“In the Provias Rural is developing
a gender sub-component. The municipality is starting to implement programmes
to generate employment for women in the public transportation sector.
They are slowly increasing the presence of women as operators, directors
and owners of vehicles.”
“Policy makers now understand the importance
of inland water transport as an inter-modal rural transport service.
The implementation of circular waterways around Dhaka city is an evidence
of this.”
When examining IFRTD’s impact on policy and practice, it is
essential to recognize the direct impact of individual NFGs on national policy
development. For example:
- Tanzania – The NFG organized a parliamentarians’
workshop following the Improving Mobility workshop, which changed the orientation
of the policy makers towards rural transport. TFG is now a key actor in the
formulation of the government's policy.
-
Kenya - The NFG influenced the Kenyan government
to zero-tax bicycles, making them cheaper and more affordable.
-
Sri Lanka – The NFG has raised the profile of rural transport in the government,
getting rural transport into the PRSP and now has an even greater impact
through one of its more active members being appointed Secretary to the
Ministry of Transport.
-
Cambodian – The NFG comprises key officials
of the Ministry of Rural Transport and has instituted a system of participatory
monitoring by communities of the Provincial Rural Infrastructure Project
(supported by the World Bank)
-
Indonesian - The NFG has influenced the regional
government of Kalimantan on addressing rural water transport issues following
the Waterways and Livelihoods workshop in Pontianak
3.2
Networking and Joint Activities
Over the years, IFRTD has developed a large and diverse
base of network participants. Through the development of its information
strategy in 1996, the Forum made a timely investment in a detailed identification
of its key stakeholders and identified the types of information which they
would need in order to play a more active role in achieving improved accessibility
and mobility for poor communities in Asia , Africa
and Latin America . Following the information strategy, the
network has sought to not only provide information to, but also to engage,
individuals from the identified stakeholder groups at the local, national,
and international level. The resulting participant mix is impressive. However,
the Forum continues to be slightly under-represented by participants from
Asia , as well as hampered by an ongoing lack of women and representatives
from the private sector and industry associations.
In the case of IFRTD is it more meaningful to speak of network
participants than network members, due to differing views within the Forum
as to what constitutes “membership.” While the IFRTD counts all recipients
of the Forum News quarterly newsletter as members, many of these individuals
do not consider themselves as members. Similarly, partner organizations of
the network are confused as to whether to what degree they are part of the
network versus external advisors with shared interests.
As is common in networks, there are many levels of participation/engagement
in the IFRTD. These range from
-
General information seekers – users
of the Web site and recipients of network marketing/outreach messages (est.
12,000+ individuals). This group forms the base upon which the rest of
the Forum is built.
- Committed information seekers
– recipients of the Forum News and/or members of an NFG (est. 3,000 individuals)
- FRTD community members
– individuals who have participated in multiple IFRTD and/or NFG events in
an attempt to build their relationships and knowledge base (est. 800)
-
Joint activity implementers
– those individuals within the IFRTD who have been involved in planning
and implementing one or more joint activities based on the relationships/
knowledge they have gained and/or brought to the IFRTD over time (est 100).
IFRTD network participants contribute to achieving the goals
of the network in a variety of ways including
- Aligning their individual activities with the network
mission
- Using IFRTD to add value to their own work
- Building relationships with other network participants
- Contributing to the maintenance and expansion of
the network
- Engaging in joint activities with other network participants
When Strategy 2000-2005 was written, there were clearly
detailed expectations for 19 different ways in which general members were
to participate in the Forum. However, by the time the Operational Guidelines
were drafted in 2004, these member contributions seem to have been drastically
devalued. This appears to have been an unintended consequence of conflating
network governance with network participation following the 2001 IFRTD Governance
Review. In effect, this shift in perspective removed the first two levels
of participation (alignment of values and adding value to one’s own work)
from being recognized as mechanisms for participating in the network. It
also has the potential to alienate the network from the base of members which
it could recruit to higher levels of participation. Cultivating and nurturing
general members is always a strategic task for a network that wishes to maximize
its impact and to sustain itself
In terms of network relationships, it may help to think
of a network graphically (Figure 2). The triangles represent the participants.
