A network is a group of individuals or organizations who on voluntary basis, exchange information and undertake joint activities without reducing individual autonomy and independence of the members. Networking is more than information dissemination. It actively encourages reciprocal information exchange, voluntary collaboration and direct contacts between third parties. 

However, not all information exchange or collaborative action can be described as networking. Dissemination of information, for example by television, radio, newspapers or professional journals, is not, by itself, networking. Instruments of mass communication can be used by networks but they cannot be the sole basis for networks. Networks are not simply mailing lists, for they are based on mutually and multi-directional information exchange. 

Networks can be classified by their membership, their geographical scope, their main objectives and activities and their organizational structures. Networking, at national, regional and world-wide level is now seen as an important way of improving the promotion and effectiveness of those involved in agricultural development issues. Over time, this should lead to better understanding, improved technologies and more favourable policy environments for the end-users. 

The need for networks 

In an ideal world, agricultural development networks would not be necessary, for individuals and organizations would be well linked vertically and horizontally with colleagues involved in similar areas of farming, research, development, training and extension. They would be in touch with farmer’s reality, policy implications, new research initiatives and experiences from other places. They would also be aware of many technological options available for agricultural development. Clearly such an ideal world is very far away! 

In reality, many agents of agricultural development live in very separate worlds. Many are effectively isolated from the wider experiences of others by the day-to-day problems of survival, repetitive work tasks and local interactions. Information flows in governmental and non-governmental agricultural development organizations tend to be top-down and narrow, restricted to single disciplines, limited geographical areas and the prevailing organizational persuasion. 

Networks can help overcome such problems by allowing people and organizations to exchange information and experiences with those outside their immediate working environment and cooperate with them in a legitimate and non-threatening way. 

Some benefits of networks 

Networks can effectively link people who would not otherwise interact. Network benefits arise from exchange of experiences, skills and materials through meetings, publications and cooperation programmes. These increase the competence of network members. Networks can also reduce duplication of efforts and increase overall progress. Networks provide peer support, encouragement, motivation and professional recognition. They can create critical mass for action and policy change. 

Most networks, e.g. RATIS (Regional Appropriate Technology Information Service) and NAMA (Network for Agricultural Mechanization in Africa), have been established mainly to improve information exchange among its members and information sharing is the primary objective. Some networks, e.g. NIRESA (Network on Irrigation Research and Extension for Small-scale Agriculture), AFNETA (Alley Farming Network for Tropical Africa), PANESA (Pasture Network for East and Southern Africa) and PELUM (Participatory Ecological Land Use Management) have been established to allow collaboration in research, education, training or marketing. Some networks, e.g. Environmental 2000 and FAN (Forest Action Network) exist to be pressure groups, to raise public awareness of issues and influence national or international policies in their area of interest. Many networks, including ATNESA (Animal Traction Network for East and Southern Africa), and other professional associations such as SEASAE (Southern and Eastern Africa Society of Agricultural Engineers) and SAAFSRE have multiple objectives such as combining information exchange among its members, influence on policy issues with practical collaboration in training, research and extension. 

The following are some of the main benefits of networks: 

• Networks facilitate the exchange of information, skills and experiences through meetings, publication and cooperative programmes. Sharing of skills and experiences increases the overall competence of network members.
• Information exchange and collaboration avoids unnecessary duplication of work and effort. With less duplication, faster progress and a wider overall impact on the dissemination of technologies is possible.
• Networks can effectively link people of different levels, disciplines, organizations who would not otherwise have an opportunity to interact. Networks can bring together policy makers and farmers, agricultural engineers and animal scientists, NGO development workers and staff of technical cooperation projects.
• Networks can provide the critical mass needed for local, national or international advocacy, action and policy changes. It can help address complex development problems and issues that seem overwhelming to those working at village level.
• Networks can bring together funding and technical cooperation agencies and those in need of resources and support.
• Networks can provide members with a source of peer support, encouragement, motivation and professional recognition.

Network models and problems 

As stated earlier, networks can be classified according to their activities and organizational structure. Various problems can be faced by networks. These may include: 

• Inadequately defined objectives and domination by particular organizations or interest groups. Needs assessment and action plans of roles and responsibilities are important for success of any network.
• Centralization of activities. This should be avoided where possible. This can occur when a network core group emphasizes its own role and/or that of the secretariat at the expense of participatory interaction between members. Network centralization generally results in network domination, increased bureaucracy, increasing isolation of core group and decreased enthusiasm. Institution based networks are most susceptible to centralization and domination.

• Other problems can arise from the technological, financial and lingual differences between members. Network based in developing countries often lack resources for networking activities and the danger here is for donors and resource rich institutions to take advantage of this and use their financial muscle to influence network policy and intimidate members.

• In some countries, networks suffer from political suspicion and intolerance of criticism. In Kenya, for example, KENDAT (Kenya Network for Draught Animal Technology) was almost denied registration for the fear that was affiliated with a political party called KENDA. There is also an inadequate experience of network monitoring and evaluation. This is problematic because network benefits are widely dispersed.

Guidelines for successful networking 

Networks thrive on enthusiastic participation through specific activities that allow interaction and sharing. Networks need committed core groups of individuals or organizations to devote time to initiatives, network coordination and management. Sustained willingness to undertake voluntary network duties depends on explicit interest in network objectives and/or wide professional recognition of the network value. 

