| This first look at networks in
Peru suggests a highly heterogeneous set of organisations. As expected,
research policy networks serve different functions but do so in even
more different ways. Our interviews with key officials at these networks
have suggested a series of emerging choices and themes that are worth
highlighting. These can guide other networks in the definition of
their own functioning. Some of these themes look into how the structure
of the network can affect the functions and activities it carries
out. Choosing between institutional or individual membership, having
a centralised structure instead of a decentralised structure, and
including or excluding the networks members in the efforts to influence
policy can have significant effects on the network's ability to fulfil
its functions.
Click on the links for more on each issue:
Institutional vs. individual
membership
Institutional membership can provide networks with additional resources
that members contribute towards the running of the network or of
a particular initiative. Resources may include funds, infrastructure
and skills but also reputation. CONVEAGRO,
for instance, actively seeks 'strong' organizations, mainly trade
unions, that can add to the strength of the network in the political
process. Similarly, the Participa
Peru project identified its consortium partners based on their
capacity to provide access to certain regions, and their regional
governments, in the country.
Institutional membership, however, has its problems. When Foro
Salud criticized the US-FTA on the grounds of a research that
showed its negative impact on the cost of medicines in Peru, USAID
funded members saw it as a conflict of interests. At least one had
to withdraw -albeit temporarily- from the network.
Individual membership, as in Foro Educativo, means that members
are sometimes not associated to either the network or the organisation
they belong to. They represent only themselves. This has allowed
Foro Educativo to be critical of the Ministry of Education's policies
even though many of its members hold key positions within it. According
to Foro Educativo, 'people have not made the connection between
them and Foro'. This provides the network with much more room for
manoeuvre and freedom.
However, individual membership also means that network-wide issues
need to be discussed all the time as there are no institutional
visions or missions that could guide or frame specific policy or
issue positions. In an institutional membership network, the institution's
missions and visions are, ideally, in line with each other, so it
is relatively easier for the secretariat or communication's team
to prepare a press release or opinion piece that will be accepted
by all. In an individual membership network, these missions and
visions do not exist (or are not public) and, therefore, network-wide
positions need to be discussed issue by issue. This, unfortunately,
counteracts some of the flexibility Foro Educativo has.
It is also more difficult, in an individual membership network,
to guarantee that the members will contribute resources to the network.
Individual members often want to rely on the network for support
to their own work, which might be much broader than the more particular
interests of the network and therefore will be less willing to contribute
with funds, time or skills. This means that the network needs to
assume its operating costs and directly engage with donors for funding.
On the other hand, Foro Educativo's membership has succeeded in
its objective of creating a wide and strong enough community of
education researchers and practitioners. Members are now considered
to be most of the possible candidates to hold key positions in the
government -thus guaranteeing that even with high turnover of authorities
the policies will remain. In a policy context in which individuals
play key roles, this is seen as a good strategy.
Policy influence vs. policy influence
through empowerment
Policy influence requires a great deal of resources to be allocated
to communication and strategic planning activities. It calls for
some allocation of responsibilities to those with specific skills
and comparative advantages to maximise impact. In Agency networks
this logistical hurdle is passed by awarding a secretariat or networked
programme the responsibility for developing and implementing the
network's policy influence strategy. CIES' secretariat, for instance
is a fairly strong agent, quite independent from its members; in
many occasions its members are unaware of the secretariat's actions.
However, many of the networks interviewed in Lima had to balance
the resource demands of this objective with those of another, equally
important, one: empowering their members to become agents of change
themselves.
The Mesa and CONVEAGRO are
good examples of this. The Mesa, in particular, allocates most of
its scarce resources to a community building function as a means
of empowering their members (individually and as a group). They
want the elderly to become agents of change. Hence policy impact
alone would not be an accurate indicator of their success. 'Mesas'
in Peru, and also in other countries in the region, have developed
from this same 'empowerment' principle. There are 'mesas' dealing
with child rights, youth policies, gender issues and indigenous
people's rights, among others. In all cases, empowerment has been
incorporated both as a means and an end alongside the objective
of influencing policies and practice.
CONVEAGRO works with its own members to develop their capacity
to use research based evidence in their negotiations with local
or national authorities. Its members, among which are highly mobilised
and radicalised trade unions, constantly discuss ways in which they
can improve their policy influence strategies and seek advice from
the network's technical team. One of the main benefits of the influence
through empowerment approach is that this awards the network a degree
of legitimacy that is often absent among those that seek influence
through the agency of a secretariat, independently of its members.