The threads stand for the relationships, the communication and the trust.
The knots represent what they do together, what joins them. The coordination
of such a structure can be imagined as a job of inspiration and of maintenance
and repair. The Secretariat and Executive Committee must watch out for broken
threads, knot together appropriate activities, and put out new threads to
new participants to extend the net.
The Forum undertakes the job of maintaining and extending
its network through a combination of communication activities and joint projects.
The Forum uses a variety of communications tools to extend
the network and to ensure communications between existing members. These tools
include:
- •Forum News – the Forum’s quarterly 4-page newsletter
in English, French and Spanish sent out in print to all general members. Occasionally,
it is accompanied the IFRTD Update. This is an occasional series, also 4 pages
in length, with more details on specific projects.
- Annual Report - The tri-annual IFRTD Annual Report serves
as the anchor publication for the network, providing information for stakeholders
on network activities and achievements.
- Other Print Publications – The Forum produces additional
print publications – and now CD ROMS – on a periodic basis through network
projects.
- Outreach through other organizations’ communications tools
– IFRTD is increasingly publishing articles and think-pieces in the publications,
newsletters, and email lists of other organizations as a way of reaching beyond
the standard transportation community.
- IFRTD Web sites - this includes not only the main tri-lingual
IFRTD Web site (http://ifrtd.gn.apc.org/),
but the site for the Rural Waterways and Livelihoods Programme (http://www.ruralwaterways.org/).
- IFRTD Thematic and Regional Listservs – The network maintains
seven discussion groups on three different platforms, which serve as the basis
for ongoing information sharing between members with specific interests in
a region or topic.
- Workshops and meetings – Face to face meetings provides
some of the richest forms of communication possible in a network. IFRTD takes
advantage of this at for regional, thematic, and international relationship
building.
- One-on-one communications – While hidden from view, communications
directly between the Secretariat and members, and between members, usually
constitute the bulk of communications in a network.
Over the past 12 years, IFRTD has improved not only its mastery
of each of these means of communications, but also its ability to manage the
interfaces between these tools for the greatest impact.
| Interview with Simon Done,
TRL
“Balancing the Load was pretty innovative. I was at DfID when Priyanthi
sent in the proposal. IFRTD is not a normal research organization; some
people said they shouldn’t be doing that sort of thing, they should leave
it to the research organizations. But they did 20 chapters on different
case studies!”
|
In addition to these communications activities, IFRTD has
increasingly developed joint projects involving numerous network members and
NFGs. These projects have been funded separately from the core
funding received by the network and have focused member efforts on research
and advocacy around key issues at the cutting edge of rural transportation and
development: gender, HIV/AIDS, improving the mobility of the poor, rural waterways,
transportation indicators, and the monitoring of national transport investments
and pro-poor transport policies. These experiences have led to
the formalization of the innovative “networked research” and “interactive dissemination”
methodologies. These methodologies have challenged traditional
assumptions about who is capable of conducting research and how the research
process should be carried out.
Through IFRTD communications and joint activities, relationships
between participants have evolved considerably over time, with increasingly
dense linkages formed between IFRTD members. A preliminary social
network analysis indicates that the Forum out-communicates all other transportation
initiatives. Considering the vast differential between its budget
and those of other transportation initiatives mentioned by survey respondents,
the number of relationships maintained by the IFRTD is very impressive.
| Top organizations with which
Forum News readers communicate about rural transportation and development
(# surveys indicating communication with the organization)
• IFRTD - 50
• World Bank - 46
• ILO - 30
• DfID - 22
• TRL -19
• ADB - 16
• ITDG - 14
• IT Transport - 6
• SDC - 6
• ATNESA - 5
• SUSTRAN - 3
Source: IFRTD newsletter survey
|
IFRTD members are now relatively well networked at the international
level. Other than IFRTD, at least one major donor or international
initiative/network was directly mentioned by approximately 70% of survey respondents
as an organization with which they regularly communicate. All
of these organizations are regularly involved in the Forum. It
is unclear from the evaluation how many of these relationships were fostered
through the IFRTD and how many have independent origins. However,
survey results did indicate that IFRTD collaborative projects have helped to
strengthen their relationships with both other IFRTD members and with other
rural transportation and development organizations.