Core groups must interact closely with members and self-critically review network progress. Democratic elections should lead to renewal and rotation of duties. Delegation of network functions and responsibilities increases participation and reduces centralization, domination, isolation and passive membership. Centralized networks can increase participation by devolving responsibilities and facilitating activities organized by network members. 

Networks benefit from a sense of openness, participation, democracy, inclusiveness, involvement and fair dealing. Networks need both user-support and adequate resources. International networking is rarely possible for resource-poor individuals and organizations. Without external network funding, only elite organizations can network. Multi-donor sponsorship is particularly appropriate for networks. 

Networks should regularly review their objectives, assess programmes in the light of their objectives and evaluate network achievements. Increased involvement of farmers and other end-users/stakeholders in networks would be beneficial in maximizing the impact of uptake of technologies being promoted. 

Network participation is ultimately determined by the benefits that individuals and organizations see in the network. Members need a strong interest in the network objectives and specific activities, a desire to contribute, a sense of belonging, respect for the network, trust of its leaders and a confident feeling of achievement and future possibilities. If network objectives are appropriate and inter-institutional linkages are in place, active decentralized programmes of farmer-oriented network activities should make a significant contribution to agricultural development. 

Some lessons/experiences of ATNESA 

ATNESA was launched in 1992 with the main aim of improving information exchange and regional cooperation relating to animal draft power. The network aims to unite researchers, manufacturers, development workers, institutions and the users of animal traction in the region. Membership of the network is open to all individuals and organizations interested in the objectives of ATNESA. These may include: research institutions, development projects, NGO's, farmers associations and manufacturers. Organizations and individuals from outside the region are welcome as associate members. Currently 14 countries of East and Southern Africa are members of ATNESA. 

The steering committee of ATNESA decided to adopt an informal system of network organization, based on national networks linked through a regional network steering committee. In this way, the secretariat responsibilities are delegated to members or national networks. Currently the Network is coordinated by a steering committee comprising of specialists from six African countries and representatives of two resource organizations. The steering committee is elected every three years at the network’s general assembly meetings held during major workshops. 

Network continuity has been assisted by member enthusiasm, flexible communications channels and multi-donor support. The network has not allowed domination of researchers, development workers or members of any one discipline. The network has limited success despite the absence of a strong central secretariat. ATNESA has mainly operated as an informal and decentralized network, with emphasize on delegation of activities and direct communication between members. 

ATNESA have also benefited from the cooperation of non-dominating institutions who have assisted the network in information exchange (communications and running of workshops etc.), and much have been achieved through delegation, voluntary work and special assignments. Different network volunteers have been assigned duties relating to compilation of member lists, national directories, technical queries, collection/preparation of newsletter materials, research coordination, inter-network linkages and arranging specific training and workshops. 

ATNESA in collaboration with national networks have been able to influence policy issues in a number of countries. e.g. Uganda, Tanzania and South Africa. The network has also helped raise standards of professional papers, presentations and research proposals. ATNESA has already established close links with other relevant networks such as IFRTD (International Forum for Rural Transport and Development), SEASAE, NAMA, WAATN (West Africa Animal Traction Network) and RELATA (Animal Traction Network for Latin America). While the network is farmer-oriented, most of the members are mainly salaried professionals. Greater farmer involvement through farmer-based workshops and technology transfer exchanges is one of the future challenges. 

Concluding Remarks 

The launch and successful continuation of any network will be determined by the perceived benefits that individual and organizations see in the network. Networks orientated towards improving sustainable smallholder agriculture need to make an effort to encourage farmer participation in the networking processes. Agricultural research and development networks would achieve a lot if they develop appropriate ways of ensuring that farmers’ views and experiences are considered or represented in all relevant aspects of networking. 

Other challenging issues which need to be considered for successful networking include: 

The need for a Secretariat: When ATNESA started, it had adopted an informal networking with most of the work delegated to national networks. However, experience has shown that for a network to operate effectively, there is a need to have a small but effective secretariat or a coordinating unit with possibly a coordinator and secretary. The major role of the secretariat is not to centralize the activities but to facilitate its execution and act as a clearing house of all technical queries. 

Provision of resources and funding: Networks need both user-support and adequate resources to be effective. International or multi-national networking is not possible without constant flow of funds. ATNESA has survived through funds requested to carry out specific activities. Several institutions, donor agencies and regional projects such as AGROTEC and FARMESA have provided in-kind support from time to time. 

Communication:Communication is vital for successful networking. Most of the developing countries have poor postal services and telecommunication systems. This can sometimes frustrate networking efforts. Telephones where available are very expensive, and communication through letters takes up to two weeks to be delivered. The increasing use of electronic mail in Africa will certainly go a long way towards the alleviation of this problem. 

This paper has attempted to summarize the benefits of networking and share the experiences and challenges of ATNESA. It is concluded that the combination of necessity, enthusiasm, judicious planning and good fortune allowed ATNESA to develop as an effective network that achieved rapid progress. Whatever formal network organizational systems evolve, it is most important that active networking interactions are maintained. Networks can survive on low overheads but do need adequate resources to sponsor regular sharing opportunities. 

References