KM in Rural & Agricultural Development: The ENRAP experience Shalini Kala, ENRAP IFAD-IDRC.

KM in Rural & Agricultural Development: The ENRAP

experience

Shalini Kala, ENRAP www.enrap.org

IFAD-IDRC

Why networking

Why ENRAP

What did it do

What changed

Why networking? Rich project knowledge exists & is being created

continuously Learning within IFAD family was limited - projects

unconnected, working in isolation

Knowledge not available in shareable form

Rapidly expanding telecommunications Weak capacity to use ICT tools for sharing – physical, funds,

human

Lack of appreciation – knowledge sharing, knowledge management & use of ICT tools

Networking to share knowledge

Why Share Knowledge?

To improve project performance through:

Improved management – planning, resource allocation & decision making

Improved monitoring

Enhanced communication capacity for community engagement & informing policy making

Innovation, replication, up-scaling

Why ENRAP?

To promote knowledge-sharing networks within projects, across projects & among rural dev. players:

Networking: IFAD projects & associated partners are making greater use of regional & country programme networks to actively share knowledge

ICT4L Research: ICT applications that have proved successful in improving rural livelihoods are accessible to network members for replication & up-scaling

What is ENRAP?

ENRAP (Knowledge Networking for Rural Development in Asia-Pacific Region) Phase I started in 1998,covered 5 countries (15

projects) Phase II (2003-07) expanded to 8 countries (40

projects) Phase III (2007-2011) covers all of Asia-Pacific IFAD-IDRC collaboration

What does KS involve?

Documentation of knowledge – needs capacity

Validation through discussion & sharing amongst various actors – needs mechanisms such as networks

Systematic approach to the above – needs capacity, mechanisms, strategy & resources

What were the challenges? Wide diversity: languages, economic status –

CONTEXT of Asia-Pacific

Modest effort to change practice substantively Lack of demand for knowledge networking

possibly due to lack of understanding of value Disinterested CPMs

Weak capacity – analysis, documentation Disparate interests Phase III: Engaging new members quickly

What were the opportunities? Corporate emphasis on KM

Recognition of knowledge needs & gaps

Common interests & needs

Country office establishment taking over the supervision function from UNOPS Appointment of Country Focal Points or

Program Officers (CPO) Increasing CPM interest

ENRAP Strategy Working from project to national to regional levels, in

parallel Demonstrating value of networks in effective/useful

knowledge sharing – creating demand Building capacity to network, share & plan for

networking/sharing: of CPOs & through them in countries Identifying and nurturing “champions”: PDs, Project and

partner staff, CPOs Engaging/Influencing CPMs by keeping them informed and

seeking their advice Engaging new members through existing ones Tracking network growth – SNA research

What Changed?

Network at 2010

Some outcomes general recognition of the value of knowledge networking

by members (CPMs, CPOs or project staff) & the role that each of them plays in making this effective

Efforts at improving knowledge networking moved from being adhoc & project specific to broad, generic & of a higher level

KM efforts at project, national and regional levels getting well-linked

KS increasingly an integral part of project & country poverty reduction efforts – improved capacities, mechanisms, resources

tested information available on the use of information and communication tools in agriculture

Some outputs KS Tools & Methods Guide

Writeshops: Guide & Cases

Systematization: Guide & Manual

Research findings: Use of ICTs in enhancing rural livelihoods

Numerous project outputs – field stories, films, websites, etc.

…

Thank You!!