At the higher levels of network engagement, two cautionary
notes were heard:
- An emerging sense of “network drift” among previously
strong international partners – Previously close IFRTD partner relationships
have begun to drift apart as opportunities for international networking have
diminished following the implementation of the decentralization and regionalization
strategy. With the focus of the network shifting to joint projects and regional
networking, some international partners no longer feel as strong a feeling
of belonging and ownership over the network
-
The continuing mismatch between expectations placed
on NFGs and available resources - Strategy 2000-2005 placed a heavy burden
of responsibility on NFGs, giving them 49 responsibilities within the scope
of their participation. Those participating in the Advisory Committee,
or now the Executive Committee, have had an additional 4 responsibilities
regarding network evaluation and governance. This nearly rivals the 55
responsibilities of the Secretariat, yet NFGs received only minimal seed
funding, if anything, for these efforts. The fact that NFGs do exist and
are meeting many of their responsibilities is a key indicator of the value
they gain through their involvement in the network.
Beyond questions of impact and effectiveness, the evaluation addressed issues
of accountability within the network and between the network and its supporters
and constituents. As the Forum has grown and become increasingly decentralized,
issues of accountability have increased. However, over the past 12 years,
IFRTD’s internal governance structure and external relationship with its host
organization have been growing to meet these challenges.
On the most basic level, IFRTD has maintained a clear and consistent reporting
relationship with its core and project donors through the Secretariat. All
donors interviewed were pleased with the detailed reports they have received,
the responsiveness of the Executive Secretary to their questions or concerns,
and the openness of the Forum to their participation.
The accountability of the Forum to its donors does not rest entirely within
the Secretariat, however. The Forum’s Executive Committee serves as its highest
level governing authority responsible for establishing and monitoring the
decision-making processes that guide the network. The evaluation indicates
a high-level of shared understanding about the levels of decision-making and
responsibilities throughout the network. These correspond with the Operational
Guidelines detailing the roles and responsibilities of members, NFGs, the
advisory committee, and the secretariat. It is interesting to note that the
Operational Guidelines have been drawn from practice, in an attempt to make
explicit to the host agency the way in which IFRTD works, rather than having
been drawn up in advance. As such they probably more accurately reflect what
happens in the network.
Additional formal accountability to donors is achieved through the Forum’s
hosting arrangement with ITDG. As one of the founding members of the IFRTD,
ITDG has always had been a key partner in the Forum. However, like many other
NGOs-network relationships in the 1990s, the formal relationship between the
two entities was based on more on trust than on formal contracts and was not
clearly documented. Since 2001 when the relationship between IFRTD and ITDG
was briefly addressed in the Governance Review, management changes at ITDG
and the increasing growth of the Forum and its budgets have increasingly strained
the relationship with IFRTD. The tensions between the Forum and its host
organization should not be interpreted as criticisms of the Forum. They are
rather an indication of the maturation of the relationship and of ITDG’s increasing
capacity to professionally serve the needs of network secretariats. The issues
being raised at this time (e.g. potential fundraising conflicts, legal and
financial liabilities) are those which any responsible host should be raising
and resolving with the network.
