THE LEGACY OF ENRAP

MAKING KNOWLEDGE WORK

FOR DEVELOPMENT Pankaj H Gupta
The publication of this work has been supported by Canada’s
International Development Research Centre, www.idrc.ca
This work is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-
Non Commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. You are free
to copy, communicate and adapt the work as long as you
attribute IDRC and IFAD and make your adapted work available
under the same license agreement.
Abbreviations in this report:
CBO Community Based Organisation
CHARM Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resources
Management, the Philippines
CPM Country Programme Manager, IFAD
CPO Country Presence Officer, IFAD
CSO Civil Society Organisation
DAR Department of Agricultural Reform, the Philippines
DFID Department for International Development, U.K.
ENRAP Knowledge Networking for Rural Development in
Asia-Pacific
FIDAfrique IFAD knowledge network for Africa
FIDAMERICA IFAD learning & knowledge network for Latin
America & the Caribbean
IDRC International Development Research Centre
IDS Institute of Development Studies, U.K.
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
ICTs Information & Communication Technologies
ILEIA Centre for Learning on Sustainable Agriculture
About the author: Pankaj H Gupta is a commonwealth scholar,
development consultant and documentary film-maker based in
India. He has been associated with ENRAP for over five years in
various capacities. He can be contacted at lodhiroad@gmail.com
Cover: Participatory mapping as part of an ENRAP supported
Systematization exercise at Karbi Anglong in North East India.
Photo by the author.
Design: Pervez Rajan
KariaNet Knowledge Access in Rural Interconnected Areas
Network
KLM Knowledge & Learning Market
KS/KM Knowledge Sharing/Knowledge Management
LGU Local Government Unit, the Philippines
M & E Monitoring & Evaluation
MIS Management Information Systems
NERCRMP North Eastern Regional Community Resource
Management Programme, India
NEDA National Economic Development Agency, the Philippines
NGO Non-governmental Organisation
NMCIREMP Northern Mindanao Community Initiatives &
Resource Management Project, the Philippines
OTELP Orissa Tribal Environment & Livelihood Programme, India
REAP Regional Economic Advancement Project, Sri Lanka
SNA Social Network Analysis
UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services
ENRAP was formed as a partnership between IDRC and IFAD to support knowledge sharing and
networking amongst the poverty alleviation projects and partners of IFAD located in the Asia-Pacific
region. IDRC is a crown corporation of the Canadian Government mandated to support social
research in developing nations. IFAD is a specialised arm of the United Nations that offers financial
and technical support to governments of developing nations to help them eradicate rural poverty.

contents:

Prologue: knowledge sharing & rural development 02

The context: rural poverty in the Asia-Pacific 03

IFAD’s poverty reduction strategy 05

The ENRAP story 06

Building capacities 18

Scripting a success story: knowledge sharing in the Philippines 20

The legacy of ENRAP 27

Epilogue 30

Acknowledgements 32

01
Prologue:
Knowledge sharing
& rural development
There’s connectivity on one side and there’s
connectedness. Of course, you can’t get to
connectedness without paying for that
connectivity. But in the end, what does that
connectedness mean for somebody in a rural
setting? (Sayo, 2010)
What indeed. When a farmer in Bangladesh
sends a picture of his ailing cow through his
village ICT kiosk to the vet at hatbazaar.com,
hoping for advice that will save him a
difficult and costly trip to the nearest
market town (de Silva, 2008), then it is
connectivity. And this connectivity is of
immense value to him: infinitely more than
what it is costing him to pay for that
connectivity. But when the feisty women of
Budhikote, a village near Bangalore, are so
enthused by the possibilities of a community
multimedia unit that they each contribute
Rs.50 (US$1) from their precious savings
every month to establish a cable radio
network (de Silva, 2008), then it is
connectedness. For the women of Budhikote,
this connectedness may or may not be of
economic value, depending on what content
the cable radio network will carry. But both
connectedness and connectivity are
necessary for the material and spiritual well
being of those living below the poverty
threshold, as they are for everyone else.
Lawrence Liang (2009) observes:
Most ICT interventions frame the poor as
objects of the discourse of digital access, and
they are rarely seen as the subject of digital
imaginaries. How do we think of the space
created by ICT as one that expands not just
the material conditions but also breaks the
divide between those entitled to the world of
thought, and those entitled to the world of
work? How do we begin to look at the
technological lives of people beyond
developmentalism and take into account the
way it changes aspirations and subjectivities?
Yet, for those on the edge of survival, the
developmental dimensions of knowledge are
paramount. “There is hunger for knowledge.
In the deepest forests of tribal Orissa, people
are not just attending meetings but want to
know what new information has come”
(Darlong, 2010). An observation that is
echoed by Tony Quizon, talking about a
situation when an IFAD poverty alleviation
project is introduced in a Filipino village:
In this project, the communities themselves
can propose the project components for
livelihood expansion. Because of this, there is
demand from the communities to know what
other livelihood options are there, what other
communities are proposing. Many times, I
have seen communities have searched for
information on their own. In a micro-finance
initiative, I observed that the main reason
why people come together in a group is
because the most important knowledge is
within the group. The groups know the best
sources of raw materials, the best local
contacts...the group is a kind of network by
itself (2010).
Development therefore becomes a matter of
not just economic, but also social access.
This is also because:
Poverty is not only economic; it has to do
with vulnerability and hopelessness. Access
to knowledge and networks provides that
empowerment to develop a confidence in
different aspects - and choose a course that
will work for them (Aryal, 2010).
There is no doubt that knowledge plays a
critical role in rural development and
poverty eradication. It is generally accepted
that sustainable economic growth is related
to technological innovation (Lewis, 2004).
Farmers, artisans, traders, foresters, fishers
and herders are constantly innovating and
improving their methods of production. Like
all human beings and societies, they are
constantly learning and innovating. But the
challenge for development interventions is
to be able to weld this local knowledge with
‘scientific’ knowledge.
Farmers in villages develop knowledge based
on generations of experience, and they have
real life experience of finding out. That is
knowledge developed by seeing if something
has succeeded or failed. When you talk of
success or failure, scientists can afford
failures, but the farmer cannot afford
failures. So the knowledge that he generates
is practical, it has to succeed. In fact, it
becomes knowledge only if it has succeeded
(Choudhury, 2010).
If one looks at development “as a social
learning process that contributes to people
taking explicit control of their own
development experiences, using those
experiences autonomously to solve their
problems and develop their own future...and
as a process in which people have the
opportunity to reflect on their practice and
draw lessons from their achievements and
failures” (Ferreira & Neto, 2005), then the
role of knowledge in development becomes
quite clear. It then becomes an important
function of a development agency like IFAD
that is committed to poverty reduction to
“facilitate the flow of information, learning
and knowledge, between those that have it
and those that need it” (Hartman, 2010).
ENRAP was mandated to do exactly that for
the IFAD projects in the Asia-Pacific. The
following pages narrate the story of this
programme that spanned three phases
spread over a decade. The story illustrates
the challenges and processes of knowledge
sharing in poverty reduction programmes in
remote rural areas that have poor
connectivity and severe resource constraints.
To understand these processes, we need to
first understand the context of rural poverty
in the region and the strategies that are
employed by development agencies in
attempting to eradicate it, and the status of
knowledge sharing within IFAD.
02
The Context:
Rural poverty in the Asia-Pacific
Poverty is a deeply endemic problem that manifests itself through inadequate access to nutrition, health care and education.
In the countryside, this deficiency is exacerbated by the erosion of the natural environment that is central to rural livelihoods.
In meeting this severe challenge, IFAD has based its rural poverty reduction strategy on promoting sustainable livelihoods.

