Evaluating Bioversity International’s banana networks

Evaluating Bioversity International’s
Banana Networks
Genowefa Blundo Canto and Elisabetta Gotor
Bioversity International Impact Assessment Unit
Presented by Inge Van den Bergh
RTB Annual Meeting
Uganda, 30 September 2014

Shared R4D impact pathway
Source: RTB extension request

Shared R4D impact pathway
• Partnerships needed at different levels to
increase potential of program to achieve
positive outcomes and impacts on vulnerable
groups
• Number of formal and informal networks,
engaged at different stages of the impact
pathway, and at different levels (global,
regional, national, local)

Banana networks
RESEARCH OUTPUTS RESEARCH OUTCOMES
Global banana research
facilitation platforms
G
L
O
B
A
L
R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L
L
O
C
A
L
FIRST LEVEL
DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES
Regional banana research and innovation platforms
National systems
INTERMEDIATE
DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES
Global banana information and
knowledge sharing platform

Study objective
• To assess the nature and effectiveness of
selected banana networks under the umbrella
of RTB
• Specific attention given to understanding:
– the network’s members, outputs produced and
outcomes generated
– how the network’s services and products are
perceived and used by network members
– who the network’s next users are and how they
are influenced by the network

Study methodology
• Based on the paper by Innovations for Scaling Impact
and Keystone Accountability (2010), who reviewed the
field of network monitoring and evaluation, providing
an interesting framework to analyse networks
• Bioversity’s networks effectiveness is assessed along 3
interlinked categories:
Network Vibrancy
To measure diversity of
network members,
partners and next users,
degree of network
members’ participation to
network activities, and
alignment of priorities and
shared values
Network Connectivity
To measure if the network
is fostering
communication and
collaboration between
members and with next
users
Network Effects
To measure progress
towards achieving outputs,
outcomes and impacts for
members and beyond, the
added value and unique
role of the network, and
who are the next users
benefiting from network
outputs

Study methodology
Online user surveys
Key informant interviews
with selected network
members, based on types
of answers received
Official Bioversity
reports and network
publications
Documents provided
by key informants
during the interviews
Information from the
network’s website

Network vibrancy
• Diversity of members and partners
– ~700 members, with good diversity in terms of
gender, length of membership, geography, type of
institution, type of activities and thematic
coverage  well represented in respondents’
profile
– Also good diversity of partners, including research
institutes, farmers’ organizations, private sector,
local and national governments, policy makers, etc
 This diversity contributes to the potential of the
network to reach end-users with information and
knowledge on banana

Network vibrancy
• Respondents’ participation to network activities
– Members joined through online research (28%), on
another members’ suggestion (25%) or through events
(13%)  online presence and networking activities
relevant to reach out to new members
– Online: 2013: ~84,000 visits, >200,000 page views, 209
countries*
– Events: 20% recently attended ProMusa event;
non-participation not due to lack of interest but mainly to
lack of funding; these events are of clear interest to
members, and 50% regularly consult proceedings
Recommendation: Set-up of travel grants/fellowships to
participate in events
* The Bioversity office in Montpellier is excluded from all web statistics

Network vibrancy
• Alignment of priorities and shared values
– Overall good alignment between ProMusa’s stated priorities
and values, and those of its users
– Seen as a hub and dissemination place for information on
banana, where updated information can be easily found
– Seen also as a platform that facilitates collaboration and
networking in the broader banana community
– Several respondents think ProMusa should have active
research role (which is not its role); or be directly involved in
genetic diversity studies (which is more role of MusaNet)
 Recommendation: While key role in knowledge sharing is
well recognized, other aspects of core business should be more
clearly communicated in order to fully align the vision of the
network to that of its members

Network connectivity
• Is the network fostering collaboration and communication
between members and with next users?
– Participation in ProMusa appears to foster collaboration outside
of the network
– InfoMus@ most successful service
– Mailing lists seen as fundamental service to exchange opinions
and find solutions to problems
– Up-to-date information coming from ProMusa is vital, especially
alerts (e.g. TR4 alert Mozambique  shared by members to
create phytosanitary alert)
– Frequent exchange with people from other places key to gain
knowledge on how other people are addressing problems
‘The interaction between experts in different places contributes to
finding solutions to very context-specific problems.’
Key informant