Accountability within the IFRTD is seen through a much
broader lens, however, than formal frameworks and operational guidelines. One
of the fundamental issues which arose through the evaluation was the importance
placed by the Forum on being accountable to the poor rural people whose lives
they are seeking to improve. Increasingly, IFRTD’s networked research methodology
has enabled a form of accountability-in-action, where those who are so often
the ‘objects’ of research (the poor, the users) become recognized as active
and knowledgeable subjects in the process of learning and change, and can hold
those funding and designing research to account in relation to standards that
they themselves approve of and support.
In examining quality standards further, network participants highlighted
criteria related to several areas of work: outputs such as research and written
materials; processes such as networking and participation in debate and knowledge
creation and sharing; capacities such as ability to internalize important
IFRTD issues and spread them around; and diversity and positioning of participant
members, with particular emphasis on those who could influence others.
People had less to say about what mechanisms exist or could be put in place
to ensure such quality was upheld. While there is extensive peer review undertaken
through the networked research process, there was a sense that the quality
of staff in the Secretariat is a key factor in giving people confidence that
the IFRTD is operating with appropriate quality standards. The clear impression
is that the Executive Secretary is the final arbiter of quality. However the
IFRTD takes principled steps to ensure that decisions are made through consultative
processes. Mechanisms for assuring the quality of more process-driven activities
are in themselves processes rather than instruments.
The IFRTD’s modest financial resources means it tends to avoid any issues
that might arise around decision-making on who or which region should receive
funds for activities, and as such it probably has a greater ability to retain
the high levels of trust from its members that it currently enjoys. This
may change if project funding continues to grow; processes for making decisions
about which projects are “IFRTD Projects” and how members are invited to participate
may require clearer guidelines. Otherwise, there is the potential for concerns
about inner cliques to arise. It is also noticeable that in the Secretariat
interviews, all employees except for the Executive Secretary say that in that
past they have had little or no opportunity to contribute to decision-making
around budgets. This is not just because they do not; on the whole manage
any financial resources. It appears to be one of the areas which the decentralization
process has not yet fully reached. The tendency is for the Executive Secretary
to make the decisions around budgets, with input from the Regional Coordinators.
This appears to be changing in the current budget process for 2005.
Working together to generate and share new knowledge, and
putting that knowledge to work, can build the long term relationships among
members that are necessary to sustain networks. Nonetheless without adequate
financial and human resources over a given period of time, any network or
organization will face barriers to achieving its goals. In examining the sustainability
of a network, one also considers whether the network is being organized and
managed for the long term. If the network is actively planning to work together
for a significant period into the future, it needs to address a number of
issues in organizational growth, as well as managing its human and financial
resources.
The evaluation indicates that IFRTD has been successful
in mobilizing human resources. This can be seen in the networks established
within local communities, the involvement of local collaborators in the sub-regions,
the high quality of consultants, the number of good relationships it has,
and the way those who participate often move into positions of influence,
and continue their good will towards IFRTD. It was observed by one person
that mobilizing human resources in this field is limited by the small number
of people who have expertise in the area of rural transportation and development.
The evaluation team suggests that the limited number may in fact make it easier
to identify and secure involvement of members.
Success in mobilization is predetermined in part by individual commitment
to the issue, which is very strong in this field. The survey returns indicate
that over 50% of respondents intend to continue to work on rural transportation
and development for more than 10 years. Over a fifth intend to work for at
least another six to ten years in this field. This indicates a very stable
membership base that can be counted on for support for IFRTD’s work for at
least another decade – if the Secretariat and regional coordinators continue
to cultivate these relationships proactively. Some donors commented positively
on the NFG model; however, further investigation suggests that at least a
third of the NFGs are not stable, although an overwhelming majority have firm
commitments to the Forum. NFGs should not be relied on as the only mechanism
for cultivating relationships at the national level.
In terms of its ability to mobilize financial resources, IFRTD’s efforts
must be examined at all levels: core operating grants, fundraising for regional
activities, and project fundraising. Those who participate in the network
tend to believe that IFRTD has done remarkably well to maintain a solid funding
base for so long, and that it gets a great deal out of the resources it has.
