NGO Networks & NGO Networking

Today, an increasing number of NGOs are organising themselves in networks and/or are networking at local, national, regional and international levels. This can be explained by a situation in the world where issues of interest interlink. As tools of information and communication technologies have advanced, networking and collaboration among NGO actors with similar interests are not only possible, but also less complicated to set up and facilitate. On the other hand, networks may not be entirely uncomplicated organisms as they include a variety of actors with different expectations and possibilities/intentions to contribute to the network. Thus, in order to maintain sustainability and efficiency, extra efforts need to be put both on building sufficient trust and social capital within the network and on the development of suitable structures for management and governance of the network. It is furthermore important that NGOs joining the networks in advance has done a costs/benefits analysis to determine whether or not network participation will meet their particular needs[1].

This concept paper will look firstly at what a network is and what the characteristics of an efficient network might be said to be. It will then move on to network formation and the specifics of network leadership. After that some space will be dedicated to the quite specific demands placed on networks in fragile environments and a discussion about the benefits and risks involved in networking in general. The paper will also look at capacity building within networks and specific observations with regards to funding and donor relations. Finally a list of resources and further readings on NGO networking will be provided.

What is a network?
Even though one should refrain from generalising about what signifies a network, there are a few common characteristics, which appear to be generally applied. Networks are created for very different reasons and entail various structures depending on the goal(s) intended to be achieved within the network. Networks can include either formal or informal structures and vary in member contribution and benefits[2].

Definition
The definition proposed for this concept paper (i.e. networks operating in the NGO sector) takes on a broad approach and is taken from Taschereau and Bogler (2006):

“Groups of individuals and/or organizations with a shared concern or common interest, who voluntarily contribute to knowledge, experience and/or resources for shared learning, joint action and/or to achieve a shared purpose or goal and who rely on the network to support their own goal”.

Aside from the abovementioned voluntary basis upon which individuals commit to a network, the relationship among the networks’ members needs to be based on mutual trust in what can be likened to a social contract. Network members must trust each other enough to enable mutual accountability but also free discussions and debates about what the focus of the network should be and what the network should look like. There must also be enough trust for members to dare to share experiences and ideas for learning with each other. This trust is necessary for the network to be able to grow and function, but is also part of the social capital that comes out of networks as they grow and mature[3].

As has been mentioned a network can take on several forms and be more or less formalised. The important thing is that the chosen form is adapted to fit the motivation and purpose of the network as it has been articulated by the network members. This also means that a network’s form and degree of formalisation can change over time in order to best fit the various needs that might be defined by its members and most important stakeholders as the context in which the network exist changes[4]. Briefly it can be said that it is possible to divide networks in to types depending on what interests they share and what they see as their main preoccupation. Communities of practice does e.g. focus on capacity building within their specific field of expertise, knowledge networks often focus on the sharing and generation of knowledge within a certain area, while sectoral networks focus on a specific sector such as e.g. general development issues, peace and conflict, or health and sanitation. Networks can of course also be placed on different levels within society; the local, the regional, the national or the international as well as a combination of all of these. For a more thorough coverage of different network types and models please see the appendix attached to this concept paper.

Efficient networks
In order to be efficient networks must posses “characteristics of strong social capital, leadership, governance and management, joint learning and mutually beneficial partnerships with donors”. Furthermore they need to have a diverse and dynamic structure and a membership dedicated to excellence and a democratic decision making processes[5].

According to Asher networks are effective “when they achieve their goals and satisfy partners or members and their major stakeholders”. The extent to which goals are achieved must be measured based on what the members of the network and their possible stakeholders originally defined them to be[6]. Thus the importance of internal ownership and continuous evaluation and re-evaluation among the networks members of what the common goals should be needs to be underlined[7].

This leads us on to the various ways in which networks are formed and initiated.
Network formation and network sustainability The sources for the development of a network vary from a top-down formation (usually donor-initiated, including so-called Northern “supporters” and Southern “beneficiaries”) to bottom-up formation (including less donor-oriented informal networks created for a specific purpose, accompanied with need to coordinate organisations that share similar interests). In addition, formation of a network can also occur as a compensatory mechanism, that is, the network is created to fill various gaps in society (service, information, organisation etc.).