There are 920 million people living below
the poverty line in Asia (World Bank, cited
in IFAD, 2010a), and they make up more
than two thirds of the world’s poor (IFAD,
2002). In most Asian countries, the majority
of the poor live in the countryside, and a
significant proportion of the chronically
poor live in marginal agroecological zones
(IFAD, 2002). Rural livelihoods are heavily
dependent on natural resources -
production and trade revolving around
agriculture, livestock, fishery and forests.
The rural poor across Asia-Pacific reflect
similar economic, demographic and social
characteristics, such as deep social
inequalities, insufficient access to land or
other natural resources, illiteracy, large
households, underemployment, and a
rapidly degrading environment - all of
which aggravate their situation. “These
chronically poor tend to remain in poverty
for much of their lives, passing on the
tragic legacy of deprivation and exclusion
to their children” (Saxena, 2010). In
addition, the region has extreme gender
inequalities, and women suffer severe social
deprivation and continue to be denied
property rights. Migration in search of
employment leaves rural women
shouldering the responsibility of home and
farm. Most Asian nations define rural
poverty in terms of food security, and even
in a booming economy like India, a vast
number of people continue to live on the
edge of starvation (Patnaik, 2006). Many of
the Asian countries are now high-growth
economies, with booming industrial and
service sectors, but that has only made the
situation worse for the rural populations as
rapid industrialisation has eaten into their
natural resource base, while basic
amenities like safe water, sanitation and
healthcare continue to be out of their
reach. While there are often bumper crops,
the inequalities in the mechanisms for
distributing food means that the
marginalized are unable to buy food even
where available (Sen, 1999). With
traditional agriculture becoming
unviable, and unable to “absorb
labour and to provide rural
households with
sufficient returns to exit
poverty” (Valdés, et al,
2010; p.45), rural
unemployment has grown
and real incomes have
diminished. Those affected are
not only the small farmers whose
land yields have reduced, or farmers
who are squeezed by loans taken for
investments in seeds and other
technology, but the landless labour
and other agricultural workers, with
no land of their own or the prospect
of ever owning any.
Source: World Bank 2009
The rural poor are adapting to these
changes by strategies such as out-
migration, but in the process transferring
rural poverty to urban areas, and disrupting
the community-managed social safety nets
(Agrawal, 2005; Corbridge, et al, 2004).
“Great numbers of people do not work or
work only intermittently, and they are
therefore poor and helpless and often
desperate enough to leave the village to
search for some kind of existence in the big
city. Rural unemployment becomes urban
unemployment” (Schumacher, 1993).
Poverty map
CNI per capita
Atlas method
(Current US$)
Less than 630
630 - 1,839
1,840 - 3,989
3,990 - 12,499
12,500 or more
No data

Where are the rural poor? According to Dr. Ganesh Thapa, Source: IFAD
Who are the rural poor?
Regional Economist, Asia Division, IFAD, “in Asia Pacific, • landless agricultural households • herders
poverty is now getting concentrated in the remote areas – • marginal farmers and tenants • coastal fishers
mountains, upland areas, tribal areas and it is getting • indigenous peoples • forest dwellers
concentrated among the disadvantaged populations like • scheduled castes • highlanders
indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, the landless”. • internally displaced persons • households headed by women

