Last week’s blog began answering the question that many in multi-stakeholder change networks hear :  “So what is it you actually do?”  I wrote about the first two activities of such Global Action Networks (GANs) listed in the Table, and now I’ll explain more about the other four activities.

Networks, Learning and Research

Learning is a core part of most GANs’ work, since how to realize their goals is not always obvious and participants’ capacity to contribute to reaching them must be developed. However, GANs often have a remarkably underdeveloped sense of this work. At a meeting of GAN staff who had roles in developing knowledge and learning, they all said that they had very few resources and learning outcomes and strategies were poorly defined. Nevertheless, GANs put an enormous part of their resources into learning, when all the meetings and time in conversation to develop knowledge and capacity are taken into account.

Learning is a key activity of the Global Compact, as it develops lessons to share amongst companies on how the UN principles it promotes can be implemented. It is also a key activity of the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC), which similarly organizes participants into regional learning groups and shares lessons across them.

For the GANs in health care, research is a particularly important activity. Often this is a traditional type of research:  half of the Stop TB’s 10-year work plan concerns R&D for new vaccines. The GANs support collaborative development of this research, bringing together government, civil society, and commercial organizations with their distinctive expertise and capabilities.

Networks, Measuring and Certifying

Certification is a popular organizing strategy to realize change. Production of goods and services is assessed in terms of social, environmental, and economic standards, and GANs certify whether those standards have been met. The International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL) is an association of GANs, including the Marine Stewardship Council, Social Accountability International, and the fair trade groups associated with the Fair Labelling Organization.

Several GANs make development of impact measurement frameworks and infrastructure a core part of their work. Although the Global Reporting Initiative does not actually get involved in measurement or certification, it develops the frameworks for companies to assess their impact in terms of social, economic, and environmental outcomes. And in fact, most ISEAL members do not actually do the certification, although they certify the certifiers. Transparency International also has an important measurement program, with its Corruption Perceptions Index that rates countries. And The Access Initiative’s (TAI’s) core strategy has to do with the broader measurement concept of “assessing” countries’ fulfillment of their commitments in the Rio Declaration to access to information, participation, and justice in environmental decision-making.

Networks and Financing

The Global Water Partnership (GWP) exemplifies a GAN formed by donors who want to give scale to their efforts by pooling financial resources. The network has been supported financially by many developed countries. For these funders, the GWP is an economical way to achieve the overall goals of promoting social equity, economic efficiency, and environmental sustainability, by improving the way water is managed and developed.

This pooling of financial resources is at the heart of most of the health GANs, like the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The latter is financially by far the largest of any GAN: in the 8 years following its 2002 founding it had approved funding of US$ 19.3 billion for more than 572 programs in 144 countries.

As well the GAN structure often facilitates approaching funders.  For example, GANs can put together proposals that cover a much larger geographic area and be of a much large scale than their individual participants or regional components.  This can make them more attractive to the funders.

Networks and Advocating

GANs’ advocating strategy usually resembles a co-learning approach across traditional divides, rather than a traditional lobbying and pressuring strategy. This is demonstrated by TAI. TAI takes a learning approach when conducting “assessments” of governments’ performance vis-à-vis their commitments to provide access to information, participation, and justice in environmental decision-making.

Although NGOs are in control of TAI, “TAI members recognize that governments are not monolithic; they are filled with allies and opponents,” comments Joe Foti, TAI Associate. This leads to a diversity of TAI advocacy strategies with the goal of governments co-participating in the actual process of assessing. TAI country coalitions find that it usually helps to conduct the assessments in close relationship with a supportive government agency, such as the national Ministry of Environment that is usually weak on finance, political power, and science. In Thailand the TAI coalition includes an institute sponsored by the King of Thailand, which gives it legitimacy in government eyes. And in Africa, the TAI-Cameroon representative was actually asked to advocate to other governments and speak on his government’s behalf at a UNEP Governing Council meeting on access to information, participation, and justice in environmental decision-making.

Of course GANs integrate these six strategies. For example, The Climate Group focuses in particular on bringing together local and state/provincial governments and business. One project demonstrates the effectiveness of outdoor LED lighting with city government. This requires bringing together LED experts, financial institutions to finance the city’s investments, and local government. Bjorn Roberts, Corporate Partnership Manager for The Climate Group comments: “We make (climate change) a compelling topic for all, and put it on their agenda. The conversations don’t happen unless people are put together.” Through The Climate Group, a local city project becomes a global pilot. It combines the strategies of shared visioning of green cities, system organizing by bringing together the diverse partners, learning with the pilot, financing through developing new financial instruments, and advocating with other cities to follow the pilot.

This table aims to provide an analytical tool for networks to ask questions about their own strategies.  What are they doing in each area?  Which ones are they strong in?  Which ones should they develop further.  I hope you find it helpful!

