IFAD social reporting blog

Yolando welcomed all the participants to an entertaining yet very relevant discussion with four great women to discuss various experiences on knowledge sharing capacity building processes that were initiated by ENRAP (Knowledge Networking for Rural Development in Asia Pacific) and are now being mainstreamed by IFAD Asia Division.

Shalini Kala of ENRAP was the first person on the show. She shared how experiential knowledge was something that people have learnt to value in their daily work. While there are challenges of project staff having time, motivation and mechanisms for knowledge sharing, the benefits in more effective performance has led to change in perceptions. The ENRAP programme has supported this effort in building Knowledge sharing skills amongst IFAD project and country staff. Knowledge sharing is a component of Knowledge management and the more effectively people share knowledge, the more effective knowledge management can become. IFAD projects generate a lot of knowledge but often lack the capacity to share it with their target audience. In order to ensure that knowledge is shared, people have to have the capacity to analyse relevant knowledge that can be useful, this requires research and analysis. One such effort has been training on systematization. This technique is useful for participatory analysis of the outcomes of project interventions with rural communities. The next step has been capacity building for documentation of knowledge through both visual and written means. In this writing skills training and writeshops has been a methodology used by several projects and institutions. These tools and methods were geared to allow people the choice of using a variety of techniques for sharing knowledge.

We learnt from Lucie that she has been building knowledge sharing skills for the IFAD group for some time, after ENRAP hired Lucie and Allison, with four training workshops on various KS tools and techniques, including using this platform-the social reporting blog! However, she also pointed out that many of the methods can be used for working with communities, such as the world café techniques and chat shows. These are interesting ways of sharing the same knowledge, while engaging the audience. We also learnt that Lucie is part of a community called KM4Dev which is a 1200 member strong network of KM professionals and those interested in KM who support each other through the network. While methods such as world café can be used with sharing knowledge on relevant issues amongst rural communities that IFAD works with, electronic tools can increase the spread of this locally generated knowledge. Lucie gave some examples and contrasts on doing chat show versus presentations, she briefly related methods such as peer-assist which is useful when some-one has a challenge and would like ideas and solutions from her peer group. All this effort has translated into a Knowledge Sharing Curriculum which was developed based on the training with the ENRAP knowledge facilitators group. This is a guide which explains the Knowledge sharing methods and tools in a step-by-step manner with facilitator notes. This is also available as a wiki at: http://enrapkscurriculum.pbworks.com/w/page/9412486/FrontPage

The guide has been "tested" for real life application and refined based on the feedback from the India Country programme . Ankita Handoo, the KM specialist from the India country team and Pawan Kumar from ULIPH project trained the India focal points. She shared how after her initial training on the tools she had to introduce this to her project colleagues, she began with one method for their portfolio reviews as there were initial reservations but peer-assist was a popular tool. Eventually project directors and other colleagues were convinced of how improved knowledge sharing influences better project performance.

Chase Palmeri was the last guest on the show and she narrated the journey of Knowledge sharing capacity building within IFAD and what can be expected in the future. She focused on how the external review process at IFAD led to the need for a knowledge management strategy and how the IFAD Asia Division has been supporting Loan projects through ENRAP and as this closes, through the new grant implemented by FAO on Knowledge Sharing Skills (KSS) capacity building which builds on what has been initiated through ENRAP to cover writing skills training, systematization, and knowledge sharing methods and tools.

After the initial interviews, Yolando invited many questions from the audience and also received queries through video and SMS! Participants were very keen to share their experiences as well as understand how KM can be tailored to different clientele (a specific concern of Atsuko Toda, IFAD Country Program Manager)

Some of the key pieces of advice from the guests were:

1. Linking Knowledge Management to Monitoring and Evaluation so that the knowledge being generated helps in tracking progress but is also "trackable".

2. For specific activities one can look at the purpose of the activity and then decide the method to use. For example, video can capture stories, while systematization is a tool for in-depth analysis.