There is a strong trend in the literature on NGO networking to emphasise the greater chance of success for networks that are the result of a bottom up formation than those that are the result of entirely donor driven processes. This does however not mean that donors cannot be part of initiating a network. Donors do however then need to see the need for long term assistance provision. Donors also need to be prepared to take on a more flexible sponsor role to the network compared to the what is usual in the traditional donor- NGO relationship. Some argue that the golden rule for success is to always let a network start from its own resources in order to not counteract the great need for autonomous inherent, voluntary and committed ownership of the network among its member organisations[8]. The general agreement is however that a certain amount of flexible donor support in a network’s formative stages is beneficial even though long-term support is more important than large amounts of money at the initial stage of network formation.

Regardless of their structure or form successful networks go through a range of phases. A network is always started by an initiator who stimulates and calls for others to join forces around a common topic, problem or concern in order to upgrade and upshift NGO potential within that particular area. Such a catalytic role demands time, reflection and financial resources in order for it to be performed well. This first scoping phase is spent exploring different potential members and their capacities, interests and expectations concerning a possible network membership. Once that has been done the network can enter an operational or consolidation phase. During this phase the network can still be very informal but it has started to grow into full implementation of those things that it was set up to do (information sharing, capacity building, advocacy work, or service exchanges and provision). Structures for governance, management and information sharing are also discussed among network members. In this as well as in the scooping phase, face-to face meetings and trust building are two very important components[9]. Theses structures are then themselves consolidated in a third phase that also might deal with reformulation of goals and objectives in order to face new challenges. The final stage will include either the dissolution of the network, as it has fulfilled the function it was created for, or the evolution or adjustment of the network to deal with new issues. It is important to point out that sustainability of a network not always is a goal in itself. Some networks are naturally very time bound and simply cease to exist when they no longer meet the needs of their members or stakeholders. According to most writers it will take between five to ten years for a network to become established and operative[10].

Network sustainability will to a large degree depend on the level of trust and social capital that existed before network formation and that is generated during the life-span of a network. Another important factor for sustainability is the adaptability to changing environments and the needs of members. The flexibility and long-term support that is allowed for by donors will also play a small even if minor role for network sustainability. The degree to which networks can institutionalise the contacts it has with membership organisations in order to avoid that contacts only are based on individuals will also be important as will the support from senior level leadership within membership organisations[11]. In the same way the type of leadership applied within the network plays an important role for the sustainability of the network[12].

Network leadership
Good leadership is one of the major needed ingredients in efficient networks. The very specific characteristics of networks do, however, also demand a specific leadership. Rather than the sometimes top-steered leadership of organisations or companies a good network leadership knows how to “lead in between[13]” in order to facilitate for and encourage inputs and contributions from all members to the common goal of the network. In the same way it is important that the secretariat of any network sees it as its main function to coordinate and manage the relations and structures within the network rather than steer it[14]. This in order to help the network to maintain egalitarian, transparent and democratic principles were all members have the same possibilities to participate and contribute to the definitions and fulfilments of the network’s goals[15]. Along these lines Paul Skidmore identifies six characteristics for good network leadership[16].

1. Network leaders lead from the outside in

A good network leader or facilitator starts by looking for the needs of the members, users or stakeholders of the network. They then work their way backwards in order to find the best means, resources and capacities and ways of motivating members in the network to work together for their fulfilment.

2. Network leaders mobilise supplies of energy

In networks finding ways of sharing, unlocking and harnessing existing knowledge on how to cope with an ever changing context is one the most important leadership tasks.

3. Network leaders foster trust and empower others to act

The importance of trust in networking and network formation has already been emphasised. This trust needs to be coming both from the members of the network but can also be greatly facilitated by the network’s leadership. This also means that the leadership needs to be flexible and allow for and empower the members of the network to act.

4. Network leaders help people to grow out of their comfort zones

In order for partnerships within networks to attain the flexibility and the trust needed for sharing to take place it is important that these partnerships are seen as an activity and a relationship rather than a formal structure. That also means that network members will need to be encouraged to sometimes leave their comfort zones in order to build substantial relationships and sometimes catch and solve problems that otherwise might fall between the gaps.

5. Network leaders are not all-knowers but leading learners

For a good network leader it is more important to be an eager learner and a facilitator of learning among members than to know everything and have all the answers.

6. Network leaders nurture other leaders

In order to boost capacity building among network members a network do not only need to have committed and dedicated learners as its members. It also needs to have a leadership that is willing to nurture other leaders within the network and who does not seek to consolidate structures that are marked by top-down steering mechanisms.