There are many different ways to approach impact measurement, but using the wrong methods can actually undermine a change network’s efforts. The value of appropriate impact measurement is that it not only helps explain to funders their return on investment, but it also is an important tool for priority-setting, decision-making and managing.

Traditional evaluation approaches come from an industrial “in-put/out-put” model.  This is fine for simple tasks, but it is inappropriate for complicated and complex tasks that are part and parcel of change networks.

Simple, Complicated and Complex Activities

Three key differences in these types of tasks in the Table reveal that a change network does all three activities.  However, these networks are distinguished by an over-arching mission that requires complex activities.  Therefore, although the networks need impact measurement methods that will address all three activities, their umbrella measurement method must accommodate complexity.

In change networks, the need for methods that can address complicated and complex activities is evidenced in a number of ways, such as:

• Methods for evaluating simple tasks can not address the complications of the interaction in network participants’ relationships.
• There is not one, but an emergent number of possible pathways that require exploration and development to address issues such as ending corruption, creating sustainable forestry and integrating triple bottom line imperatives into corporations.
• Change networks’ visions require a long time to realize.  With all the change in their operating environments over that time, adaptive strategies are required, although simple ones can be good for relatively short-term sub-initiatives.
• Change networks usually do not aim to “take credit” for the actual valued outcomes (such as healthy, happy people).  They aim for a back seat in favor of their participants’ being recognized for their work. This makes attribution, a cornerstone of traditional impact measurement, highly problematic.

The demands of complex systems are reflected in “developmental evaluation” (DE), both an approach and title of a book by Michael Quinn Patton about to be released.  Michael writes:

“Developmental evaluation supports innovation development to guide adaptation to emergent and dynamic realities in complex environments. …  Informed by systems thinking and sensitive to complex nonlinear dynamics, developmental evaluation supports social innovation and adaptive management.  Evaluation processes include asking evaluative questions, applying evaluation logic, and gathering real-time data to inform ongoing decision making and adaptations.”[1]

As in action research strategies, the evaluator is part of the development team from beginning to end, rather than someone who comes in at the end to simply do a post facto analysis.

Two Examples

Ricardo Wilson-Grau, a colleague who works with the DE approach, points out there is a number of methodologies that can be used under that heading.  He has, for example, practiced DE using Outcome Mapping with the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) and the Global Water Partnership (GWP).

Ricardo explains that traditional evaluation poses questions such as:

• Were problems encountered in implementing the change strategy solved in a way that is faithful to the model?
• To what extent have the intervention model’s specified outcomes been achieved?
• What has been learned about how to fully and faithfully replicate the model?

DE, however, is more interested in answering other questions about the strategy as something in development. For example, the Global Platform for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) introduced an Outcome Mapping in 2007 as a planning tool. In 2009, Ricardo advised on:

• How can the success of Outcome Mapping be judged so far?
• How can Outcome Mapping now be developed as an evaluation/monitoring system vis-à-vis results?

The first question was a reflection on the system itself;  the second was about further development of the system.  Based on those findings, GPPAC is now further developing Outcome Mapping.

Another example is with the GWP.  GWP operates in a highly complex, dynamic environment. It has thousands of members who are constantly changing, grouped into 60-70 country water partnerships, whose actual number at any given moment is unknown.  These country partnerships are grouped  into 13 regional water partnerships with a global secretariat in Stockholm.concerns the approach to measurement. Over ten years they had placed the issue of integrated water resource management on the environmental agenda.

In traditional evaluation performance and success are measured against predetermined goals and SMART outcomes: specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound. DE is quite different.  With Ricardo’s support GWP created a monitoring procedure to apply DE principles to  develop measures and tracking mechanisms as outcomes emerge. They introduced the procedure into one region and, according to what did and did not work, adjusted it for the next region. That is, the measures could change as the process unfolded. They tracked the forks in the road – specifically how different regions had to adjust the monitoring procedure – and used this information to point out the implications of key decisions as the innovative monitoring system evolved. Consequently, their donors are being informed of the governmental policy and practice changes that GWP – directly or indirectly, usually partially and often sometimes unintentionally – influences.  That’s simple, complicated and complex.

Ricardo is an independent evaluator and organizational consultant based in Brazil and the Netherlands. He can be reached at ricardo.wilson-grau@inter.nl.net.

---

[1] Patton, M. Q. (2010). Development Innovation:  Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. New York, NY, USA, Guilford Press.

When participating in a seminar on partnerships sponsored by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, I noticed that people were using the terms “network”, “partnership” and “organization” inter-changeably.  This created a lot of confusion.  Consequently I developed the table below to help distinguish between the concepts and identify important implications for organizing.