Considerable attention has been paid to expanding the core donor base to include
renewed funding commitments from SDC and new commitments from SIDA. Given
that it is commonly believed that it is difficult to raise funds to support
network management, IFRTD has done extraordinarily well to attract three major
core donors up to now.
IFRTD has begun to focus its fundraising at the regional level, anticipating
that future sustainability will depend in part on securing support more directly
for regional work. However, it has not yet achieved any significant breakthroughs.
One indicator of success of a network is the leveraging of additional grants
or contracts for specific projects with one or more members. It signals that
there is in fact a market for the network’s research and communications work.
IFTRD has succeeded in securing support for its work from the World Bank,
for transport indicators and for the book Balancing the Load. However,
given the limited number of funders with a core interest in transportation,
IFRTD must improve its ability to raise additional project funds from foundations
and agencies with no previous experience in transportation, but strong interests
in broader development issues (e.g. health, education, agriculture, gender,
and environment).
In the short-term, however, the sustainability of the Forum depends on its
ability to respond to internal change. The recent announcement of the Executive
Secretary’s departure in March 2005 may raise questions regarding the Forum’s
leadership and direction at this critical time. The Executive Secretary of
IFRTD is clearly considered to be central to the leadership of IFRTD. Every
effort has been made by the Secretariat to be consultative, to work with its
Advisory Board, and to pay significant attention to governance and decision
making, nevertheless the energy for setting direction and ensuring implementation
comes from the Executive Secretary. Consequently, IFRTD is going to need to
pay careful attention to “Founders Syndrome”. While the current Executive
Secretary is not technically the “founder” of IFRTD, she is the first full
time Executive Secretary; much of IFRTD’s high reputation with donors and
others comes from their personal interactions with the Executive Secretary;
her energy and vision is a significant factor in the successes to date of
IFRTD. Founders syndrome comes into play in an organization when a dynamic
founding leader who has imprinted his or her vision and values on an organization
moves on. The organization finds itself immobilized and can significantly
scale back its vision and actions in the belief that it cannot sustain its
momentum in the absence of its founder. The organization becomes risk averse,
losing many of the relationships that it has built up in the preceding years.
The evaluation team is hopeful that IFRTD will not slip into Founders Syndrome,
although several factors will come into play in the coming months:
-
IFRTD’s regionalization process - The Executive Secretary has built a strong
team of regional coordinators [recognizing that the Asia node is still fairly
new]. The evaluation team has some confidence that in the short term, the
Forum can continue its various program commitments competently and effectively.
However, the decentralization process may still be too recent for the regional
coordinators to constitute a strong and effective virtual team; without
a strong centre, the Forum risks crumbling into a collection of regional
networks.
-
Decision-making processes regarding new leadership - We assume that any decision
on replacing the Executive Secretary rests with the host, ITDG, as the position
has been an ITDG staff position. However, the governance structure suggests
that the Advisory Committee may believe that it should be in a position to
decide how to move forward. The departure of the Executive Secretary may in
fact accentuate the difficulties that have emerged over the past years between
the host, ITDG, and the Forum.
In light of this, while IFRTD has some resilience in its structure due to
the regionalization process, its centre may be vulnerable through lack of
planning for change.
3.5
Relevance for the Future
As noted in the general evaluation findings, IFRTD has shown
clear leadership in setting the agenda for rural transportation and development,
rather than merely following one. Its relevance for the future is dependent
on its ability to continue playing this role.
| Interview with Tseggai Elias,
SSATP
“IFRTD luckily more or less complements what we do – we deal with governments
as the World Bank, whereas IFRTD has strength in national groups. They
have civil society well represented and are more bottom-up, but also
their response to local needs is much better. The recent activities
on water transport for example. This has been neglected but is now more
recognized and mainstreamed, so they deserve credit for this. They are
good at picking up on issues like this.”