Network benefits and risks
The intrinsic benefit of a network formation is the underlying assumption that the capacity of a network is greater than the sum of its parts, that is, that the capacities of the member organisation together create a synergy greater than the capacity of each individual member (1+1= greater than 2).

There are a variety of existing reasons why networks develop and why NGOs decide to join them[17]:

Benefits of network membership: Need for access to knowledge, information, expertise and financial resources (donor attraction) Need for coordination of knowledge, information Increase the organisations’ efficiency, outreach and impact Strengthen the organisations’ advocacy capacity Increased influence in policy formulation at national and international levels Increase the organisations’ visibility of issues (overcoming isolation) Develop shared practices and shared learning Increasing the Profile or Legitimacy of Member NGOs and their needs Mitigate risks Need for support and solidarity New ways of understanding and intervening in complex circumstances (shared diagnosis, analysis and strategic coordination of action Expanding opportunities to start projects

There are however also a number of risks associated with network membership:

Risks involved with network membership: · Loss of autonomy- NGOs needs to consider how much interdependency they are prepared to commit to before joining a network Loss of responsibilities Requirements of membership Unclear accountability structures Domination of the most active members If poorly constructed and managed, networks can translate into more work rather than a reduction Loss of identity if poorly represented Inappropriate leadership Networks based on individuals and personal contacts risking lost benefits when as individuals leave Placing attention at the network level may take time and energy from the grassroots or local levels

For these reasons it is important that NGO’s do a cost and risk analysis before they join a network as it is important for the sustainability and efficiency of the network that members can commit to the goals of the network and make them their own[18].

Besides ensuring that member NGOs reflected sufficiently on why they are joining the network and are prepared to make the goals of the network their own much can be done to avoid the risks within networks by ensuring that internal communication structures are functioning properly so that all members have access to the same information. Clear and commonly agreed on accountability structures and enforcement mechanisms also help to avoid risks related to inappropriate behaviour by certain network members or an inappropriate network leadership for that matter[19]. Institutionalisation of contacts with and within membership organisations as well as the recognition of the goals of the network by senior leaders within membership organisations should also go some way to avoid some of the risks described above. In the end of the day networks will however be rather dependent on the political will of its members and a skilled leadership that can enable an as equal playing field as possible for all members of the network regardless of size or representation.

Networks in fragile environments
As we have seen social capital can always be said to be both a prerequisite for and an outcome of networking. Factors of social capital such as trust, transparency and respect are , however, often missing in fragile environments. For that reason a more active effort will be needed in order to generate these aspects in network development in fragile environments than in others[20].

While fragile environments impede on the effectiveness of networks they tend to affect the performance of certain activities rather than the coordination and internal communication of and within networks. According to Blum and Hewitt the activities that are most affected by fragile environments are election monitoring, community development, activities related to transitional justice, natural resource conflict management, reintegration activities and trauma healing. Blum and Hewitt also state that the most disruptive fragile environments are armed conflict, weakened security and governmental crisis. Furthermore they also claim that fragility tends to strengthen the transparency of decision making, increase the leadership’s ability to foster innovation, collaboration and open communication within the network. Fragility also increases the levels of trust between the network members at the same time as it also increased the competition for available resources[21]. Thus it seems as if fragile environments both places more demands for what is regarded as a need to “lead in between” at the same time as fragility also fosters this very type of leadership.

Through their generation of social capital networks can seemingly function as conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms as the trust, openness and transparency that underlie effective networking can increase communication among various constituencies. Thus resistance towards instrumentalisation by certain parties of the conflict may also be increased. Local level networks can also have a stabilising effect on fragile environments by managing and increasing existing social capital at the local level. It is however important to remember that if these networks are not supported properly in their development the risk for instrumentalisation and cooption by certain interests in a conflict increases. In fragile environments this risk also seems to be somewhat higher for informal networks than for formal and more institutionalised ones.

According to Allen Nan, Eliatamby and Kanyako the interactions of efficient peacebuilding networks are shaped by the need for autonomy and confidentiality. This need for autonomy is also seen in the characteristic of successful peacebuilding networks to avoid the teaching of “one right way” of conflict resolution and prevention. Rather successful peacebuilding networks allow for and respect the multiple approaches that their members represent. Various venues and forms for the sharing of knowledge and experiences, such as e.g. working groups and committees, can be used in order to reflect this respect and increase the overall capacity of the network and its members. In the same vain policy advocacy work that is undertaken by peacebuilding networks should only include issues that falls within the broad and general consensus of the network. Any statements made as part of an advocacy campaign need to be certain not to portray network members as taking sides in a conflict[22].