3. To allocate budgets for Knowledge sharing activities in projects those are now being designed.

Various members of the audience shared their involvement in Knowledge sharing activities. Pankaj Gupta, Independent Film Maker and Consultant shared on how Video documentation training has helped project staff capture field experiences . In addition how Systematization as a participatory research method to assess project interventions has generated credible and qualitative information for projects in India and China. The Mongolia country programme shared how they have used knowledge sharing tools within their communication strategy and how that has helped to upscale lessons learnt through their project. Anura Herath shared a story on how knowledge sharing influenced policy change. This story will be shared shortly as a video interview on the blog soon. So watch this space!

IFAD's Asia and the Pacific Division concluded their annual performance review last week in Nanning, China. On the 3rd day of the event, we interviewed a few participants to get their feedback about the event, which was designed first and foremost as a knowledge sharing and learning event. Some of those interviews have been woven into a video and presented during the event. We share it with you here.

Day 3 at the APR was conducted in the form of an "Open space". Participants were asked to come forward with issues that they either wanted to raise but hadn't had a chance to, or to suggest new topics for discussion. 17 sessions were eventually proposed and the group discussions took up the entire morning. The topics were:

• Trans-boundary issues in NRM
• How to influence governments
• South-south cooperation
• Addressing information asymmetry in value chains and forward-sales contracts
• Impact of disasters on micro-finance
• Poverty debt reduction improving the revenue of farmers (esp. with ICTs)
• Change adaptation
• More representation of the beneficiaries in project implementation committees
• Coping with delayed implementation
• Market development for selected value chains
• Search for uniting factors to sustainability and innovative financial investments
• Access to information by farmers to increase agricultural produce and information delivery for poverty reduction
• Key summaries of mini-workshop on evaluation
• Dealing with cassava pests and disease
• Innovation to improve the EDE continuum
• Strengthening coordination among project stakeholders and issues and strategies on convergence with other development schemes
• Sustainability and exit strategies
  

• Thomas E: not all people or public is good and the private sector not formally bad. He likes the idea of the value chain ladder, develop enough evidence, the rules of the game and keep open for private sector to engage. Different areas need different strategies
• Daniel: his experience with the private sector in India was as a partner with one of villages. He found that bigger industries are willing to come if the environment is good and the infrastructure is there. They brought in more partners so the risk is less. They contributed money for capacity building
• Frank (UNIDO): he finds it hard to understand IFAD logic as to why is the corporate sector is bad. We don't have the same interests and they talk a different language. But the farmer's interest is having income and that space can be shared - and be the basis - for partnerships need
• Beria: another dimension is the social dynamic of peers. In Indonesia, since the rubber quality is low, a tire company sought to improve quality of the rubber by enhancing farmer knowledge. The company said farmer could start selling directly to them, which was interesting as it increased investment, but created social conflict since the farmers had good relationships with the middlemen
• Roy (Ghana): business partnership should be in project design, both public and private goods and the infrastructure should be based where growth is needed
• Tung: people belong to the "private" dimension, our job (IFAD) is to develop common interest and linkages
• Hua (Proj Dir. Vietnam): our government gives subsidies to the public sector but does not trust the private sector. We have conducted fairs.
• Andi (Mars Inc): we conducted a forum on cocoa where PPPP sit together with a goal of transfer technology and farmer empowerment. So what's in it for the private sector? Lot of effort but aiming for the long-term sustainability of cocoa. The forum also aligns messages sent to farmers so they are not confused
• Frank (UNIDO): a forum is a nice platform or incubator. In Colombia, we meet every month or two months, one for each for each commodity. There should be input from the the buyer to improve products; they are the ones we should be talking to, not the corporate social responsibility people
• Ganesh: there is a blurring of people and private. We should think of service delivery, public, private and farmers organizations, a polycentric approach
• Chitra: at the Davos forum they are talking of public, private and civil society, which means IFAD has no role in this. But what is the interest and what do they bring? We need to have definitions. Also, can the private sector be driving/leading food security?
• Thomas E: the private sector is investing heavily in CGIAR. They can invest where they like, IFAD can be a broker
  

The session on using social network analysis was attended by 14 people. Ms. Shalini Kala, ENRAP Coordinator was the session lead and gave a brief presentation on the background of the social network and the analysis of the networks.

