner community.
• Collaboration on the evaluation activity of KS project Phase 1
• Preparation and the outcomes of the CGIAR KM strategy workshop which is currently being prepared for December 08.

Rational

Knowledge sharing and organizational development

We argue that institutional KS is to be analyzed and developed as an integral part of organizational development. Organizational development “is the process through which an organization develops the internal capacity to most efficiently and effectively provide its mission work and to sustain itself over the long term. “ (see Wikipedia).

Organizational development takes place in a constant interaction between Power (decision making and effectiveness managed from the top) and Empowerment (processes that allow us to gain the knowledge, skill-sets and attitude needed to cope with and influence the changing world and the organizational circumstances in which we evolve). We also argue that organizational development is unfolding in a constant effort to the cope with the duality between Complexity and organizational Effectiveness. Complexity is increasing by the scientific research problematic itself, the scope, and the geographical spread and cultural diverse teams that are involved nowadays in our research work to mention only a couple, and Effectiveness is a condition for sustainability. Power, Empowerment, Complexity, and Effectiveness are main pillars and challenges in the path towards beneficial and positive organizational development and are represented in an axes chart (see below).

4 interrelated fields of action

• Three of the four fields of action created by the axes represent possible areas of KS intervention whereas the forth field between empowerment and effectiveness is the desirable stage where all organizational development efforts are aiming at: Momentum of adoption, impact and satisfaction.
• The field between Complexity and Empowerment is an area of action that aims at improving skill-sets, knowledge and attitudes. They address issues related to capacity building, and strengthening, M&E, Impact assessment and organizational learning.
• The field between Power and Complexity deals with strategic planning, development, or change management, as an effort to approach them in a systemic perspective and inclusive approach, based on an active interaction with the whole organization.
• The field between Effectiveness and Power deals with corporate aspects related to: administrative issue, business reengineering and development, as well as communications, all those efforts that intend to make organizational processes more effective, visible, and transparent.

The left side of the axes is the area of organizational development that deals with transformative issues; the right side is the area that deals with practical aspects of organizational development.

The circle around the four components reflects their constant interaction; they are all essential to organizational development. We can for example state that: Empowerment which is based on the acknowledgement of organizational complexity and which benefits from management support and participatory decision making processes leads most probably to organizational effectiveness.  We could also say: An organization that empowers its personnel but does not manage a momentum of decision-making is going to reach levels of complexity that are difficult to handle and are getting in the way of effectiveness.   

A framework for Institutional KS project activities
 
Within this suggested framework, the activities of the Institutional KS project can be clustered as follows:

• The KS Workshop, the KS Toolkit, the evaluation study of Phase 1 of the KS project (2004-2006) as well as the involvement with the KM4Dev community are activities that aim at empowerment of CGIAR staff  based on the acknowledgement of the complexity of organizational realities and our related KM/KS efforts.
• The involvement in the CGIAR Change Management Process, and AGM events, as well as a planned KM strategy workshop are activities that support strategic planning processes in order to evidence the usefulness of KS approaches in that area. The pilot project with CIFOR on their strategic planning process is also part of this group of activities.
• The pilot projects with IRRI (research data management) and WorldFish (effective communication through ‘storymercials’) are to be considered as an effort to showcase innovative ideas to make CGIAR daily business more effective and attractive. The KS Web site featuring Web 2.0 tools, and this blog are also to be considered part of this area.

 

Connecting Us with the CGIAR Change Management Process

The Institutional KS project has started to reflect with the ongoing Change Management Process coordinators on ways for effective engagement with all kinds of stakeholders.
The current opportunities to feed back to the process in general via a blog and the working groups outcomes (currently the Visioning group paper) through a discussion forum seem for the moment not generating lots of interest.
Many reasons can be found. Some are included in the following post on the Change Management blog post here.

But there are a number of things that we could do to encourage participation. Here are some ideas:

• The Center directors could send an encouraging message to their staff and role model by participating in the blog and / or forum.
• The working group members could forward the invitation to their networks and colleagues.
• The Centers could organize short seminars followed by group discussions and feed back the results via the blog or forum.
• The visioning paper could have an executive summary (if possible in Spanish and French to support all staff and stakeholders) in order to facilitate the scanning of the main messages and ideas.
• The Steering Committee and working groups could choose among them a blogger who updates the wider audience regularly

Those are just a few… I am curious to know if there are other ideas…

 

Making use of farmer knowledge- key to impoved agriculture says IAASTD

The latest edition of LEISA magazine- Magazine on Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture (June 2008 volume 24 no.2) features an article by Janice Jiggins entitled “Sustainable agriculture in the news: International study stresses role of farmers”–see article

This article is based on “A ground-breaking three-year study that recently concluded that the agriculture sector should use the know-how of small-holder farmers better“.

This is at the very heart of much of the work that is being done by the Knowledge Sharing in Research project and its Pilots–finding ways to share knowledge with stakeholders, including how to understand the needs and situations of beneficiaries on the ground, recognising and valuing their knowledge, skills, experiences and ideas, and finding ways to collaborate and learn with them.