Others may use the terms differently. Some may consider what are here referred to as “partnerships” as what I mean when I write “network”.  Partnerships are defined as task oriented – they have a relatively limited and well-defined objective such as producing a report or constructing a water system.  The main rationale behind them is to coordinate activities, resources and skills.  There are perhaps as many as a couple of dozen participants – a small enough number for people (or organizational representatives) to know each other and coordinate activities.  They are organized on a hub and spoke model, with a central coordinating committee or organization of some sort.

In contrast are inter-organizational networks that may have thousands of participating organizations and tens of thousands of people from those organizations participating – many more than can possibly know each other.  They come together because they are participants in a system that they want to move in a certain direction – they want to create greater “coherence” between their activities.  For example, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) wants to move all stakeholders in the “forest and forest-product system” in a direction that supports sustainable forestry practices.  This includes forest companies, manufacturers of forest products, retailers of those products, environmentalists, the forest communities, consumers, financiers and others.

But the FSC’s success is not dependent upon its ability to engage every stakeholder organization as a participant.  In fact, building upon the “tipping point” theory popularized by Malcom Gladwell, FSC probably can achieve its goal with only a minority of stakeholder organizations participating.  Its goal is to influence the whole system by engaging enough stakeholders so that it can change the rules of the system and the way it operates.  The “system” is very diffuse, and does not have any particular organizing focus although many organizations would be sub-network nodes, such as commercial timber company associations.

Of course FSC doesn’t have any formal power to enforce the rules (standards), but as adoption of them grows organizations that don’t follow them will find themselves locked out of some opportunities such as access to some customers.  (Over 50% of forestry products consumed in the UK are now FSC certified.)

One important complication is that big networks like Global Action Networks (GANs) are inter-organizational networks, but they have many “partnerships” within them working on particular projects.  For example, the Global Water Partnership has local partnerships working on a particular water basin.  But a GAN also is an “organization” in the form of what is usually referred to as a Secretariat.  This central node has staff and a reporting structure that is no different from other traditional hierarchies.  Larger GANs also have similar regional “organizational” nodes.

This usually is confusing for GANs.  They must be networks, partnerships and organizations.  They must understand which is doing what, and why;  they must be able to apply the appropriate “organizing logic” in each situation.  They must be excellent at managing Secretariat staff, at coordinating partner projects, and creating coherence for the network as a whole.

You may also be interested in a book that was produced by the Dutch symposium: Partnerships, Governance And Sustainable Development:  Reflections on Theory and Practice.  The Chapter co-authored by me and Sanjeev Khagram is available here.

I was leading discussion by a half dozen executive directors of Global Action Networks on the topic of competencies critical to success when we turned to the question of resource mobilization.  I was surprised that none of the leaders thought of financing as a major issue for them, in comparison to the other competencies.

“But what if you think about barriers to your network really flourishing and realizing its goals?” I asked.  That moved the issue of financing to the top of the list of challenges.

The question of financing is wrapped up with stage of development discussed last week and featured in a webinar March 3.  At early stages, less money is required and the question is about finding a venture investor to explore possibilities.  Later stages require more funds and a sustainable business model.

Gathering finance information is very complicated for a network, since it requires defining what part of the network the data cover. As networks develop, most increasingly depend upon sub-parts (regional, particular program) raising their own funds.  In May last year I surveyed 11 networks[1] ranging from 8 to 15 years of age with the initial question:

What was the total income (revenue) that came to/through the Secretariat for the most recent fiscal year including funds that may have gone to other parts of the network?

The response ranged from $500,000 to $11.4 million, with the average of $3.6 million.

Sources of Income

But the finance question is also wrapped up in strategy.  Being multi-stakeholder, the networks could be expected to have tax-based contributions from government, civil society-based funding from foundations and revenue generation from services and fees.  Table 1 gives responses to the question:

Please indicate the approximate percent of funds that flow to/through the Secretariat that come from the following sources.

Most networks perceived potential conflicts of interest with business revenue generation.  One way the Global Compact addresses this is with a foundation to receive business donations;  the foundation does not fund core Secretariat costs, but only the broader network.

Reasons for Funding

Strategy also raises Secretariat-network relationship questions.  For example, Transparency International Secretariat’s role in putting together up to 30 National Chapters for joint funding proposals has recently increased dramatically from less than €1 million a year to more than €5 million.  Table 2 gives responses to the question:

Please indicate the approximate percent of the types of funding/reasons for funding.

These global networks are all really producing “global public goods”…something funded at the national level through taxes.  Substantial global network funding comes through taxes with funding from donor agencies like DFID and multilaterals like the World Bank.  However, as Ernest Ligteringen who heads up the Global Reporting Initiative commented to me, it is fitting a round peg in a square hole.  A much more robust solution must be found to do the important work of global public good financing with categorical national tax transfers or a global tax.