Partnership vs. subcontract
Relationships between network members and between the members and
the network's secretariat vary according to the objectives and functions
they have been designed for. The Mesa, CONVEAGRO, Foro Educativo
and Foro Salud include an empowering objective and hence highlight
the importance of horizontal relationships between members. They
also emphasise that the network is member-driven -the secretariat
being an executive body that responds to the initiative of the members.
CIES' members are also considered partners but the emphasis on investor/provider
and amplifier functions means that it needs to take the initiative
on behalf of its members and have therefore less horizontal relations.
The Participa Peru project, on the other hand, was formed not to
build a community but to achieve a very clear set of objectives.
The choice of partners responds to the need to cover certain geographical
areas and provide specific products and services to regional governments
and the local population in general. Hence, the initiative and execution
of the network's strategy and activities are centralised at the
secretariat (or project management team) and the network is more
a consortium with contractual relations. In fact, the project is
systematically changing partnership relations for subcontracts.
A subcontract provides the secretariat with the power to make decisions
and implement them without the need to reach a consensus or having
to consult with the other members of the group. When empowerment
or partnership building are not objectives this type of relationship
appears to be a possible desirable choice.
Centralised vs. decentralised
Relationships between members and with the secretariat suggest
different patterns of network centralisation. However, there does
not seem to be a particular relation between outward functions (such
as amplifying) and the degree of centralisation. For instance, both
Participa Peru and CONVEAGRO have well defined communication strategies
and the necessary resources to do so. While the former has a highly
centralised decision making process, the latter is strongly decentralised
awarding its members decision making powers and freedom to amplify
the message of the network in their own constituencies and, often,
via their own means and strategies.
In this case, the network, provides backstopping support to the
members, including, research, basic information, political context
assessments, technical advice, connections and, most importantly,
legitimacy through representativity. This shows that some functions
can be centralised and other decentralised.
CIES has a different arrangement to CONVEAGRO's. While research
is decentralised (members carryout their own research or receive
funds from CIES for specific networked research projects), the networks'
communications and policy influence activities are centralised at
the secretariat. The difference probably has more to do with the
types of members each has than with their specific capacities. While
CIES' members are universities and research centres with academic
incentives that do not promote active political participation; CONVEAGRO's
members are highly politicised and mobilised organisations with
institutional incentives to actively participate in policy processes.
Representativity, credibility
and legitimacy
The issues of representativity, credibility and legitimacy are
dealt in different ways by the networks. Foro Educativo, for instance,
carefully chooses its members based on a strict criteria of credibility;
experience, respect, position in the sector, etc. This, they believe,
awards the network legitimacy in the policy process.
CONVEAGRO, on the other hand, seeks legitimacy through the representativeness
of its members and of the network as a whole. Hence they look for
strong and broad reaching trade unions and producer associations
whose legitimacy has already been established by their broad constituency
or political participation. Nonetheless, under the current political
context representativeness only gives them credibility before those
who they represent. As a consequence they have worked hard to develop
close relations to key strategic partners such as the Belgian Government,
whose support they consider vital as it counteracts the negative
perceptions that the country's economic and political elite has
of some of their other supporters; e.g. Oxfam and its more politicised
members.
Foro Salud also seeks legitimacy through representation by including
among its members almost every individual or organisation involved
in health issues in the country; encouraging participation through
thematic and regional fora. This has already awarded the network
an undisputable position in its short existence.
In a different vein, CIES' legitimacy comes from its research base.
The network is an active promoter, producer and user of highly scrutinised
and methodically sound research. Its members are well recognised
among the research and academic community. This has given the network
credibility before international and national development policy
agents which has translated into legitimacy in the policy process.
Creating networks: from vertical
to horizontal relations
It is difficult to imagine networks being created by spontaneous
combustion or a kind of social big-bang. In reality, most of the
networks interviewed are the conclusions of long processes of engagement
between individuals and organizations of civil society. Foro Salud,
for instance, is a by-product of CIES' work in the health sector
and the coming together of a series of regional and thematic groups
in the health sector in Peru (In fact, CIES hosts Foro Salud and
provides it with backstopping services). Foro Educativo was born
out of the relations that existed among a group of education researchers
and practitioners, disenchanted with the prevailing policy environment.
One of the most interesting cases is that of the Mesa. Its history
can be traced back to the early 1990s when Help Age International
(HAI) begun a move from service delivery to policy and practice
influence; as did many international NGOs. In this process, HAI
brought together all of its partners in Peru and, for the first
time, physically sat them in the same room. This was the first time
they met each other. Out of this event, HAI's partners begun to
discuss ways in which they could work together and HAI facilitated
the process that led to the formation of the first version of the
Mesa in 1992.