• Is dissemination and capacity strengthening within and
outside the network being fostered?
– Many respondents focus on capacity strengthening 
potential channel for the information and knowledge
shared by ProMusa to reach next users
– A quarter of respondents train others as a result of
participating in ProMusa, using information and knowledge
obtained through the network
Recommendations for improvement:
• Engage more regional practitioners
• Diversify membership beyond researchers
• Foster more direct interaction with farmers, especially
through dissemination and capacity building

Network effects
• Progress in achieving outputs, outcomes and impacts
– ProMusa very successful in increasing sources of knowledge that
people have available for their work (61%) and in improving its
members’ capacity (40%)
– 50% mention KRC as their main source of information
– Provides type and quality of services that its members expect:
• Valued high or very high:
– Timely information on network events (75%)
– Transparent and efficient flow of information (72%)
– High quality knowledge services (69%)
– Keeping members updated on scientific breakthrough news
• Less positive:
– Support to and coordination of research partnerships – not surprising as this
is not ProMusa’s role
– Strengthening members’ capacity – also not core role, but need for ProMusa
to reconsider its role in capacity strengthening

Network effects
• What is added value and unique role of the
network?
– Provides global access to reliable and updated
information on banana production and research in
one place (51%)
– Connects free of charge different people
worldwide with the same goal (32%)
– Provides materials that are used to train others
‘‘The real time dynamic that provides answers to problems
everywhere in the world.’
Key informant

Network effects
• Who are the next users benefiting from
network outputs and how do they benefit?
– Respondents provide training to:
• Farmers, through field days and capacity building
events
• Technicians and other researchers
– Information and knowledge provided by ProMusa
particularly relevant for these activities, and is
sometimes adapted for the purpose, the target
audience and the local context

KEY RESULTS - REGIONAL NETWORKS

Network vibrancy
• Diversity of members, partners and next users
– Lower diversity in members, in terms of type of institution
100.00%
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
BAPNET BARNESA MUSALAC INNOVATE
PLANTAIN
National government
National agricultural research system
Academic institution/research institute
Other
– But good diversity in partners, esp. within member’s own country
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
BAPNET BARNESA MUSALAC INNOVATE
PLANTAIN
Local or national research institute
Regional or international research institute
Academic institution
Farmers' organisation
Community-based organisation
Non-governmental organisation
Funder/grant-making organisation
Local or subnational government authority
National government
Intergovernmental organization
Local or national private sector company/business
Regional or international private sector company/business
Communications/media
Independent consultants/freelances
Students
Other
No partners

Network vibrancy
– Network members bring a variety of expertise,:
• MUSALAC, BARNESA: crop management and plant pathology
• Innovate Plantain: production and distribution of planting material
• BAPNET: ex situ conservation and crop improvement
– Members have established new relationships with
different types of actors as a result of participating in the
network
 Overall, further diversification of members in terms of
thematic coverage (e.g. marketing and post harvest) and
types of partners (e.g. policy makers and private sector)
would increase the reach of the networks

Network vibrancy
• Members’ participation to network activities
– Engagement with regional network activities is
quite good, especially among BAPNET and
MUSALAC respondents, who have all attended
recent network meetings, while most of them also
participated in training activities

Network vibrancy
• Alignment of priorities and shared values
– Primary roles:
• Foster collaboration
• Link actors from different countries
• Set priorities for banana research in the region
• Facilitate development of research projects and partnerships
• Identifying funding for research projects within agreed agenda
• Coordinate banana activities in the region
• Disseminate information
• Strengthen capacity of technical staff/researchers
• Capacity building for researchers
 Overall good alignment, but some discrepancy regarding role in
resource mobilization