Janice Jiggins opens her article by stating that “Global Agriculture is not delivering all it should.” She poses the question of “what kind of agricultural knowledge, science and technology do we need to solve these problems?“

The article highlights a massive study which has been recently undertaken: the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology (IAASTD). She informs the readers that “the broad conclusion was that agricultural knowledge and technology need drastic changes: ‘business as usual is not an option‘ “.

Interestingly she presents three main transitions that the study suggests to help move practice in the desired direction. Of note to our work in the Knowledge Sharing in Research project are:

“First transition: Science must complement local knowledge…”

and

“Second transition: Issues like subsidies, markets , access to land and know-how must take the necessities of small-holder farmers into account.”

The article concludes with:

“This assessment highlights the contribution of strong collaboration between researchers, formal science, and the knowledge, skills and expertise of small farmers in moving sustainable agriculture forward.“

This is an interesting support to work in the KSinR project and some of the Pilot projects who have been experimenting with approaches to knowledge sharing with stakeholders, beneficiaries and end users especially the:

• International Farmers’ Conference of ICARDA with presentation of stories from farmers themselves
• Participatory monitoring and evaluation with communities in an adaptive management fisheries project by WorldFish
• Collaborative work on wastewater research and message dissemination by IMWI in Ghana
• The use of a Learning Alliance approach in IWMI’s WASPA project to work directly with stakeholders to identify problems and solutions

How can we derive, share and apply lessons and best practices of ways to engage with farmers in order to learn and make use of their needs and knowledge in our agricultural work?

What has been/is working? What should be replicated or mainstreamed?

How can we improve our collaboration and learning efforts?

Hopefully lessons from the KSinR project will start to contribute to this larger discussion and movement.

 

Learning Alliance- light?!: exploring models that work

What seems to be apparent is that in many cases people believe in the idea behind multi-stakeholder processes or platforms- seeing the benefit in bringing together various stakeholders in a process of research and action towards a defined goal.

But where many questions still lie is in how to organise such a process, what model to adopt, which characteristics to capitalise on.

In the previous posts on the Learning Alliance in the WASPA project- Alexandra Clemett from IWMI indicated that trying to use the whole structure proposed for Learning Alliances was too much for her project–and somewhat jokingly said “what we need is Learning Alliance light!”

And perhaps there is some more serious idea in this?

What are some of the main components that should be developed for a multi-stakeholder process?

What are key activities or ways to work with the stakeholders?

How should it be structured? organised?

How can we get the most benefit/value out of a process without it taking too much time, energy and resources to carry out?

What would our Learning Alliance light–look like?

 

New ICT-KM newsletter highlights KS activities and events

Check out the most recent ICT-KM newsletter (2nd Quarter 200 at http://ictkm.cgiar.org/Newsletter/newsletter.html which has just been released.

This bumper edition contains lots of updates and articles on ICT-KM program projects, activities, initiatives, events and much more.

The newsletter highlights the KS project particularly through:

• an article about the KS toolkit-see link
• a piece about the recently held ICARDA International Farmers’ Conference-see link
• an advertisement of the active KS blog in ‘Bragging about our blog(s)’

The newsletter contains lots of other interesting information and is well worth a look.

 

Tools and Methods for Sharing Knowledge: The CGIAR’s Wiki Approach

written by Gerry Toomey

For knowledge creators, brokers, and users alike, it’s perhaps stating the obvious to declare that we live in an increasingly interconnected and complex world. While this modern truism has some annoying consequences – information overload being among the most pervasive – we shouldn’t lose sight of the enormous opportunities on offer. At least that’s part of the thinking that drives the Information and Communications Technology and Knowledge Management (ICT-KM) Program of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).

The Institutional Knowledge Sharing (KS) Project of this Program together with its CGIAR Center partners has been experimenting with a range of KS tools and methods over the past five years and has recently been assembling these and many others into a toolkit (http://kstoolkit.wikis.cgiar.org). This evolving resource – continually updated, edited, expanded, and critiqued in wiki fashion – is targeted mainly on scientists, research support teams, and administrators in the 15 international centers of the CGIAR. But it also serves their partner organizations, as well as development organizations working in areas other than agriculture. And it benefits from their diverse feedback too.

Science has traditionally relied on a few key vehicles for sharing and validating new knowledge. The most important are experiment replication, the publication of research results in peer reviewed journals, literature searches, and formal and informal communications at conferences, workshops, and other meetings. In addition, the patent system serves as a complementary knowledge broker in instances where research spawns technical innovation. With such longstanding  institutions already in place, why is there a need for new avenues to share knowledge? The answer to that question is surprisingly complex; but a few key reasons stand out.

Read the full article

 

Looking at Learning Alliances (in IWMI WASPA project): A reseacher’s perspective

During my visit with the IWMI-led Wastewater, Agriculture and Sanitation for Poverty Alleviation (WASPA) project, I spent alot of time with the Project Leader Alexandra Clemett, an IWMI researcher, to discuss the Learning Alliance approach her project is piloting with support from the ICT-KM Knowledge Sharing in Research Project.

Alexandra shared alot of her thoughts, ideas, frustrations, lessons, positive feelings, and challenges around using the Learning Alliance as a knowledge sharing strategy/mechanism in the research project she is leading. This post is my impressions coming from our discussions.