Hence, HAI transformed its vertical relations with its local partners
into horizontal relations between them. In the process, HAI had
to adopt a new function: from Agent to Supporter of change; but
also had to promote new skills and roles among its partners. This
meant that the members had to learn how to work with institutions
with different visions and missions to theirs: for instance, the
network had to adapt to involve faith-based organisations. It had
to change from providing services to the elderly to developing their
capacity for policy influence. Because of this origin, and probably
because they had previously developed from the grassroots, they
had to incorporate an empowerment role in their work.
There are other cases of iNGOs kick-starting networks in this way.
The key lesson from this experience is that HAI introduction of
its partners was not enough. They had to (and still do) mentor the
members through a long process in which they worked together in
various networked activities as a way of finding the right terms
of engagement for them.
The role of research
One of the key questions we asked ourselves at the start of this
research had to do with the role of research in the network's work.
It is quite clear that for most of the networks, good research is
central to their image, credibility and strategies. There is not,
however, a common pattern among the networks regarding where research
is carried out, by whom, its type or for what purpose.
In most networks, research is carried out by its members; not by
the secretariat. However, there are exceptions of this. The technical
team within CONVEAGRO's secretariat is charged with research and
policy analysis. Participa Peru's project team centralises much
of the research role, in particular the production of synthesis
of the action-research of its regional partners.
Foro Salud carries out some centralised research but this is mostly
member led. The Foro provides a space for debate and exchange of
ideas. CIES, on the other hand, actively promotes the production
of research base evidence among its members. It provides brokers
funds from donors through different competitive initiatives. As
a norm, they give priority to networked research involving researchers
from different institutional members. This process fosters intra-network
ties and decentralises the research capacity, in particular towards
the institutions outside Lima.
Although most research carried out in Peru is issue based, some
policy analysis is being produced. CIES, CONVEAGRO, Foro Educativo
and Participa Peru, for instance have clearly defined demand driven
research initiatives thus ensuring a high degree of policy relevance
for their research products. Others, like the Mesa (with little
research capacity at the secretariat or among its members), have
to rely on academic research on related issues but with little policy
relevance.
The importance of research is also related to its purpose. Foro
Salud, for instance, participates of the National Health Council
participatory processes as well as of consultative bodies, through
its regional and thematic fora. Research is therefore developed
in an ad-hoc manner in response to the questions and issues raised
within those fora; it is one more participatory tool. Although not
central to the network's overall work, it is clearly important at
the members' level.
Policy analysis, on the other hand, has a more clear purpose: direct
influence on policy and practice. Hence, research has a much more
central and explicit role in these network's communications and
policy impact strategies.
The adoption of research activities within the network requires
specific resources and skills. Larger and stronger secretariats
tend to be able to carryout research. Smaller or weaker ones depend
on its members' research capabilities. This affects not so much
on the function but on the form of the network: stronger research
partners will probably challenge the centrality of the network thus
decentralising its power; stronger research secretariats, on the
other hand will probably reinforce the centralisation of the network.
This can then have an effect on the networks' functions: a secretariat
with research and advocacy capacity will need less of its members
thus carrying out fewer filtering, amplifying or community building
functions. A more decentralised network will probably have to engage
more often with its members and hence carryout more filtering.
Managing change
Networks change as a result of changes in their internal and external
environments. They need to respond to new demands from their members
or clients, manage larger memberships and adapt to sometimes hostile
and other friendly policy contexts. Each network has means of managing
that change; some more successfully than others.
Foro Salud is a network that has changed significantly since its
establishment. It went from being a small group of urban professional
based in Lima to a national network with 20 different regional fora
and 15 thematic ones. Most importantly it incorporated extremely
different members to the original ones. The expansion of the network
shifted the focus from the middle level NGOs to the grassroots and
from professionals or academics to practitioners and beneficiaries.
This has gradually expanded the number of themes discussed and posed
a significant challenge to the national coordination. Nonetheless,
the expansion responds (or at least coincides) with a change in
the policy context. The last 5 years have seen the development of
a decentralisation process that has increasingly awarded more policymaking
importance to regional fora. The decentralisation of the network
has therefore helped it manage its response to the challenges posed
by its external environment.
CIES is another network that has endured several changes. The network
is based on the foundation of a network founded in 1989, CIE, by
5 research centres in Lima. In 1999, the network incorporated 17
other members, particularly from outside Lima, and formed CIES.
In 2001, the network was established formally as a non governmental
organization and has progressively expanded its membership to 34
institutions. The network's membership, focus or scope, however,
have not changed since 1999 and nor has its structure.
Managing this change requires specialised skills that are not always
available for smaller or cash-strapped networks. The commitment
and flexibility of its members are therefore important features
of the network. Building a strong community around an issue (health)
or an objective (research based policy influence) can develop the
commitment among the network's members.
Back to Networks Study index
|