What are your experiences with financing?  What sort of more robust solutions should we strive for?

We depend on networks to voluntarily provide information like this, for on-going development.  If your network is not listed below as a participant in the survey, please have someone fill out the survey by clicking here.  Data is for the 2008 fiscal year, and individual responses remain confidential.  The survey takes only an hour.

---

[1] Building Partnerships for Development in Water and Sanitation, Global AIDS Alliance, Global Knowledge Partnership, Global Water Partnership, Global Reporting Initiative, International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Mountain Forum, Sustainable Food Lab, The Access Initiative, Transparency International, Youth Enterprise and Sustainability

…GWP, TI, GRI, TAI, Global Compact, IUCN

In a new new study of four Global Action Networks (GANs – multi-stakeholder change networks), Pieter Glasbergen concludes that involving government is key to success. “First, mainstreaming of concepts can only be realized by governments or by their recognition of the private governance mechanism as an alternative tool to solve a collective action problem. Second, governments are also important because most GANs operate in an issue field with many competing private and public initiatives.”

However, governments are usually more difficult than businesses or NGOs to involve in networks as peers.  That’s for two reasons:  because they usually think of themselves as “being in charge”…after all, their key role is making laws and regulations with the power to enforce them.  And then there’s that thing called bureaucratic process…often part and parcel of “due process” to protect rights, transparency and accountability.

Networks have diverse strategies to involve government.  Some like the Global Water Partnership they have active control through their Board;  in others like the IUCN they are partners in governance.  But some networks simply try to avoid government in governance…look at The Access Initiative (TAI) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).  They purposely don’t have any place for government in their global governance. But look a bit closer, and you see important government connections.

TAI is giving life to Principle 10 (P10) of the Earth Charter which promotes participatory processes in environmental decision-making.  Think “access to information” and “public reviews of environmental disasters”. Most countries in the world have signed onto the Earth Charter, and that’s TAI’s hook:  working with governments to realize their Principle 10 commitments. But globally TAI is governed globally by NGOs, out of concern that they must protect the integrity of their work, which includes holding governments accountable to their Earth Charter commitment.

TAI takes a “learning” approach when conducting “assessments” of governments’ performance and aims to engage governments as participants.  “TAI members recognize that governments are not monolithic; they are filled with allies and opponents,” comments Joe Foti, TAI Associate.

This leads to a diversity of TAI strategies.  One is that TAI gains government legitimacy and help because it receives funding from the government agencies such as the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office.  TAI country coalitions find that it usually helps the national Ministry of Environment to have civil society on its side because the MoE is usually weak on finance, political power, and science.  Judges in Argentina and the Ministry of Information in Mexico also have helpful roles.

In Thailand the TAI coalition includes an institute sponsored by the King of Thailand, which gives it legitimacy in government eyes. And in Africa, the TAI-Cameroon representative was asked to speak on the government’s behalf at a UNEP Governing Council meeting when the discussion was about adopting the draft guidelines on implementation of P10.

The GRI has developed a different strategy as it promotes environmental-social-economic reporting, by business in particular. Governments aren’t members because of a concern that they will turn the learning spaces of a voluntary initiative into a regulatory space that would reduce openness to experiment.  However, the GRI has obtained “legitimacy” with government by forming an alliance with the UN’s Global Compact to encourage companies and corporate responsibility organizations to support the synergistic platforms of the Compact and the GRI.

The UN Global Compact is playing this role with other networks as well, such as Transparency International.  The Compact is an initiative with businesses to align their activities with UN principles.  The UN imprimatur of the Compact opens government doors for the networks, without taking on other baggage.

The Global Compact – a multi-stakeholder network “of” the UN – has one of the most interesting government strategies of any global network.  “We knew it was important to leverage the good parts of the UN – the ideas of peace, development and human rights – and yet avoid falling into the trap of the machinery,” says Compact Executive Head Georg Kell.  “But how to do it, we didn’t know.  It evolved over the years.”

Today the Compact has public advocacy and executive branch support through the role of the Secretary General as Chair of its Board;  it has the legislative support of the General Assembly and protection from undue individual country influence through a resolution of support the GA passes every two years;  and it has access to the vast UN system at the national and global levels through an Inter-Agency Working Group that includes the UNEP, the UNDP and other UN agencies.

What are your experiences and strategies networking with government?

Announcement: TAI recently undertook a network-wide process to review and redefine its approach, strategy, and governance.  The process will be the topic of a webinar with TAI’s Director and the change process leaders.  Join us on Feb. 17, 6:00am US/Canada Westcoast;  9:00am Eastcoast; 14:00 UK, 15:00 Europe, 21:00 Philippines/Malaysia.  Go to https://sas.elluminate.com/m.jnlp?sid=831&password=M.D319BCA09CFB90E9673E7225D80F0E