We discussed two main aspects:

1. The Learning Alliance itself-evaluating it as a strategy for KS, how does it work within the research project, what are some of successes, what are some of the challenges, what is the value, what have you learned, etc
2. The M&E framework which has been designed and is being used in the two Learning Alliances (Sri Lanka and Bangladesh) to derive lessons about the Learning Alliance approach

On the Learning Alliance itself (point 1), the following were some of the highlights of our interview:

• The Learning Alliance approach has some positives/values and some negatives/challenges.
• It is very time consuming. It takes alot of personnel, time and energy to run this approach and this costs money and may take resources away from other research activities
• It is an expensive approach to use
• However in trying to create interventions on the ground that bring about impact it is necessary to build relationships, especially with those who can and will carry out actions.
• One has to be patient with the LA approach as you may not see results right away.
• Many times the benefits of the LA approach are intangible, and some even outside of the project mandate. It is hard to measure them and be accountable for them.

Then we discussed the M&E framework(point 2) that was developed and is being used with the Learning Alliances .

The M&E framework developed for the LA component of the project aims to inform not only the project about the direction, operation and value of the LAs but also to provide others with awareness of the approach and the realities of its use. The content results as well as the developed methodology will both be of use to others.

Alexandra explained that the M&E framework includes three main components:

1. Review of the process (LA) with the project team–using interviews
2. Review with all the stakeholders involved–through a mix of Focus Group Discussions and interviews
3. Exploring if the knowledge coming up in the LA has been shared or outscaled to others and if it being used

At this point they are starting to introduce and use the M&E framework, but later on what will need to be done is an evaluation of what worked from the framework which they finally decided on. Already Alexandra feels that the method is a bit too complicated and so may not be used properly or fully as it is.They will have to wait ti see what kind of information comes out of using it though.

We then discussed whether the Learning Alliance approach as it is presented/promoted is appropriate for this or other research projects. “I think it is too much as it is and rather you need to think about what the minimum requirements for a Learning Alliance are or could be–and just use/do these” remarked Alexandra.

“There is alot of value in bringing a large numbers of relevant stakeholders together,” Alexandra stated, ” but it is not necessary to have ALL stakeholders involved in ALL activities, at ALL times or stages of the project. It just becomes too cumbersome.“

“The focus of energy turns to trying to persuade all stakeholders to come to meetings, rather than focusing on the necessary activities and the key stakeholders you need for a particular activity at that time” Alexandra added.

The reality is also that not all stakeholders have the expertise necessary to engage and be useful in certain activities. And the danger is that in coming together with other groups, some people try to pretend that they have the expertise and make alot of statements and suggestions which are not correct or useful.

Meetings and activities should be flexible to recognize that not all stakeholders need to be involved in certain activities or even certain meetings.

Alex told me that for individual activities she thinks that it would be better to work with the few necessary stakeholders. ” The value of having all stakeholders together comes first at the beginning of the project to identify problems with stakeholders, consult with stakeholders about ideas for how to move forward on these, and engage those who will be willing to collaborate“. An example of this was the development of Participatory Action Plans (PAPs) to be carried out by the project, through the LA.

“You can come back to the larger group later to then share knowledge that has been generated and to showcase what actions have been accomplished and to once again check with them about next steps.”

Finally the stakeholders should be informed on all project activities and efforts made to see how actions and networks can continue.

“This is a different model for a Learning Alliance–meeting less often, with varied participation in different Learning Alliance activities. This is Learning Alliance light, I guess” remarked Alexandra.

Key values of the Learning Alliance approach which should be capitalised on include:

* be able to do problem identification with a wide range of stakeholders–helps to improve research questions and methods, making it more appropriate and relevant for the reality on the ground

*collaborating with various groups on activities which gives experience, skills and greater buy-in

*place and opportunity to share research findings and knowledge with a number of stakeholders

* useful mechanism for getting research into use

On the flip side Alexandra pointed out some challenges to using the approach:

*it is a highly ambitious approach with expectations of innovations coming out of it–while often the real needs can be met with quite basic solutions, but there is pressure to come up with something ‘amazing’

*how to integrate relevant training into the Learning Alliance

*how to measure and show real benefits from the Learning Alliance

*what to do after the project finishes–what does sustainability of the Learning Alliance mean?

I asked Alexandra the same final question as I did with COSI- ‘ Could WASPA have been done without the Learning Alliance approach?’

Alexandra proposed that without the LA approach, WASPA could have been designed and carried in two different ways: As a ‘Classic research project’ or a ‘Classic Implementation project’. She described these as extremes on the spectrum to make a point.

The Classic research model would have:

• had little buy-in or engagement
• decided on research questions in isolation of others or situation on the ground
• carried out research- generated knowledge
• come up with findings and recommendations
• had little way of getting actions carried out based on research

The Classic implementation model would have:

• top-down interventions without engagement of stakeholders
• little other benefits other than actual intervention, e.g empowerment, increased knowledge, skills and experience
• chosen and implemented interventions in isolation to other actors, efforts and issues; perhaps not understanding broader issues and limitations

What the Learning Alliance did is to bring these two types of approaches together and find a balance. So you are finding out the problems, discussing it together, carrying out research, sharing the research, deciding on actions, engaging in collaborative efforts, and implementing actions. The Learning Alliance helps to cover the spectrum.