She mentioned that, while IFAD was successfully implementing projects in the field, in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, there was less interaction and knowledge exchange/ sharing between the different projects in the Asia –Pacific region and even within the countries.

As IFAD programmes have similar objectives and implementation modalities, it would be highly beneficial to share pertinent information and knowledge to the project implementers and stakeholders. This resulted in forming a network of people from IFAD assisted projects and partners through ENRAP, which facilitated interactions and knowledge sharing among projects, countries and regions to discuss and share experiences and lessons, contributing to enhanced project implementation.

The next point discussed was the Social Network Analysis Map. The SNA is an analysis of relationships between groups, people and organisations. This method is most often used in the fields of health, medicine and organisational development, and is relatively new to the development sector. These maps show people in the circles and the arrows indicate and reflect what interactions are taking place in the networks. Some of the networks that were discussed were on IFAD Asia Pacific Networking. The overall trend reflects an increased interaction among project staff in different countries.

The first regional network analysis was conducted in 2009 and in 2009- Country plan was done.The mapping exercise helps to
• understand how people are connecting with one another
• how PDs interaction across geographic and cultural boundaries
• Understand how people communicate and attitudes towards networking
• Provide insights for transition of knowledge network programme to IFAD

Participants of this exercise were IFAD country teams, CPMs, CPOs, IFAD HQ, Project Staff, IDRC, Networks. These maps generated based on surveys. This network is a response to the qst, I know this person and I have some interaction
The Country network maps were discussed and one observation was made that IFAD staff were at the centre of core, the reason for this was explained as they are the main connectors and information providers, so they were being contacted and connected the most often.

Among the thematic networks, the topics related to agriculture, KM and gender were very dense. This indicates that a major focus is on cross cutting issues such as the ones mentioned above.

Attitude towards sharing- we need more information and knowledge sharing to do my job
Major learning from network mapping are the following:
• CPMs are the centre of the national networks
• Strong common interests
• Good facilitation leads to good networks-
• Networks are growing and people find them useful
• Email and mobile most popular forms of communications
• Value given to experience sharing
• The overall density has increased over the years- ppl who interact every other week
• Interactions are mostly need based
• It is important to remember that to know the objectives before u get to network map and the way u structure the survey it will give u the core.

The participants then formed themselves into groups and did a similar mapping exercise.

We all strive for sustainable impact that improves livelihoods and reduces poverty. But, how do we improve the capacity of new knowledge, new innovations and new approaches, developed through research, to have a long term sustainable impact and be integrated into smallholder farming systems.

Research, and in my definition of research I include technical, economic and policy, has the capacity to generate new knowledge that has been adapted to smallholder based farming systems, but it is often limited in its ability to generate sustainable practice change and impact on development goals.

A group from Sri Lanka, India, Mongolia, IFAD HQ, China, Vietnam and Australia discussed some of the constraints related to the ability of research to have sustainable impact at the smallholder level. The group agreed that research has the capacity to:

1. Generate valued new information that can be delivered to smallholders to empower better decision making;
2. Improve institutional decision making by substantiating the decision making process; and,
3. Allows stakeholders to engage in new areas of development.

1. Geographical separation that limits information exchange;
2. Business to business competitiveness that prevents knowledge exchange;
3. Ineffective timeframe alignment that reduces relevance of information; and,
4. Resource limitations which diminishes the required commitment.