• Is the network fostering communication and
collaboration between members and with next users?
– Most frequently mentioned types of collaborations:
• BARNESA: research projects with partners within and outside the
network, and training of others
• BAPNET: capacity building events, especially with partners within
the network
• MUSALAC: capacity building activities outside the network as a
result of participation in the network, and training of others
• Innovate Plantain: training of others, mainly directed towards
people within the same organization
– Most respondents say that level of collaboration has
increased through their participation in the network
– Stronger collaboration between members who have been
in the network longer, which might be an indicator of
cohesion of the network

• Is the network fostering information and
knowledge sharing between members and
with next users?
– The regional networks’ websites and the
ProMusa’s website are main sources of
information
– However, respondents would like more frequent
and condensed updates directly delivered to
them, and would like to see more regionally
relevant information and materials

Network effects
• Network effectiveness:
– BAPNET:
• Very effective in knowledge sharing and enhancing scientific and research capacity
• Less effective in enhancing members' capacity to mobilise resources
– BARNESA:
• Very effective in knowledge sharing and enhancing capacity to work in partnership
• Less effective in coordinating advocacy actions
– MUSALAC:
• Very effective in coordinating advocacy actions, creating new knowledge, knowledge
sharing, enhancing scientific and research capacity and capacity to work in
partnership
• Less effective in mobilizing resources
– Innovate Plantain:
• Very effective in knowledge sharing
• Less effective in brokering partnerships or enhancing members’ capacity to mobilise
resources

Network effects
• Main network outcomes:
– BAPNET: improved pest and disease management, improved
knowledge on banana, and availability of improved technologies
– BARNESA: availability of improved varieties or new technologies,
increased level of knowledge sharing between member countries, also
leading to improved pest and disease management
– MUSALAC: increased collaboration through research projects,
dissemination of knowledge and information, awareness on pests and
diseases, and improved pest and disease management strategies
– Innovate Plantain: introduction of improved technologies, especially
for production of healthy planting material, and capacity and
organization strengthening
– For all 4 networks, increasing collaborative projects between member
countries on topics of common interest could achieve higher influence
in the regions
– Higher engagement of the networks in advocacy actions with policy
makers would increase visibility

Conclusions
• General results emphasize that networks are a crucial
element of the shared research-for-development impact
pathway
• The networking approach is based on the recognition that
through partnerships with different institutional actors, the
research outcomes are adapted to different needs and
achieve greater impact than in isolation
• Effective networking needs to be backed up by national and
regional policies, increasing local ownership leading to local
investment
• Key for the effectiveness of the networks are the creation
and maintenance of links between the global and the
regional networks, and with other local networks, to
leverage knowledge and capacity

Key recommendations
• ProMusa:
– Already good level of diversity of members and next users, but
engaging further beyond scientific community could increase the
network’s reach
– Considering that respondents adapt information to their situation, it
might be useful to develop best practices and simple guidelines,
differentiated by region, that are easy to adapt and share with farmers
– Events organized by ProMusa are important for respondents
Providing funding opportunities would improve engagement with
the network and its effects (e.g. travel grant)
– Actual on-the-ground training might be beyond the scope of ProMusa,
but the platform should acts as facilitator for capacity strengthening,
e.g. mentorship scheme for young scientists or exchange visits for
scientists/extension workers

Key recommendations
• Regional networks:
– Need to measure and highlight the outcomes of their activities
through the use of adequate M&E  developing impact pathways for
the networks within the theory of change of RTB
– Should facilitate training and collaboration with local institutes to
strengthen local capacity and improve the long-term sustainability of
the network
– Diversification of members would increase the knowledge, reach and
visibility of the networks  impact pathways being developed for
evolving RTB flagships will strengthen partnerships to reach out more
explicitly to development partners

THANK YOU
http://www.promusa.org
http://banana-networks.org/

Evaluating Bioversity International’s banana networks

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (16)

En vedette

En vedette (8)

Similaire à Evaluating Bioversity International’s banana networks

Similaire à Evaluating Bioversity International’s banana networks (20)

Plus de CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas

Plus de CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Evaluating Bioversity International’s banana networks