 

Looking at Learning Alliances (in IWMI WASPA project): A community’s perspective

The Wilgoda Community, a community of mainly Tamils working as labourers for the Kurunegala Municipal Council, is one of the members of the Learning Alliance of the IWMI-led Wastewater, Agriculture, and Sanitation for Poverty Alleviation (WASPA) project. The Learning Alliance is one of two Learning Alliances set up in the project sites of WASPA- Kurunegala, Sri Lanka and Rajshahi in Bangladesh.

I spent an afternoon talking to the WIlgoda Community recently to find out their perspective on the Learning Alliance approach which has been piloted in the WASPA project through support from the ICT-KM Knowledge Sharing in Research project, which is learning from the piloting of such knowledge sharing approaches in research projects.

The Wilgoda Community were invited to be part of the Learning Alliance which is addressing wastewater agriculture.

Hum?! Doesn’t it seem like a strange group to have involved when looking at wastewater agriculture? Well not if we are looking at more holistic management of water, sanitation and the two combined in wastewater- because the Wilgoda community have been contributing to the (mainly organic) pollution of the canal water which reaches the farmers at the end, by using it as a replacement for broken, communal toilets in their community.

Thus this project realised the need to bring together all the various actors contributing to, making decisions around, and with possibility to do actions etc…but needed a way to facilitate such collaboration, learning and research into action. They chose the Learning Alliance approach.

So how does the Wilgoda Community feel about the Learning Alliance approach used in this project?

“We really like the WASPA project and also the Learning Alliance” remarked the Wilgoda Community Organisation Chairperson, one of four members of the community to attend LA meetings.

‘But why’, I pressed, ‘has it helped you?’

As a marginalised community in the eyes of the state-run agencies such as the Municipal Council, these people face many more rights issues when it comes to land, housing, water supply and provision of sanitation infrastructure.

Before the project there were no proper sanitation (toilet and bathing) facilities. The toilets were leaking and there were no doors. “We were forced to use the canal instead“. Before the Learning Alliance approach- “we had no way to tell others about these problems or seek help to address them“. What the WASPA project with its LA process has resulted in for them they told me was “we now have had our toilets fixed and replaced and new systems for use, cleaning and maintenance developed. Our water supply has also been improved. We don’t have to use the canal any more.”

When asked what the larger impact of it all has been, the Chairperson said ” the people are much cleaner now. We have better sanitation behaviour now–not everyone yet, but most people.”

So I continued to explore what the key aspects of the Learning Alliance had contributed to their improved behaviours and lives.

Some key points raised by them were:

• Before the Learning Alliance they had no avenue for making relationships with groups working in or managing the sanitation (and other) sectors, especially the Municipal Council. They were scared and didn’t feel that they approach groups to help them.
• The Learning Alliance then offered them a chance to be able to meet and discuss with other groups.
• Over time they gained more confidence to speak to other groups, even outside of LA meetings
• At Learning Alliance meetings they felt that they had the opportunity to speak, to share their problems and discuss with others how to solve them.
• They were able to gain help and collaboration in plans to fix their issues, e.g toilets
• Before the LA, alot of promises were also made but not followed through. The LA, however, rrmade plans and carried them through to actions.
• They could be involved in activities in the LA–so gain a sense of empowerment and pride by being allowed, supported and motivated to plan, manage, and carry out activities.
• They got alot of knowledge, skills and experience by being involved in the LA.

While many of their perspectives on the Learning Alliance were positive, they did indicate a few issues:

• They feel that Learning Alliance approach requires an external intermediary such as WASPA project team or COSI to manage the meetings and relationships between groups–marginalised groups could still be marginalised in this setting if it is not managed properly
• How can they continue to have this kind of voice, support and access to relevant groups to help them?

From my own perspective I could see that despite positive results from the project through the Learning Alliance, the larger issues surrounding the marginalisation of these people and the resulting issues could not be resolved by the Learning Alliance.

The quetion of whether the LA eperience has any longer lasting effects comes with two answers from my observations:

1. On the one hand the benefits seen during the project and LA will not continue without these in place. Without the LA intervention run by an intermediary, this kind of coordinated, collaborative activity will not continue

HOWEVER:

2. The process did build alot of self-confidence and pride amongst the community which will have longer effects on the community taking actions themselves and changing behaviours.

“The people are keeping the toilets and showers cleaner now. They have even started throwing shampoo packets into a small garbage instead of everywhere. If someone see someone making a mess or littering they tell them off” the Chairperson proudly told me.

 

Looking at Learning Alliances (in IWMI WASPA): The farmers’ persectives

As explained in previous, recent posts the Wastewater, Agriculture and Sanitation for Poverty Alleviation (WASPA) project being run by IWMI is using a Learning Alliance approach in the project as part of the Knowledge Sharing in Research piloting activities.