There were more than 35 participants in the session. Mr. Ron Hartman, CPM was the facilitator and the format used to facilitate was a "Hard Talk". Mr. Hartman invited three speakers to talk: David Shearer, Research Program Manager Agribusiness, from the Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Frank Hartwich, Industrial Development Officer at UNIDO and Rolf Schinkel, Sustainable Agribusiness Advisor from SNV team for HVAP Nepal.

The talk centered around seven questions in the areas of defining value chains, common practices applied in the development projects, importance of selection of value chain for poverty reduction, importance of value chain analysis, key factors in designing value chain development projects, key issues with implementing value chain projects and issue of M&E in value chain projects. Key points from the discussion include:

• Value chain is the mechanism that allow producers, processors, buyers, and sellers — separated by time and space — to gradually add value to products and services as they pass from one link in the chain to the next till reaching the final consumer
• It has two dimensions: theoretical (Supply chain development, Cluster development, Global value chains, Networking for innovation) and practical (Increasing value addition, Knowledge and technology, Joint innovation development)
• Project design need to be flexible because chains are prone to continuous changes, various chain actors need to participate in design.
• Chain extends across segments, PMU's only able to deal with parts (expertise) hence the need to partner.
• Projects can help in organizing / building capacities among farmers, they need partnership with firms regarding production technology and product specification
• Good value chain analysis helps PMUs to see the "public value" of the project and its development.
• Value chain 'thinking' should be part of the toolkit in livelihood improvement
• It allows an analytical methodology to assess constrains and opportunities and approaches to resolve, in the context of the whole chain
• It allows public and private engagement from a planning stage and a means to engage stakeholders from the beginning
• Specialists need to 'value' a multi-disciplinary approaches in improving the chains function
• Poor farmers and private sector together have great business potential
• Without private sector NO value chain development
• Value chain development needs PPP; government and private sector go hand in hand
• The role of government in value chains is the enabling environment

"Risk, vulnerability and shock limit poor people's participation in the growth process and cause a huge number of people to fall back into poverty", Sun Yinhong of China opens the session on Dealing with Risk and Vulnerability at the Project Level.

1. Identify a menu of technologies;
2. Include strategies using knowledge management (KM) tools to update projects with new technologies;
3. Include a clear implementation strategy, e.g. mechanism for financing technology adoption; and,
4. Propose crop/animal insurance.

1. Learn from initiatives of other projects; e.g. alternating crops, utilisation of communal labour, investing on small livestock;
2. Explore on insurances that put premium to farmers that better manage their land and other resources;
3. Do better risk/vulnerability analysis in project design processes (IFAD Climate Screening Tool can be used); and,
4. Have a study on prioritizing risks/vulnerabilities where IFAD shall focus on its interventions.

There were 31 participants who joined the session on ICTs for Livelihoods at the Asia and the Pacific Division's APR. The session was facilitated by Ms. Shalini Kala from IDRC. Following brief presentations by Mr. B. Batpurev (Mangolia) and Mr. Sean Siochru (Cambodia) on the use of ICTs for livelihoods in their contexts, session participants were divided into three groups to exchange their views on the question:

A total 40 members from Peru, Philippines, Maldives, Bangladesh, Laos, Pakistan, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Mongolia and India participated the APR's session "Monitoring and Evaluation for All" facilitated by Maria Donnat which consisted of a presentation followed by a Q&A.

• use the culture barrier as an advantage, an opportunity in collective marketing
• find advantages of buying directly products from Maldives for the resorts buyers
• bring project design limitations to IFAD's attention - start small
• focus on fisheries that already exist, products that are developed
• learn from existing products (like watermelons and papayas) that worked out - documenting
• promote technology to increase production
• contract farming with the"private sector"
• look at the competitive advantage of the identified products
• tap existing companies look for consolidators to provide management services, who should be local
• ensure quality/quantity
  