Efficiency in peacebuilding networks appear to be specifically sensitive to both issues of trust and good network management. Due to rapid changes in conflict environments, the need for quick decision making procedures will make it important for network members to decide what issues needs to be decided by only a few and what needs to be decided by all members. Matters of security might further affect possibilities to communicate over long distances and to facilitate face to face meetings in these networks. For these reason it will maybe be more important for peacebuilding networks than for any other to balance the need for clarity with the need for flexibility. The need for clarity here refers to clarity regarding the mission, purpose and structures of the network, while the need for flexibility refers to the need for both the network and its members to adapt to changing internal and external pressures and environments with regards to the conflict situation, internal relations within the network and donor relations[23].

More than anywhere else networks in fragile environments tend to be donor driven, often created with the ultimate goal of peacebuilding in mind. More grassroots driven networks are, in fragile environments, often created out of short-term and very urgent needs meaning that donors seldom have the time to influence their agendas[24].

Capacity building within networks
A large number of networks deal with capacity building and shared learning through the exchange of experiences and best practices. The need for an environment were members dare to share has already been mentioned as one important aspect in order for such capacity building to take place has already been mentioned in this paper. In order for capacity building to take place in networks their members, however, also need to have an intrinsic interest in organisational change and have the characteristics of learning organisations. I.e. they need to be agile in order to adopt to changing environments at the same time as they need to have an interest in aligning their organisational form with their stated purpose and goal. Networks can, however, also promote these qualities among their members through the inclusion of network members “that indicate readiness for change; invite /encourage a broader base of participation from each member organisation so that a critical mass is bringing back ideas and innovations; choose NGO staff as network members who are willing and able to transfer the knowledge to others in their organisations…and develop a clear strategic intention to be a capacity builder”.[25]

Funding and donor relations
Certain aspects on the specifics of donor-network relations have already been touched upon in this paper. This paragraph will therefore satisfy itself with a brief summary regarding this issue.

With regards to networks there is a need for a long term funding approach and donors need to depart from classical project cycle thinking. At a minimum it takes five years before a network becomes effective and reaches the hight of its implementation capacity, some writers even argue that it takes as long as ten years. Donor support often tends to be much more short term and demanding effective outputs and activities already after two or three years. It is also important to see that networks and the social capital that they generate if effective it themselves can be seen as an output. Thus more focus should at least initially be placed on the further development of the network than on any specific activities that the network perform. Here it is once again important to remember that the decision about what activities a network is to perform needs to be a result of the autonomous decision making process of the network itself rather than of the donor if the network is to be sustainable. Few networks have survived for long as long as the sole reason that members have joined them is possible available funding. The relationship between the donors and the network thus needs to be marked by trust and flexibility allowing the network to develop and choose its path as its members sees best fulfil their needs as well as those of their stakeholders. [26]

Bibliography and suggestions for further reading

Allen Nan, Eliatamby and Kanyako 2007 “NGO networks for peacebuilding”

Ashman “Closing the gap between Promise and Practice: A framework for planning, monitoring and evaluating Social Development networks” available at http://www.impactalliance.org/ev_en.php?ID=9173_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC

Blum and Hewitt 2007 “The impact of fragile environments on NGO netoworks: A comparative analysis of three west African countries” available at http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/ngo_networks/report_final_20070731.pdf

Fulk, J. and Stephens, K.J., “NGO Networks in the Global Sphere”, paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association,TBA,San Fransisco,CA. Online (PDF). 2008-09-12 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p171163_index.html

ICCO 2004 “Networking for learning; what can participants do?”

Liebler, Caludia and Ferri, Marisa 2004 “NGO Networks: Building Capacity in a Changing World”, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation.

Plastrik and Taylor 2006 “Net Gains: A handbook for network builders seeking social change” available at http://www.impactalliance.org/ev_en.php?ID=44035_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC

Royal Tropical Institute, “Expericences of NGO networks working on HIV/AIDS”, Information and Library Services.

Skidmore in”Network Logic” 2004 available at www.demos.ac.uk

UNDP, Holmén and Jirström 2000 ”Optimizing Efforts – A Practical Guide to NGO Networking, Office to Combat Desertification and Drought (UNSO).

More resources on NGO networking is available for free at www.impactalliance.org