One of the key stakeholders in this project are farmers who are receive water from the end of a canal system to irrigate their agriculture-rice paddies. Over time the water from the canal has become polluted with both liquid and solid, organic and inorganic waste from a number of sources along its path- city, industry, other communities. This has created a situation in which the farmers are using wastewater for their paddy fields with many consequences for health and livelihoods.

On my monitoring visit to the project site in Sri Lanka-Kurunegala, I had the opportunity to talk to some of the farmers from this affected community, mostly those actively involved in the Farmers’ Organisation which represents these farmers in the WASPA Learning Alliance.

When asked if they knew about or were involved in the Learning Alliance-a number of them indicated that they were involved in the Learning Alliance and had attended meetings.

“Under the WASPA project the Learning Alliance has allowed us to share information with others and to learn alot from other groups too” commented one of the farmers before I could ask any further questions.

One key success of the Learning Alliance, that these farmers shared with me, was the ability to share their issues of solid waste coming from the canal into their fields with relevant groups, with the hope that they could help to address this issue. The Learning Alliance gave them the opportunity to share also their idea of putting in a garbage trap at the diversion canal to stop the solid waste coming down the canal to their fields. Through the Learning Alliance a collaborative effort took place around this idea. More information was found out by some, a design was proposed by the irrigation department, discussions about location were had between various stakeholders, and a joint effort for putting in the garbage trap was undertaken. This process was something unseen before.

Through the Learning Alliance and the Participatory Action Plans-jointly decide in the LA- being implemented through this mechanism, the farmers learned alot about the water they are using and the situations contributing to the pollution. They were happy that information from the various research surveys and tests undertaken in the WASPA projectwas shared with them through the Learning Alliance. This really helped to build their trust as they believed that their participation would have some benefit as they were delivered knowledge from projects, as promised.

When asked what it was about the Learning Alliance they felt positive about, one of the farmers replied, ” the WASPA Learning Alliance allowed them to share their problems. In the Learning Alliance they got the chance to share their views and problems with relevant authorities“.

A major positive element of the LA approach for the farmers was the opportunity for them to meet and discuss with multiple organisations which play a role in various aspects affecting their lives.

When pressed as to why there should be a LA approach rather than organising small group meetings for them with other groups, the farmers said that they liked the big, open platform where many groups could sit together from many disciplines and sectors to share knowledge, plan actions that are beneficial to everyone and to decide on who will do what.

Benefits of coming together, from the farmer perspective, was not only to talk about project activities but also to have access to other groups to discuss other, related matters such as timing of opening of irrigation anicuts. In this way the forum creates a larger opportunity for sharing knowledge, discussing, and decision-making.

The farmers commented that it was more effective to bring up issues and ideas in this bigger forum as they have visited certain departments many times with no action being made to address their issues. In the LA actions are more likely as various groups present may offer to share the workload, and promises that are made are done in front of many others are more likely to be kept.

Some issues that were raised with regards to the Learning Alliance were:

• Since the project area for WASPA, and consequently the boundaries of the Learning Alliance, stretches across various political boundaries, it made it difficult to involve all the relevant authorities and caused some confusion about which political authority was responsible for certain people, area and actions.

• The farmers were concerned with who they would raise issues with after the project and Learning Alliance was finished- and how they would now get actions done to address their issues.

[Note: A question of sustainability of the beneficial process that has been initiated through the Learning Alliance--not just of the Learning Alliance structure itself]

I asked the farmers who I was interviewing, and that are part of the management of the Farmer Organization and attend the LA meetings, how knowledge from the LA is shared with other farmers. They responded that they have a monthly meeting at the Farmer Organisation and at this meeting they share what they have learnt at the LA meetings or activities.

I asked the farmers if there was anything that could be done better or to improve the process of the Learning Alliance. They answered, “we need now even more opportunities to express our own issues in this forum” .

The farmers told me that this was the first time that they have worked with a research project. When I asked them then what their expectations of the Learning Alliance were- they answered ” immediate actions!!”. I explained that often with research it is about gaining greater understanding of an issue and exploring possible solutions first -which takes time-and perhaps actions may not be immediate. The farmers then said that “we were happy to be involved in the research process since we could see that it would lead to action through the Learning Alliance. For example-the garbage trap- was the end result of a whole process of identifying the problem, figuring out a solution and then doing the actual implementation of the garbage trap to address the issue with solid waste coming into our fields.”

 

Looking at Learning Alliances (in IWMI WASPA project): the NGO partner perspective

On my (Nadia Manning-Thomas, KSinR Project Leader) visit to the IWMI WASPA project site in Sri Lanka-Kurunegala to monitor and evaluate the use of the Learning Alliance approach in the project I had a chance to discuss with staff of COSI- the NGO partner working on the project in Sri Lanka.

From COSI I talked to Keerthi, Saman, Ranmeeni, Praba, and Indika-all working on various aspects of the project and have been invovled with the WASPA Learning Alliance.

I first asked them whether they had been involved with a project before that developed or used a Learning Alliance. For all of them this was the first time they have been exposed to or been involved in the Learning Alliance approach.

” Using the Learning Alliance approach is new” Saman told me, ” but it has been very interesting and provided alot of new opportunities to us, the stakeholders involved, and the Project overall“.