• don't introduce new products, farmers are not happy, help them choose VLs/products by themselves
• project should help farmers find buyers (specific enterprises)
• buyers should be provided with capacity building training
• learn from other projects who have been doing well in this area
• engage the private sector to come to the farmers directly
• the role of the government should be considered - need to improve the legal framework
  

• focus on market-driven products
• use a market path approach
• start small and expand
• create market-demand advocacy
• focus on push and pull (government to farmers, farmers to government)
• develop incentives for farmers to grow organic products
• explore other organic inputs or methodologies that can increase production (not related to marketing)
• link with those who have the market -> export
• marketing done by the companies
• aggregate the volume of production - to lessen costs - to increase margin
  

Fourteen participants attended this mini-workshop session led by Mr. Shankar Kutty, IFAD. Participants included one CPM (Ms. Atsuko Toda), one CPO (Seth, Cambodia). The remaining were project staff. The mini-workshop was divided into two parts: (1) Improving financial management; and, (2) Coping with procurement challenges. Participants from four tables were brought into table to ensure high level of interaction and discussion. Atsuko Toda facilitated the discussion and also worked as a note-taker for the group.

Part I: Improving financial management
The presentation and the discussion revolved around the four main areas: AWPB credibility, predictability and control; comprehensiveness and transparency in procurement; adherence to provisions of financing agreement, guidelines and policies of IFAD; accounting recording and reporting and scrutiny; and, external control.

While participants were expressing their views on any specific issues, the influence of their country rules and regulations was very visible. The discussion was centered on the following questions:

AWPB: Is the AWPB realistic, and implemented as intended? Are the control and stewardship exercised in the use of public/project funds?

Procurement: Do the PIM and Procurement Guidelines provide adequate guidance to all implementing partners clarifying the roles of each actor? Is there effective monitoring of the contract/agreements and the implementation of the contract/agreements. How are these partnerships managed? Does the Project have adequate mechanisms to assess risks?

Financing Agreement, Guidelines and Policies of IFAD: Do Project staff and implementing partners understand the provision of the Financing Agreements, Subsidiary Agreement, Guidelines and Policies of the IFAD? How the Project ensures effective compliances? Are there any grey areas? If yes, what are the mechanisms in place to address?

Accounting, Recording and Reporting: Are adequate records and information produced, maintained and disseminated to facilitate decision-making, control, management and reporting? What type of information is helpful for the management for decision-making? What type of action is required to update and establish controls with the information?

External Scrutiny and Audit: Does the Project Audits adequately cover relevant area as outlined in the scope of work? Should management audit be started in IFAD funded projects? Should auditor scope of work be tailored to specifically address relevant areas of concerns?

Part II: Coping with procurement challenges

The following basic procurement cycle was presented and discussed in the group.

• Originating a purchase
• Selecting a supplier
• Ordering, Receiving and accepting goods and services
• Receiving the invoice and making payment
• Post Contract Control

1. Strategic Risk – long-term adverse impacts from poor decision-making or poor implementation.
2. Programme Risk – failure to comply with procurement legislation, or internal procedures (the procurement code of practice or contract procedure rules) or the lack of documentation to prove compliance (i.e. a clear audit trail).
3. Project or Operational Risk – poor contract management, inadequate terms and conditions, failure to deliver services effectively & on time, malfunctioning equipment, hazards to service users, the general public or staff, or damage to property.

Nigel Brett, CPM, and sometime social reporter, just submitted the following record from a session he attended at the APR...

A speed sharing on direct supervision took place in the Rome Hall at APR event in Nanning from 14.00-15.30 on 1 November. The event was attended by Nigel Brett (CPM Bangladesh), Qaim Shah (CPO Pakistan); Mattia Prayer-Galletti (CPM India), Yasir Ashfaq (MIOP and PRISM Pakistan); Mushtaq Hussain Aura (Programme Director, AJKCDP Pakistan), Muhammad Hussain Bhatti (FAO UTF AJKCDP Pakistan), Nguyen Thanh Tung (CPO Viet Nam), Anura Herath (CPO, Sri Lanka), Jhao Dongqing (Deputy Director, Gansu, China), Feng YaoBin (Deputy Director, Shanxi, China), Duan Qibin (Director, Gansu, China), Li Bincheng (Director, Inner Mongolia, China), Arcie A Teng (Project Coordinator, Philippines), Sozig Yue Jia (Guangxi, China), Mohammed Tounessi (CPM IFAD), Zhang Meng Tang (China).