|
As it begins to plan for its third phase of existence, IFRTD
must pay particular attention to how it plans for external change in rural
transportation and development – anticipating the obvious and weathering the
unexpected. While we were able from the interview data to get a clear picture
of IFRTD’s ability to monitor external trends in rural transportation and
development, we were less confident in the indications of its ability to adapt
its program directions accordingly. Planning for change requires a sensitivity
to issue cycles
- When an issue is still basically on the scientific
or social science research agenda
-
When it is in the phase of rapid public increase in
attention [networks are often formed during this phase]
- When it begins to receive political attention
When IFRTD begins to receive
signals from its members and contacts that issues are hitting the 2nd
and 3rd stages of the cycle, it should be mobilizing the experts
its needs to get its positions and research agendas on the table of donors –
who are paying attention to the same issue cycle. It is a question of nimbleness
that needs more attention. IFRTD did demonstrate this with the indicators work
with the World Bank; but they now need to replicate this experience across a
broader range of issues.
In dealing with issue cycles, IFRTD must continue to find the right balance
responding to donor issue cycles and reflecting the interests and desires
of its Southern members. As the dynamic underlying IFRTD’s agenda setting
becomes more southern-driven, the international communities’ issues and priorities
at times seem to have less resonance with its participants. This will continue
to increase the tension between IFRTD's agenda setting function and its need
to be responsive to international issue-cycles, especially since the latter
is critical for fundraising.
In this light, clear challenges will continue to be posed to the Forum by:
- The ascendancy of the Millennium Development Goals
– While the Secretariat has been able to articulate linkages between all MDGs
and rural transportation, the linkages may not be obvious for many development
policy-makers, donors, and practitioners. Rural transportation risks being
overlooked in the stampede to achieve the MDGs in the most direct and least
cost manner.
- The ascendancy of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
– Increasingly multi-lateral and bi-lateral agencies are shifting their available
resources to support primarily those activities included in country-level
PRSPs. If rural transportation and development concerns are not built into
these PRSPs, the likelihood of funding for projects and activities of interest
to IFRTD decreases.
- The growing levels of urban poverty in developing
countries – Urbanization continues unchecked in most countries around the
world. This has caused a significant shift in attention and effort away from
rural areas. While people development specialists have previously believed
that improved conditions in rural areas may slow urbanization, this assumption
has been challenged in recent years.
- The decentralization of development – Decentralization
is occurring not just outwards from international donors to national governments
but out from there to local government. This has very challenging implications
for NFG development, and would indicate some deep thinking needs to go on
about how to provide services for and attract funds for activities at this
level.
Additionally, the Forum must continue to strive to reach beyond simply reflecting
the transportation infrastructure interests of its participants and instead
challenge them to grow in new directions.
4
Looking forward: Six Areas of Attention for IFRTD
The following section outlines key recommendations emerging
from the evaluation for the Forum.
4.1
General thrust of IFRTD in 2005-2010
IFRTD emerged during a period when the World Bank was making
particular linkages between rural development and poverty reduction, under
the leadership of Robert McNamara. This was an “issue cycle”: these linkages
were on the radar screen of the Bank, leading to increased support from the
Bank for work in this area, and leveraging the corresponding interest of the
bilateral assistance community. The issue cycle has now shifted at the international
level to the aggregation of all development efforts towards the Millennium
Development Goals and to the demonstrated impact on poverty reduction of development
efforts, and at the national level to the process and reporting cycles of
the Commission on Sustainable Development. IFRTD’s Executive Committee should
revise IFRTD’s strategic plan in the light of these new issue cycles. IFRTD
has much to offer:
- Depth of experience in connecting social considerations
with the infrastructure side of rural development.
- A broad constituency on the ground that can bring transportation
and mobility issues into the MDGs
- Real contributions that can be made directly at the national
level that should feed into national planning and reporting on transportation
to the CSD in 2008-2010.