Key benefits of using the approach that were identified by varous members of the team were:

• It is a good way to keep stakeholders aware and involved who would be the appropriate groups for taking over the project or carrying on the type of activities the project has been doing–it can help with sustainability of efforts during the project
• The LA is a combination of the all the relevant parties for a particular issue or topic being addressed- e.g wastewater
• This kind of forum helps to create awareness amongst various groups of issues and needs, projects and initiatives, and ideas and plans in the area.
• It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to voice their problems and issues and ask for help from other members and projects-”usually there is no chance to tell problems and ideas to relevant groups“
• Decisions can be discussed and made together at LA meetings-with greater buy-in than the usual top-down approaches. “All feel that they are contributing“
• Key problems are highlighted in the LA and discussions can be held about what should be done and whose responsability it is
• Provides an opportunity for collaboration
• It facilitates greater knowledge sharing in multiple directions
• Provides ideas for research and action- “new ideas emerged from the LA”
• The LA is a good way to develop innovative ideas and plans
• The LA has created opportunities to bring together groups who usually don’t get involved in certain issues

Keerthi gave an example of this saying that “Agrarian services usually isn’t an actor which participates in issues of or projects looking at waste–even though it is something affecting farmers. But this is a big issue for these farmers. Now through the LA the Agrarian Services are involved in looking at this issue which affects farmers and agriculture in this area.”

• LA provides an opportunity for multiple stakeholders to come together.

“The Learning Alliance is really good. Never before has there been such a platform which allows farmers and the Municipal Commissioner to sit together to discuss joint problems” praised Saman.

The COSI team also expressed that what is also interesting is that side and related issues are also raised and brought to the attention of all others. This can help to inform projects and other processes.

Some challenges that they noted were:

• There was an initial problem to bring together all the various stakeholders–this has not been done before
• Some stakeholders were reluctant to join the Learning Alliance as they thought that they would be required to pay or contribute some money to it
• Explaining the Learning Alliance can be difficult both in terms of language and conceptual ideas
• It takes a while for stakeholders (and even those running the LA) to really grasp and understand the LA concept
• It takes alot of effort, time and administrative work to gather all the stakeholders for the general assembly meetings of the LA (all stakeholders).
• There is a problem of continuity of participation in the LA. It is not the same people who attend each meeting-so you often have the problem that those attending have little background on the LA, previous meetings, overall Project and activities.
• The participation of government officials is often quite low
• Concept is new for many people and so they are not always ready to engage with it
• Many groups are busy and have many issues and projects to deal with. This particular issue and project (WASPA) is not their only project and not always their priority.
• Need to have buy-in from top government officials
• Difficult to get individuals participating in LA meetings and activities to share with their organisations

The project has tried to be innovative in making the LA work. One way was through forming a separate core goup with 7-8 key stakeholders as members which can meet more often. The representatives in the core group are not top officials so they have time to come to more regular meetings.

This lead to an interesting discussion about who should or would be best to participate in the Learning Alliance. ” While you want the authority and influence of those at the top, they are usually too busy to regularly attend meetings or get involved in Learning Alliance activities. But then you don’t want someone too junior only to attend who may have time, but is not able to give feedback to the necessary people in their organisations or have enough authority to make decisions. It is about finding the right people” commented Saman.

I was told by the COSI team that some key successes of the Learning Alliance approach can be seen from the most recent LA meeting, held in early June. In this meeting the innovation in knowledge sharing was that rather than the implementing team presenting information, there were presentations given by three Learning Alliance members:

• Greater Kurunegala Sewerage Treatment project
• Agrarian services
• Municipal Council

“This shows greater buy-in now from LA members.” remarked Keerthi, ” It was also very interactive with other LA members asking questions and giving suggestions. We all learned alot.“

“The LA was a great technique for the project period, but we are not sure what will happen afterwards“. The big question, therefore, is what will happen after the project, and what will have been the impact not only of the overall project itself but of the Learning Alliance too. We discussed various perspectives on sustainability and success of LAs.

One key measure of success of the LA from COSI’s perspective, even if the LA itself does not continue after the end of the project, is whether the various groups who were involved now are more aware of each other and have confidence to go to various members to share their problems and ideas, seek help, share knowledge, and look for collaboration on activities.

“Actions and improvements cannot and should not always have to depend on having intermediary groups like us (COSI) involved. The true test of the value of having introduced and used the LA approach, is whether the relationships forged during the process can continue on their own towards creating the same kind of benefits as during the LA” said Saman.

My final question to the team then was ‘Could the WASPA project been done without the Learning Alliance?

The resounding answer from the whole team sitting in front of me was ” Yes, but not with the same results and overall impact”

They all said that the research could have been done on its own but it would not have always been directed at real problems being faced on the ground, would not have linked to direct actions and implementation, and would not have provided the added benefits of greater knowledge, networking and coordination between groups in the sector.