03

Attempts to reduce poverty
The least developed countries believed that
development was all about modernisation of
traditional societies, rapid industrialisation,
and movement of under-employed rural
labour to industrial or urban centres. It was
hoped that this strategy would be able to
counter poverty (Corbridge, 1995). Yet, only
a few of the economies that chose this path
were successful in significantly reducing
poverty – those that carefully balanced
agrarian and industrial growth – like South
Korea and China. In most other cases, rural
poverty either persisted or got exacerbated
with industrial or service sector growth
coming at the cost of agriculture (Kay,
2009). The expectation that gains of market-
driven industrial growth would trickle down
to the rural populations had clearly not
worked. The rural poverty reduction
strategies that we see today in Asia are in
response to this market failure, and there
seems to be a consensus among
governments that agricultural diversification
and market linkages are the recipe to
increasing rural household incomes. But of
course, there are significant differences
between the nations of the region on how
Photo: IFAD China
these strategies are implemented, and
despite several decades of efforts by
governments on poverty reduction, rural
poverty persists, with the exception of East
Asia that has had an economic boom in the
last three decades, and managed to reduce
poverty by about two thirds. In contrast,
South Asia shows a rise in gross national
income by only 1.4 per cent and the
incidence of poverty, defined by the
percentage of population living below the
poverty line, is highest in this region after
sub- Saharan Africa (IFAD, 2010a).
04
IFAD’s poverty
reduction strategy
IFAD’s poverty reduction strategy is
influenced a great deal by the rural
livelihood approach developed by DFID and
backed by a group of scholars based in the
UK in the 1980s. The basic tenet of this
approach is that in most underdeveloped
economies, there is no single-sector
household livelihood strategy in a rural
setting, and people employ a complex web
of diverse activities and interactions to
make a living (IDS working paper, cited by
Scoones, 2009). Development interventions
that are attempting to enhance livelihood
options have, therefore, to look for local
solutions. From this discourse stems the
sustainable livelihoods approach that
remains the cornerstone of the rural poverty
reduction strategies of several development
agencies, including IFAD. The approach
suggests three pathways to poverty
reduction (World Bank, 2007):
• Agricultural diversification and expansion
of rural non-agricultural activities
• Technological innovation and upgradation
of agriculture
• Out-migration to supplement rural
incomes
IFAD’s poverty reduction strategy for its
programmes is based on the assumptions
that people have to find local solutions for
poverty eradication and take charge of their
own development, and the job of the
development agency is to help communities
build their household social capital. To that
end, IFAD works closely with local
communities, helping them to find locally
appropriate ways to make the most of the
assets available to the people. IFAD’s
partners in this are not only the national and
local governments, but also the community-
based organizations (CBOs), which facilitate
access to credit, inputs and markets.
IFAD’s strategy is implemented through two
mechanisms:
1. Helping the rural communities to
organise themselves in groups and
federations so that they can negotiate
better terms of trade and derive other
advantages of collectivism
2. Facilitating knowledge transfer for
improving means of production and trade,
and for diversifying the livelihood options.
A knowledge-intensive process
Both these mechanisms are knowledge-
intensive. The first involves extensive
training and skill transfer to the
communities through the project and
partner staff – equipping the communities
to deal with the markets and new
technologies. The second is concerned with
technological improvements and
innovations. As the profile of urban demand
for rural produce changes, “agriculture
becomes more and more knowledge
intensive. Farmers are now forced to move
away from cereal grains to high value crops
like fruits, vegetables and livestock to cater
to the urban demand, and these high value
crops need more technical knowledge. So
the knowledge dimension of agriculture has
increased” (Thapa, 2010). This demands
complex knowledge production, often
needing to dovetail external, scientific
knowledge with the existing wisdom of the
communities. Knowledge, therefore,
becomes a key dimension of development. In
a typical IFAD project, knowledge assumes
the following dimensions as a management
tool and resource:
Policy dialogue: IFAD’s role is to be “an
innovative institution that develops
replicable models and plays a catalytic role”
to tackle rural poverty (IFAD, 2005). In other
words, an important function of IFAD is to
create a knowledge base of learning from its
projects that can be used by the national
governments and other development
agencies to improve their own poverty
reduction programmes. Apart from that, a
number of policy makers at all levels – local
governments, civil society organisations,
provincial and national governments and
international development agencies – are
interested in knowing how projects like IFAD
are faring and the direction their poverty
eradication programmes are taking. At the
same time, project managers are interested
in keeping policy makers informed to ensure
their crucial support.
Social learning: The second dimension,
deeply connected to the first, is to foster
knowledge sharing within and between the
communities, the project and partner staff
and other stakeholders – within the project,
between projects in the same country and
across borders in the region. The objectives
of fostering knowledge sharing are many: to
make project implementation more efficient,
for the project and partner staff to learn
from each other about implementation
issues, for communities to learn of others’
innovations, successes and failures, etc.
The distinction between knowledge for
‘social learning’ and ‘policy dialogue’ is
necessary because the modes of producing
knowledge are different for each – one is
more in the nature of knowledge for action,
while the other is analytical and capable of
generalisation. Yet, the source of all
knowledge that is produced – whether for
policy makers or community sharing –
usually emerges from the local level, the
point at which a poverty reduction
programme makes an impact.
05
The ENRAP story
ENRAP today is a thriving network where colleagues in different IFAD stations have become friends and
partners in collaborative efforts. But the long journey towards creating this network has seen some difficulties,
and many joys, before people learnt to come together, and finally forged close bonds.