The role of the Secretariat should be to weave together
the MDGs, international priorities and sector strategies with its understanding
of the real and immediate needs of the south. This will require identifying
and building new relationships within the international and bilateral development
assistance community.
It may also require building alliances with other organizations
that also now need to look beyond their immediate sectoral interests to how
to merge their work into the achievement of the MDGs and sustainable development.
IFRTD should be looking towards the following:
- The development assistance and relief organizations:
OXFAM and CARE, for example.
- Community development organizations: Local Agenda
21 movements; the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.
- The conservation community: WWF, Conservation International
and IUCN
- The private sector engineering/infrastructure community:
international project financing has principles and guidelines on environmental
and social impacts that the private sector is expected to adhere to.
We have observed a trend in the bilateral assistance community
towards larger scale, multiple year, cross sectoral projects involving both
state and several civil society actors. Now that IFRTD is well grounded in
its understanding of rural transportation and development, it should be demonstrating
linkages between transportation and other sectors. IFRTD is well positioned
to move towards alliances that will attract funding to bridge several major
issues, such as:
Within its own sector, IFRTD should consider a major expansion
of its networking activities in Asia , particularly China and
India. China, with its rapid economic growth, continued rural poverty and
strong engineering traditions has a real need for the holistic approaches
to rural transportation that IFRTD offers.
4.2
Build appreciation among the broader transportation and international
development community for the Forum’s approach to rural development.
IFRTD should promote its operating model and its successes
beyond its immediate sphere of influence in the transportation sector. Other
sectors and organizations will be extremely interested to learn more about
how IFRTD has achieved the following:
-
The stability and
effectiveness of a small, active secretariat with strong regional nodes
and national presence
-
Its application of
“scaling up strategies” that move a community of practitioners beyond information
exchange to work on the ground and at regional/international levels
-
Its development of a “networked
research” approach that strengthens inputs to the broader policy and practice
community
-
Its ability to address
social issues in a field traditionally dominated by infrastructure.
4.3
Put in place a framework for monitoring and evaluation on an ongoing basis
Much of IFRTD’s value and impact can only be discovered
through the anectodal – stories of individual practitioners and policy makers
who have benefited from a workshop or a personal interaction or a report discovered
on the website. A monitoring framework such as outcome mapping supports the
systematic collection of the anecdotal over time – which then validates the
value proposition of the Forum.
4.4
Further clarify and refine membership relations
Much of the value of IFRTD rests in its representation of
its constituency:
The evaluation has noted a natural drift with members that
occurs when the base of a practitioner community broadens out like IFRTD has
done. The challenge is how to retain the base [and accurately represent to
donors the strength and engagement of that base] while at the same time moving
IFRTD into broader spheres of influence like the MDGs. We do not see this
as a governance challenge so much as it is a fine-tuning of member relations
and a communications and capacity development challenge. We would therefore
suggest the following:
- That the secretariat refine the definition of members
more along the lines of an open community of practice that attracts rural
transport and development practitioners from around the world. The members
of this community can be enumerated through subscriptions to IFRTD lists and
accesses to the website.
-
That the NFGs and the Secretariat establish some common protocols for maintenance
of contact lists and sharing of those lists [for example, following the existing
protocols through which everyone on an NFG list should be added to the distribution
list for the newsletter]
- That the newsletter act as a vehicle for NFGs [reinstituting
the NFG news section in the newsletter] so that all members of the community
see the full extent of the community
- That consideration be given to the hosting of a major
international conference/networking meeting to bring together members of the
community of practice
The evaluation indicates that IFRTD has demonstrated real
success at moving a significant percentage of the general information seekers
into more committed relationships with the Forum. We suggest that it is now
timely to undertake a capacity assessment of members, both to see how to engage
general information seekers more effectively, and to strengthen those who are,
or want to be, more engaged. Issues to be investigated would include, inter
alia:
- Do members understand advocacy processes – how change
comes about?