” The Learning Alliance helps to provide the link, to coordinate knowledge being generated to actions to be implemented on the ground. The Learning Alliance brought ownership and buy-in, otherwise it would have been top-down and even if it brought some benefits to the recipients they would not have been engaged in the process like they were through the LA-which we believe has alot of impact.“

 

Second KSinR M&E Pilot Project visit- to IWMI WASPA LA in Sri Lanka

As part of the continued monitoring and evaluation of the knowledge sharing activities and strategies being piloted in the 6 CGIAR research projects for the Knowledge Sharing in Research project, I (Nadia Manning-Thomas, KSinR project Leader) have been visiting with the IWMI WASPA LA KSinR Pilot Project, based in Sri Lanka. In previous blog posts recently the project as a whole has been outlined, the use of the Learning Alliance approach highlighted and the recently held monitoring visit to the Bangladesh site described.

On this monitoring visit, I have been talking to the researchers involved in the project and Learning Alliance, the NGO- COSI- which is a big local partner working on the project for Sri Lanka, and a number of key stakeholders and beneficiaries of the project in Kurunegala- the WASPA Sri Lanka project site.

The main objectives of the KSinR project are to generate, share and support application of knowledge sharing principles, frameworks and approaches in research projects, programs and initiatives for the CGIAR.

The knowledge generation component is particularly key, and is being undertaken through three main pillars:

1. Supporting and learning from the piloting of KS within 6 pilot projects in the CGIAR
2. Exploring and learning from other KSinR-type initiatives ongoing within the CGIAR
3. Reviewing literature and other key materials on and related to knowledge sharing in research, even from beyond the CGIAR

Therefore, as part of learning from the Pilot Projects the monitoring and evaluation of their piloting activities is necessary to help capture knowledge and experiences, derive lessons, and enhance our overall understanding of the process and impact of using KS in research.

The M&E plan being used builds on the Impact Pathways methodology which was used in the inception workshop for more refined and detailed planning of the projects with a focus on how to achieve impact from their work.

The M&E framework designed and used in the KSinR project includes:

• Review of planned project activities-looking at the activities planned, description of them, success and challenges of carrying out the activities
• Review of the outputs-considering whether the outputs planned have been achieved and how are they being used
• Revisiting of the Vision- exploring how various groups are acting differently and what is being done, enjoyed or achieved because of the project
• Review of changes in actors involved with the project (or targeted by the project)- namely indicating whether the changes in practice, knowledge, attitude and skills that were foreseen or desired by the project have in fact happened
• Evaluation of the strategy (KS approach) used to bring about changes and impact- describing how the strategy was employed, what change it contributed to, what worked and didn’t, and the perceptions of the strategy by various stakeholders

While the M&E plan is being used throughout the project period, the current M&E work being documented and shared is part of a more focused mid-project review being done with all the pilots through reporting, virtual discussions and face-to-face visits.

The results of talks, discussions, M&E questions, and observations with the various groups named above will be presented in the next set of blog posts–so stay tuned!!

 

Process monitoring of the Learning Alliance of the IWMI WASPA project in Bangladesh

The IWMI Knowledge Sharing in Research Pilot project- IWMI WASPA LA is using and monitoring and evaluating the Learning Alliance approach within the “Wastewater, Agriculture and Sanitation for Poverty Alleviation” (WASPA) project in both Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

The Project is piloting a Learning Alliance approach within which to embed the research on wastewater, agriculture and poverty alleviation in order to foster more collaborative planning, research, dissemination, and adoption of research results and proposed actions.

The project is designing, using and promoting a M&E system for better charting and understanding the value of this multi-stakeholder oriented approach. The system being developed and tested is known as process monitoring, which will provide better understanding of the approach and lessons for future Learning Alliances. To find out more check out the IWMI WASPA LA Pilot webpage.

The main IWMI project team-consisting of Alexandra Clemett and Samyuktha Varma- recently made a trip to the project site in Bangladesh between 26 May and 6 June 2008.

The objectives of the trip were:

• To undertake the process monitoring for WASPA LA.
• To review and update the progress of the project in relation to the Participatory Action Plans (PAPs) and project work plan.
• To plan the next LA meeting.

The trip consisted in the carrying out the following main activities:

Conducting monitoring for WASPA LA in Bangladesh using new process monitoring method

The methodology of process monitoring uses a defined monitoring framework which includes change processes to be monitored, indicators and data collection methods. One major part of the process monitoring is structured interviews with Learning Alliance members to assess the change process including changes in awareness of the issues and changes in mindset. The community interview questions were therefore reviewed with the team in both English and Bangla and some changes were made. The interview was tested on 28^th May and adapted accordingly. A further six interviews were conducted and written up.

Project Planning and Review

One of the key components of the WASPA project is the development of Participatory Action Plans (PAPs) whose implementation is aimed at improving livelihoods of wastewater farmers. The PAPs are co-developed and funded by the WASPA project as well as stakeholders involved in the Learning Alliances.

The logframe and work plan of the project were updated to now reflect the Participatory Action Plan (PAP) activities that have been identified and to try to tie the activities more closely with the results proposed in the original logical framework

Local Level LA Development

It was also clear from the review that the LA was not self-sufficient and that although many stakeholders had become aware of the project thanks to the efforts of the project team, they were not yet ready to take responsibility for this. The project team therefore discussed further the structure and responsibilities of the LA, and how to get the stakeholders to agree on a structure and start taking some responsibility. A structure and activities has been proposed, but this will have to be decided on at a meeting held with the key stakeholders in June for them to decide what they want to do.