The inspiration for ENRAP (originally Electronic

Networking for Rural Asia Pacific) came from the
success of FIDAMERICA, the first of IFAD’s regional
networks, that worked in the Latin America to
promote knowledge sharing between IFAD projects
in the region. ENRAP was formed to promote
knowledge sharing and networking between the
IFAD projects located in the Asia-Pacific.
The most important motivation for starting ENRAP
was that we wanted ENRAP to promote sharing on
thematic issues. There was very little
communication among the projects in Asia. A lot of
innovative work was happening with respect to
empowerment of women, microfinance, but they
were localized successes. We wanted these to be
shared widely so that others could replicate them
and upscale these activities. We thought we could
follow the model of FIDAMERICA, a network of IFAD
projects in Latin America (Thapa, 2010).
It was felt by many within IFAD that a network Photo: IFAD China
techniques within the context of IFAD. What was
that could share such knowledge among various envisaged was ground level sharing – mediated
projects would be useful. Séan Siochrú, who was through the project – between the farmers (2010).
closely associated with the preliminary or first
phase of ENRAP that began in 1998 and lasted for While the mandate for ENRAP was quite clear, there
three years, recalls: was little expertise available on the subject and
IFAD itself had little to offer in terms of guidance
It was felt by IFAD that a lot of projects in the Asia on how to achieve the goals set by it. The discourse
Pacific region were generating very useful of knowledge management in development was a
knowledge that was just being lost, instead of being nascent and evolving one, and the context of
shared between them...knowledge that was FIDAMERICA was quite different from Asia (for
emerging from the ground, not necessarily instance, Latin America had just two languages to
knowledge about how the projects could be deal with). Given these challenges, IFAD approached
managed, but more about new agricultural IDRC for a collaboration on ENRAP.
techniques and practices. ENRAP was proposed to
be formed to promote sharing of this kind of We had a significant partner in IDRC, which was a
knowledge, between projects within countries and leader in promoting ICTs and other technologies for
between countries. ICTs were a means to do that, knowledge sharing in rural development in Asia,
and by ICTs I also mean video and community Latin America and Africa (Thapa, 2010).
radio, not just the internet. What I liked about the Renald Lafond – team leader of the PAN Asia
idea was the value it gave to what real people were networking programme and the responsible officer
doing on the ground, and developing these for ENRAP at IDRC headquarters – recalls the

06
PHASE I The ENRAP footprint:
an expanding network
Phase I: Pakistan, Nepal, Philippines,
China, Sri Lanka.
Phase II: Pakistan, Nepal, Philippines,
China, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, India, Laos.
Phase III: Afghanistan, Bangladesh,
Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India,
Indonesia, Iran, Laos, Maldives, Mongolia,
Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Pacific Island
Countries, Sri Lanka, Tajikstan, Vietnam.

PHASE II

It was felt by IFAD

that a lot of projects
in the Asia Pacific
PHASE III region were
generating very
useful knowledge
that was just being
lost, instead of
being shared
between them...
What was envisaged
was ground level
sharing - mediated
through the project
- between the
farmers
- Séan Siochrú

