Capitalising on Local Knowledge - Community knowledge exchange
Making a direct contribution... a word to donor and support agency staff
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Selecting
C2C projects
Donors
and support agencies that are asked to support knowledge exchange processes
might have difficulty in assessing whether the ideas that are put forward
are likely to result in sound processes and outcomes that make a significant
difference to the quality of people’s lives. The methodology required
for an open-ended learning experience like this is somewhat different
from what is required for most other developmental processes, in which
the desired long-term outcomes are clearly identified in the project proposal.
Assessment of proposals for knowledge exchanges can be challenging, as
the focus is on the learning process and its potential to generate increased
capacities and new, and possibly unforeseen economic opportunities.
We suggest that support agencies and donors should develop guidelines that will clearly inform applicants exactly what is required, and at the same time support their internal assessment processes. A clear framework should be drawn up and provided to applicants to help them to develop more viable projects. It should not just make them jump through the hoops!
Every knowledge exchange will take place in a very local context. Local knowledge of the context and participants in the process will give the decision-maker the best means of assessing any proposal.
Requirements
At relatively low cost, community exchange visits can be used to kick-start
development initiatives, or to enhance existing initiatives. However,
it is important to know whether the right conditions are likely to exist
for the exchange visit to achieve its objectives. A simple project plan
or proposal that sets out the basic information will enable assessment
of the concept before it can be approved.
The information required could include:
Title
Initiating community or community-based organisation (final beneficiary)
Intermediary implementing agency (if one is involved)
Introduction
Background
Problem statement and rationale for intervention
Project objectives (and indicators for success)
Project activities
Methodology (including participation)
Monitoring and evaluation
Assumptions and risks
Dissemination of results
Project follow-up/ sustainability
Reporting
Institutional arrangements
Timeframe
On the basis of the proposal, assess whether the project will meet the requirements that must be met by the donor or support agency. The assessment could reflect on:
Adequate information on all aspects. A simple check against the proposal requirements will show if the information has been supplied.
Is the membership and representation of participating local communities or associations adequately defined and delineated? If not, the danger exists that the exchange visit might become a free-for-all for powerful individuals who are not members.
Are the participating communities willing to contribute to the cost of the exchange (either in cash, or in kind)? This is a useful measure of the extent to which the project addresses the real knowledge needs of the communities. It is also a means of enhancing community ownership of the exchange visit. If people have to be paid an allowance to participate, they might just be going for the ride to earn extra money. On the other hand, by leaving their homes and farms they are also sacrificing their daily activities and opportunities to earn incomes.
Does the implementing organisation have the financial capacity to manage funds, and to account for them in a transparent manner? This need not be highly advanced, but should be adequate.
Does the implementing organisation have the technical competence to facilitate learning and follow-up action about the topics that have been identified? Do they have appropriate partners to do so? If not, the process might run into a dead-end.
Is the implementing organisation willing to contribute its own human resources? There should be some clear expression of commitment to show that the project is not simply a way of fund raising for staff and other running costs.
Is the main purpose of the initiative the enrichment of people’s knowledge though exchanges with other communities? Make sure the proposal is not a Trojan Horse aimed at some other, pre-determined purpose.
Is the visit likely to introduce people to practices and concepts that are relevant to their development vision, as well as to their current livelihoods? The knowledge exchange should not be a visioning exercise itself, designed to stimulate people’s imagination about things that they will probably never undertake or be able to succeed at.
Is the exchange likely to introduce community members to technologies that they could not replicate by themselves with the means and resources that they have, or are likely to be able to get access to? It is not “developmental” to offer technical solutions that will simply not be available to the visiting community, such as an electrically powered machine in an area that is remote from the power grid.
If the proposal is for an international exchange visit, will it link communities that share the similar ecology, conditions, and opportunities? Journeys outside a country are often very attractive, but might be much less appropriate than a more local visit.
Is there a concept and plan for participatory monitoring and evaluation? Participatory monitoring and evaluation can be invaluable learning experiences for participants. On the other hand, for small projects external monitoring and evaluation is usually excessively expensive.
Assessment
of proposals
If a proposal meets the requirements, it will also be useful to assess
it according to criteria. In this way scarce resources can be directed
at those projects most likely to succeed. By scoring the criteria according
to their relative significance, more emphasis can be placed on some aspects.
Here are some suggested criteria for assessment:
1. How well is the problem expressed? Is the rationale sound? Do we understand what is needed, and why? A clear and convincing exposition of the problems and rationale will reflect the competence of the implementing organisation to support the exchange visit effectively.