- Do members have the capacity to influence policy
development in their countries/regions
- Do members have the capacity / skills development
to work collaboratively on projects in a network context [can they do networked
research; what do they need to learn in order to be better able to do this]
4.5
Strengthen and advance donor relations:
IFRTD should investigate how it can create new, and additional,
champions for its work within the core donor group. In particular, IFRTD should
continue to seek its entry point into the Transport Knowledge Partnership
initiative of DfID. If the TKP is to succeed, it must live up to its goals
of building upon the existing networks and accomplishments of existing transport
networks such as IFRTD. Donors should see an investment in IFRTD as a cost-effective
investment in anchoring the rural transportation and development elements
of the emerging TKP.
In seeking new champions, IFRTD should look beyond the immediate
grant managers to the younger policy analysts within the donor agencies, and
should also look into the knowledge management practices of donor agencies.
Many agencies have now established internal communities of practice or thematic
discussion groups; IFRTD should seek means to move its knowledge directly
into those groups, in addition to its more traditional interaction with the
grant manager.
Donors and IFRTD should explore how to build into funding agreements what
the nature of the knowledge sharing between the two will be at the international,
regional, and national levels, in order to ensure greater recognition of IFRTD
within the donor agency – and greater influence of IFRTD on policy development
within the development assistance community. More donors should be encouraged
to follow the model of the World Bank in terms of its proactive use of the
Forum to rapidly source and engage expertise for the Bank’s suite of rural
transport projects. The value of the availability of this pool of expertise
should likewise be reflected in core support for the general networking activities
of the Forum. Ultimately, it is less costly to maintain IFRTD as a “creative
commons” available for all donor agencies than for each to attempt to establish
and to maintain its own network.
4.6
Continue to address the relationship with ITDG
Based on the results of the evaluation, we would endorse
the recommendation of the governance review, that IFRTD should continue its
current hosting relationship with ITDG; that there is no pressing need to
change its legal status or its host. However, there are clearly a number of
issues still to be worked through with ITDG so that the relationship is beneficial
for all concerned.
-
Some real progress has been made to strengthen the accountability
of the Forum to ITDG senior management, with particular reference to financial
and human resources. However, we believe that IFRTD needs to continue
to bridge communications with ITDG, including further cultivation of its
champions within ITDG. The current agreement is that IFRTD secretariat
is a “project” of ITDG; it needs now to move to the next step, to be seen
to be relevant, and indeed integrated with other project/research activities
within the new AIM 3 program.
-
ITDG needs to review the strategic opportunities
available to it through a stronger relationship with IFRTD: They need
to consider what is in it for them.
- IFRTD brings substance and expertise to AIM3—
it can enrich their work
- IFRTD brings an important constituency to ITDG
– thousands of practitioners working with intermediate technologies
in development and poverty alleviation
- IFRTD provides a model for other activities,
forums and partnerships in ITDG: it can share its experience with
scaling up strategies, networked research, and general forum management
and communications.
IFRTD is based on a culture of volunteerism that is unusual
in the infrastructure field and policy field. The evaluation team was intrigued
with this, as we were not able in the time available to uncover incentives and
rewards that one would expect to find in a more traditional volunteer movement
– beyond the value of the information and relationships gained through the network
itself. How this extends the capacity of the Forum should be investigated thoughtfully
by ITDG as this may strengthen many other areas of ITDG work
|
For a copy of the full
evaluation report or more information about IFRTD, please contact:
IFRTD Secretariat
113 Spitfire Studios
63-71 Collier Street
London N1 9BE
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: 44 20 7713-6699
Fax: 44 20 7713-8290
Email: ifrtd@ifrtd.org
|
|
For
more details on the IFRTD evaluation methodology, please contact:
Knowledge Communications
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor
Winnipeg, MB R3B 0Y4
CANADA
Tel: 1 204 958-7700
Fax: 1 204 958-7710
Email: info@iisd.org
|
|
International Forum
for Rural Transport and Development