07

manifold challenges confronting the project. For
one, the countries in the Asia Pacific where IFAD
projects were located did not speak in one
language – in fact, even within a country, there
were often a number of languages in use. For
another, the project staff were not used to
communicating in writing. Some projects were also
handicapped by the traditions of government
functioning that did not encourage openness and
free communication. And to top it all, connectivity
that was assumed to be there, turned out to be
weak or non-existent in the projects. Yet, Renald
felt that merely providing connectivity would not
create a network, though that was the view held by
a number of ICT specialists.
Some people were saying that it is simple: you just
connect people, and the job is done. In practice, this
is not so. It’s not because people have access to
communication – a telephone or an internet
connection – that they talk to each other. People
talk when they have a felt need to share something
(Lafond, 2010).
Ganesh Thapa, who was then the officer
responsible for ENRAP in the IFAD headquarters,
admits that:
Photo: IFAD China
In the early days we started to focus too much on
communication through internet, which I think was
a mistake on our part. We had selected some
difficult countries like Pakistan and Nepal that did
not have connectivity. It was very hard for us to be a
successful knowledge network. So we had to
redesign the project during implementation and
include other techniques like face-to-face meetings,
workshops, etc. (2010).
The first phase of ENRAP had begun with an
emphasis on ICTs, but the thrust of the second
phase employed a more balanced approach:
The problems of networking these diverse groups
were not just technical. The problems were far more
social. That’s why for the second phase of the
project, I wanted a coordinator who could speak the It’s not because
language of agriculture, of rural development, not people have access
only the language of technology. And that’s why we to communication
chose Shalini Kala, because she could speak to the that they talk to
people in their language, about their concerns each other. People
(Lafond, 2010). talk when they have
a felt need to share
something
-Renald Lafond
08
When Shalini Kala joined as the network
coordinator in early 2003 (just as the start-up
workshop for the second phase was about to
begin), she found that there was really no existing
network in the IFAD projects of the Asia-Pacific,
due perhaps to staff attrition or delay in the launch
of the second phase.
Projects in the region were not connected to each
other. The project people were not connected. One
project did not know about another in the same
country. People were not connected to Rome (IFAD
headquarters). Some people knew their CPMs, and
they were more in touch with their supervisory
agency, UNOPS. So effectively, we had to start from
scratch in 2003 (Kala, 2010).
How does one establish a network across 40
projects spread over a continent, where each
project spoke and worked in a different language?
What actually brings people together in a network?
People in their own way understand networking.
They also see benefits in it. But why should they
network in the IFAD space, why should they talk to
another project or to a person in another country?
Why should they share? This was something that
needed to be demonstrated. It was not going to
happen automatically (Kala, 2010).
To build the network, the ENRAP team started with
national level meetings. It is at these meetings that
the geographically dispersed project staff came
together and began thinking about how they could
strengthen networking and knowledge sharing, and
how they could articulate their demand for ENRAP
support. It was expected that on their return after
a two-day meeting like this, participants would
follow up with submitting proposals for support
that they needed for strengthening the network
and knowledge sharing. But convincing project and
partner staff about the need to spend time and
effort on knowledge sharing was not always easy,
as it was perceived as an additional set of tasks.
Not only did we have to convince our colleagues in
IDRC and IFAD about what we wanted to do, but also
the projects. Convincing them about the need to
network, to share, was the first hurdle (Mishra, 2010).
Demand driven
One of the fundamental principles on which ENRAP
established a working relationship with the
projects was to be ‘demand driven’. ENRAP resisted
the impulse to roll out a calendar of events or a
roster of activities that anybody could join. Instead,
it encouraged the project and partner staff to think I did not believe that
about what their needs were and where they a network could
needed external support – either financial or emerge by us doing
technical - that would further the knowledge something entirely
sharing agenda, and also be able to justify this with on our own. You are
the overall goals of the project to reduce poverty. talking about a
Being demand driven meant that ENRAP resources project that’s trying
would be efficiently employed in tackling real to change people’s
problems in the knowledge-sharing arena that behaviour in three
were identified by the implementation teams. It years. You cannot
was a more participatory approach to allocating not take their
resources, and it allowed for flexibility. Often, opinion into
projects requested support in components that account and still
were outside the mandate of ENRAP, and this succeed in any little
flexibility made it possible for some of these way. In the end,
requests to be accommodated. being demand
I did not believe that a network could emerge by us driven made for
doing something entirely on our own. You are better results
talking about a project that’s trying to change - Shalini Kala
people’s behaviour in three years. You cannot not
take their opinion into account and still succeed in
any little way. In the end, being demand driven
made for better results (Kala, 2010).
But being demand driven did not mean that there
was no space for ideas to emerge from outside the