Another issue that arose was that the farmers attending the LA did not really represent all the farmers or the community members, but this is largely because there is currently no form of organization at the local level. However it means that they do not necessarily present the interests of the wider group or report back to LA members. This issue was discussed and a plan to address it was devised.

PAP Development

Since the Participatory Action Plans have bene identified, it was necessary to now look into operatioanlising them. During this trip, planning for the farmers training programme(PAP) took place. Another PAP was initiatied throught eh contracting of a Rajshahi University Professor of Law to write a paper on the laws relating to wastewater management and use in agriculture. The Terms of Reference was completed and discussed with RUET regarding a study on water quality and options to improve the treatment capacity of Bashuar Beel. Overall the Project team reviewed the PAP activities and prepared a detailed plan to continue the work.

Follow-up activities

On return from the trip the key follow-up activities will be:

• To analyze the review and process monitoring findings
• Collect meeting minutes and other documents from stakeholder organizations and analyze according to the outline
• Share and review revised work plan and logframe with entire project team
• Undertake agricultural data collection and write an article on the findings in Bangla
• Hire a LA facilitator to develop the national level platform
• Prepare for the LA meeting
• Prepare the first newsletter
• PNGOs to work with farmers in Bashuar and Silinda village to set up a system of representation in the LA.

---

 

IWMI Uses Learning Alliances in its ‘Wastewater, Agriculture and Sanitation for Poverty Alleviation’ (WASPA) project

One of the Knowledge Sharing in Research Pilot Projects being lead by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) is the piloting of the Learning Alliance approach in its ‘Wastewater, Agriculture and Sanitation for Poverty Alleviation’ (WASPA) project in Asia. The project is being undertaken by IWMI, SEI, IRC, COSI and the NGO Forum. For more information, see also the IWMI WASPA LA KSinR PIlot Project webpage.

The main issue being addressed by the WASPA project is that in many cities the urban and peri-urban farmers are utilising wastewater, often storm-water drainage mixed with household and sanitary waste, to irrigate their crops. This is quite often due to the farmers being at the downstream end of canal systems which are used as dumping grounds for various industrial and community waste ranging from organic to inorganic, solid to liquid waste.

This of course has both positive and negative livelihoods implications, especially on health, and requires good management to reduce risks and maximise benefits. Good research is required to better understand the situation and to find solutions to address this, however any resultant actions would need to come from the communities themselves, government departments or others involved in water, sanitation, health, or irrigation.

The project is working in two cities- Kurunegala, Sri Lanka and Rajshahi, Bangladesh- where over 300 farmers are involved in wastewater irrigation practices. Furthermore, hundreds of residents are affected by poor sanitation and environmental conditions in the cities.

This is a complex system which involves multiple stakeholders’ issues as well as requires their contribution to changing the situation. The situation requires problem identification, better understanding of the situation and possible options to address it, and then necessary actions to be undertaken to resolve some of the issues.

“The overall problem is one of poor integration of planning in the sectors of water supply, sanitation, wastewater management and urban agriculture. The root causes of this problem are: sectoral (rather than holistic) planning; inadequate communication between government officials; no involvement of community members, especially poorer members of society; lack of knowledge about other sectors and alternative technologies; and in some cases ignorance that wastewater irrigation is even taking place. Only by overcoming the problems of lack of awareness and communication can the issues of wastewater agriculture be addressed.” WASPA LA proposal

This is not the kind of recipe that a traditional research program approach can easily or successfully work with or contribute to.

The WASPA project therefore decided to try a different approach, and through supporting funds from the ICT-KM KSinR project has been able to try out a new approach.

The new approach in question is the Learning Alliance approach which has at its very core a strong principle of knowledge sharing.

A Learning Alliance is a set of interconnected, multi-stakeholder platforms which is then a mechanism through which research and activities can be planned, researched, interventions made and coordinated, and knowledge is shared. For more information on Learning Alliances-see the IRC webpage on Learning Alliances

“The objective of this project is therefore to test and evaluate a methodology to holistically plan and manage sanitation and wastewater in the city, for end-use in agriculture. This can only be done through collaboration between all the major stakeholders: government officials, community members (city residents and farmers), NGOs and researchers.” WASPA LA Proposal

As a new approach for embedding research, the Learning Alliance approach can offer:

• an opportunity to become aware of real issues, needs and options on the ground–to help with more appropriate research planning
• access to various stakeholders involved in the situation or area to facilitate possibility for collaboration with and between various groups
• platform for sharing knowledge from research and other projects to other stakeholders from which actions can be planned and implemented

To better understand the use, process and value of the Learning Alliance approach in this project the WASPA project initiated a Monitoring and Evaluation component:

“The ICT-KM project proposed here would augment that project by monitoring and evaluating the knowledge sharing approach being utilized, through “process monitoring”. It would result in a better understanding of the approach and lessons for future LAs.” WASPA LA Proposal

We look forward to some interesting results from using and learning from this innovative, multi-stakeholder approach within a research project.