2. Can you understand what the community’s vision for development is? If the proposal clearly expresses a collective development vision, the chances are good that the visit will contribute to its realisation. Without a collective vision, the visit might lack focus.
3. Will the visit be local? Preference should be given to relatively local visits, where the cost will be lower and the chances of participants being able to communicate in a common language will be higher.
4. How high is the budget? This can best be assessed in terms of local conditions, and the parameters of the funding agency. However, a relatively low budget is usually preferable because it tends to indicate commitment on the part of the community and implementing organisation, and will enable the support of more knowledge exchanges with currently available funds. On the other hand, if the budget is unrealistically low it might be impossible to achieve the desired outcomes.
5. Is the budget sufficiently comprehensive? The focus of the budget will probably be on the visit itself, but if no provision is made for feedback, planning, training and other follow-up activities the outcomes may not be achieved.
6. Is the project planned in partnership with other NGOs and government service agencies? Projects that are undertaken in partnership between organisations likely to get higher levels of support, and therefore successful in the long term.
7. To what extent is the capacity of rural people to improve their lives likely to be built through this project? This is probably the most critical question.
8. To what extent is the capacity of service organisations to provide appropriate support to rural people likely to be built through this process? The exchange visit process provides a unique opportunity to develop latent capacities of service providers, especially in terms of process facilitation and participatory planning skills. If not expressed in the proposal, it is unlikely to happen.
9. Will the visits be between local communities living in areas with the same, or similar, physical, institutional or social environment? Similarity will make it easier for comparisons to be made, and learning to take place. Taking desert people to the rain forest will probably have little positive impact on their lives.
10. Have convincing opportunities for a fruitful learning experience been identified? Exchange visits should be focused on the learning experiences, and not on complicated travel arrangements, sight seeing, shopping opportunities or entertainment.
11. Is the described planning process convincing? If the plan does not describe coherent, methodologically sound steps, these will probably not happen.
12. To what extent is this initiative likely to lead to improved livelihoods or health? It should be clear what benefits are likely to flow from the project.
Training
The knowledge exchange visit is likely to stimulate new approaches in
existing undertakings, or even new undertakings. The proponents might
not have all of the skills and knowledge needed.
Formal training or focused mentorship and capacity development processes may be necessary. However, it will be difficult to anticipate exactly what training will be needed, and by whom, before the knowledge exchange takes place.
By making allowance in the funding proposal for follow-up training and capacity development processes, the necessary resources to respond to training needs can be combined with the necessary flexibility to respond to emerging training needs.
Funding
Finding the financial resources necessary for knowledge exchanges is not
always straightforward. Most donors fund specific activities that will
predictably lead to specific outcomes. However, there are a number of
agencies that will consider proposals of this nature.
Organisations wishing to submit a proposal should ensure that the beneficiary community falls within the donor’s socio-economic, geographic and topical focal areas.
Enormous value can be added to large projects and programmes by knowledge exchanges. It is relatively easy to integrate a knowledge exchange component into the initial phases of a long term project, or as a periodic capacity development activity.
Knowledge exchanges are pre-investment activities that help ensure that future developments are appropriate, and have a good chance of success.
Making
a direct contribution... a word to donor and support agency staff
If you are planning to support a knowledge exchange process, it will be
mutually fruitful if you engage with the organisers in a supportive way.
They may appreciate a well-focused comment or criticism. And even if they
do not appreciate it, it might benefit the process.
The exchange visit might offer an unprecedented opportunity for you to gain insight into community issues and dynamics.
If you do not want to settle for just reading the report, and want to get closer to the process, proceed with caution. If you join the process while the exchange is underway, you will probably be given “honoured guest” status. In an exchange process, honoured guests inevitably introduce both formality and hierarchy, and disrupt the learning process. Rural people might be too polite to tell you this, or too delighted by your presence to mind.
If your relationship with the client organisation is sound enough, you could ask to be included in the facilitation team, and participate in the planning and facilitation. This will require commitment to the process. It will put you on a level with the other facilitators, and give you far greater insights into the process. Donor agencies that wish to take the spirit of partnership a step further could use this opportunity to build lasting partnerships with implementing organisations.
The local and cultural resources should provide the focus for the knowledge exchange process (Mbongolwana, South Africa)
Honoured guests adressing the participants during a community knowledge exchange workshop (Petauke, Zambia)
If people contribute their own resources to the knowledge exchange process they are more likely to feel a strong sense of ownership of the process and the results (Petauke, Zambia)
Facilitators documenting the process (Petauke, Zambia)