The following best practices were shared with respect to supervision and implementation support:

• Agreeing the text of the Aide Memo with the PMU before submitting it to Govt for the wrap-up meeting, ensuring consensus and ownership of recommendations;
• Frequent follow-up of supervision recommendations by IFAD and in particular by the CPO during the year;
• Ensuring supervision is a “joint” exercise including Govt, IFAD, local Govt, NGOs, and other project stakeholders (“joint review”);
• Ensuring a flexible interpretation of the project design as described in the appraisal report;
• Supervision missions should be efficient and make decisions quickly;
• Ensuring project supervision mission members have good understanding of the country and the project in question;
• Reducing inefficiency by undertaking joint donor supervision missions in situations where there are multiple donor funders;
• IFAD/supervision missions should ensure quick validation and approval of the AWPB/procurement plan so that implementation can happen without delays;
• IFAD/supervision missions should make sure that the AWPB is realistic;
• Direct supervision has enabled direct access to IFAD, timely capacity building of key PMU staff when needed, quick resolution of implementation problems.
• CPOs have enabled good communication and sharing of information between projects in a country on key implementation issues;
• Ensuring regular and continuous support by a team of expert IFAD consultants during implementation (particularly in areas such as M&E and financial mgt);
• Holding stakeholder workshops before the finalization of the Aide Memo so that diverse views can be adequately taken into account;
• Ensuring project designs are able to evolve to cope with rapidly changing development contexts (in particular in rapidly growing economies such as Viet Nam;
• Ensuring that projects have efficient M&E systems that generate powerful decision making information that is useful for supervision missions;
• Ensure that the list of recommendations is focused and short;
• Holding a higher level portfolio review meeting with central Govt once every six months to resolve higher level policy issues that effect project implementation;
• Ensuring that missions maintain a low profile during field visits so that they provide a conducive environment for local communities to open up;
• Ensure that financial management training for the PMU is provided by IFAD as early as possible in the start-up of a project.

I found myself on a Sunday afternoon taking pictures of registered participants in the Wharton International Hotel lobby, Nanning, China. These project managers and development experts came from all over Asia and beyond to attend the IFAD Asia-Pacific annual 'performance enhancement jamboree' and many had just stepped off an airplane. They wondered if they couldn't first go up to their rooms and freshen up.

Some were worried about taking their eyes off their luggage to pose for the photograph. "Are you happy to be here?" I frequently asked my subjects and received the smile that I was looking for.

The participants of the event take their jobs seriously and rightfully so. They are gathering for the next three days to talk about project achievements, challenges and performance in the region over the last performance year. The division can boast a record disbursement amount of USD 177 million according to it's 2009/2010 portfolio review. That's big bucks for agricultural development in Asia and the Pacific.

We are not talking about women and men that sit behind a desk all day. The participants are our modern day development champions. They manage IFAD funded projects in the field. They work with farmers, trainers, agricultural experts and local governments to name a few. These are the people that get their hands dirty, who work in challenging conditions and who believe in what they do. Their knowledge and experience is precious and they want to share it with each other.

Asia and Pacific Division Director, Thomas Elhaut, welcomed participants and told them "the event has moved from a portfolio performance workshop to a knowledge sharing event. Our annual event has become your event. You have taken charge, and we are happy facilitators".

Going back through the photographs I took, I can see the passion and determination in the participant's faces. The event is about them and I can't wait to hear more about what they have to share.