network. In fact, ENRAP itself continued to expose
project and partner staff to a number of innovative
techniques that could greatly accelerate or enhance
the capacities of the partner and project staff to
produce and share knowledge. Some of these
activities were experimental, and others had been
tried and tested elsewhere but needed to be adapted.
Once projects saw value in any specific innovation,
they requested further support from ENRAP.
One of the first was digital video, soon to be
followed with a participatory documentation
technique called Systematization.
09
Digital video was suggested both as a supplement
and as an alternative to written documentation of
project experiences given the considerable
challenges of diversity in languages and poor
literacy levels in the region. ENRAP’s objective was
to show how easy video documentation had become
with the use of digital equipment as also how films
could be used for documentation and sharing to
improve project impact. This demonstration...led to
a surge in interest among several IFAD projects.
Each project defined the use of the medium as per
their needs (IDRC, 2006).
ENRAP introduced this exciting way to exchange
and share experiences in 2004; within two years,
more than a dozen projects had requested training.
Since these were practical training workshops,
participants produced video documentation related
to their project components, based on fieldwork,
during the workshops itself. Apart from training,
ENRAP also supported several projects with
hardware like camcorders and editing cards. A
number of those trained continue to use their skills
for producing a range of videos, the uses of which
in knowledge sharing are only limited by one's
imagination. Videos have been produced for several
kinds of audiences - for policy makers, for farmers,
for other project and partner staff - and on a
number of subjects, like stories and case studies of
new livelihood options and new agricultural
innovations. Clearly, a connectedness had emerged.
Yet, it was the lack of good connectivity that kept
projects and ENRAP busy for a good part of the
second phase. Connectivity was essential to create
an active, networked community, but it was poor or
non-existent in almost all the places where the
projects were located. Projects in Sri Lanka, Laos, Connectivity was
Nepal, India, the Philippines, China and Pakistan essential to create an
sought ENRAP's help in tackling their connectivity active, networked
hurdles. ENRAP was not mandated to provide community, but it
hardware support, but it used whatever flexibility it
was poor or non-
had at its command to facilitate connectivity: by
existent in almost all
providing technical advice, by conducting
feasibility and assessment studies, and when
the places where the
necessary, partial financial assistance in projects were
infrastructure and hardware. Broadly, ENRAP's located. ENRAP's
efforts were focussed on convincing projects about efforts were focussed
the need for connectivity and encouraging the on convincing
projects in turn to convince their governments to projects about the
invest in it. need for connectivity
Building capacities in knowledge production and encouraging the
projects in turn to
By the second year of the second phase, there was
a network already in place - project staff, and to
convince their
some extent partner staff, were keeping in touch governments to
through a slew of forums: by email, by e- invest in it.
discussions, thematic discussion groups, through
the ENRAP website and by face-to-face meetings.
However, ENRAP had to address the next big
challenge to make the network meaningful: to
build the capacity of the project and partner staff
to produce knowledge and make it available in a
shareable form. Building capabilities in knowledge
production was to be far more challenging than
was expected. In fact, a bulk of the activities in the
second phase was related to knowledge production.
At first, project staff needed support to help
articulate their needs in the form of a brief Photos: IFAD Phillipines
proposal, as the staff just did not have the
orientation or skill to do that. Moreover, the project
personnel were not habituated to write qualitative
accounts or stories. Thus, requests for training and
10
workshops that enhanced writing skills were very
frequent, and ENRAP responded by organising
writing and documentation workshops at the
project level. At these workshops, it was ENRAP's
endeavour to produce results that demonstrated
that the participants had indeed acquired the
intended skills. Thus, writing or video workshops
had outputs that were authored by the participants
during the course of the workshops. These outputs
were also a motivating factor for the participants.
ENRAP also introduced projects to a rigorous
documentation and evaluative technique called
Systematization - a field-based, participatory
technique that produces qualitative data using
local criteria and indicators. The technique was first
developed by ILEIA, and field-tested extensively in
rural development projects in South America. As a
method of documenting and analysing project
experiences, it has several characteristics that make
it suitable for use as an experience-sharing tool in
rural poverty reduction projects.
Each systematization exercise is a considerable
investment of time for the projects, as it can take
as much as eight to ten days, and requires the full
involvement of a number of stakeholders. Those
projects that made this investment were amply
rewarded. First, the process of the exercise itself
was empowering for the participants; second, the
final outputs, in the form of systematization
reports, were found to be extremely useful. Both in
India and in the Philippines, the systematization
reports that were generated during the training
workshops had significant policy impacts due to
the credible analysis and field-based evidence they
embodied. Besides projects in these countries,
ENRAP also supported a Systematization
orientation workshop in China for project and
partner staff.
The final phase Photo: Pankaj H Gupta
In many ways, the third and final phase of ENRAP
was to be a culmination of the project, and was
packed with a number of exciting undertakings
designed to consolidate the gains of the first two
phases. The overarching objective was to plan for
the sustainability of the network beyond ENRAP,
including the migration of the network assets to
IFAD. Equally important was to explore innovations
in information access that could directly expand
livelihood options of rural communities. And of
course, ENRAP was to continue to strengthen the
network and enhance the capacities of the projects
and other agencies to share and exchange
knowledge. Activities that met these objectives
were to dominate this phase: a major research
initiative to explore the potential of ICTs in
expanding livelihood options for the rural poor; a Activities that met
social network analysis that would help improve these objectives were to
network relations and also help plan the migration dominate this phase: a
of network assets to IFAD, and systematic diffusion major research
of knowledge sharing tools and methods with a initiative to explore the
view to mainstreaming knowledge sharing in
potential of ICTs in
project implementation. expanding livelihood
In the run up to the third phase, ENRAP had options for the rural
already begun to get together a group of focal poor; a social network
points from each country as a way to streamline analysis that would
knowledge coordination. This group became the help improve network
nucleus for information and knowledge exchange, relations and also help
and it also informed the design of the third phase
plan the migration of
of ENRAP. Some of the members of this group later
network assets to IFAD,
went on to take the positions of CPOs when IFAD
set up country offices in a few of the countries in
and systematic
diffusion of knowledge
the region. The second structural change in IFAD
was the switch from UNOPS supervision to IFAD sharing tools and
directly overseeing projects. The effect of these two methods with a view to
changes was that country coordination of the mainstreaming
network - in 18 countries now, from eight in the knowledge sharing in
second phase - was easier for ENRAP to manage. project implementation.
11
Milestones
1998 Launch of Project
1999 Creation of a project data base in collaboration with NEDA, the Philippines
1999 Local application development workshop, Mindanao, the Philippines
2000 Field visits to Nepal, China, Philippines, Sri Lanka
2000 Web-site creation training workshop, Singapore
2000 Knowledge networking national planning workshop, Pune, India
2001 Preparation of a Needs Assessment for Phase II
2003 First edition of e-bulletin, This Week in ENRAP
2003 Writing skills workshop in Laos; Writing for web
workshop in India, Philippines, Nepal
2003 Project level LAN for internet access on all 15
computers. REAP, Sri Lanka
2003 First national meeting of all projects, India
2004 First Systematization workshops in the Philippines
and India
2004 First video training workshop in NERCRMP, India
2004 First e-discussion in phase II
2004 ENRAP migrates to a new website
2004 Launch of country-specific websites in China & Vietnam
2004 Participation in FIDAfrique launch followed by KariaNet
2005 First cross-country experience sharing trip (Laos to India)
2005 Study on feasibility of wireless connectivity in mountains,
ULIPH, India
2007 First Knowledge & Learning Market (Philippines)
2007 Launch of country specific website, India
2008 Commissioning of ICTs for Rural Livelihoods research
scoping studies
2008 Launch of a series of writing skills workshops in
Bangladesh, India & Nepal
2008 Participation of ENRAP network members in
KariaNet II completion workshop
2008 First Regional Knowledge Sharing Training workshop,
Bangkok
2008 First social network analysis of the ENRAP network
2009 Launch of seven ICTs for Rural Livelihoods research
projects
Photo: IFAD, China
PHASE I
2005 Major Systematization initiative in NERCRMP,
India: 7 reports produced
2005 First regional sharing workshop Using Knowledge for
Projects, followed by workshops on M & E and MIS
2005 Launch of an electronic network linking project field
offices, government partners and project management
office for real time M & E (Philippines)
2005 First thematic network on M & E formed followed by
an e-discussion
2005 Launch of School-on-Air, a community radio program
for farmers. CHARM, Philippines
2006 Training of local government communicators in
documentation of indigenous peoples innovations with
highland rice farming, CHARM, Philippines
2006 First Regional Digital Video workshop in Sri Lanka for
PHASE II
those previously trained in digital video
2007 Formation of a group of country-specific Knowledge
Facilitators ("country champions")
2009 Systematization orientation workshop for all project
and partner staff of China projects.
2009 Formation of more thematic networks (Gender
Mainstreaming and Agriculture Value-Chains)
2009 ENRAP upgrades its website
2010 Write-shops methodology workshop and publication
of a write-shops guide
2010 Second and final social network analysis of the ENRAP
network
2010 Publication of A Facilitator's Guide to Knowledge Sharing
PHASE III
Methods and Tools
2010 Completion of the ICTs for Rural Livelihoods research,
and dissemination of the findings
12
 I regularly say that one of the most
interesting things about working on the
documentation of field level experiences
is that you get to see that there are many
efforts taking place all over the world to
change the situation in which small-scale
farmers, the rural populations and the
least privileged persons are found - and
that most of these efforts are being
successful. Yet the risks of them
remaining as "islands of success" are
many. It has therefore been very
encouraging to see the work of ENRAP,
and the attention this network has given
to knowledge and information as the best
tool for the reduction of poverty.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect has
been the recognition that this knowledge
and information is not only to come from
the national or international research
institutes, but rather from all those
involved in the successful efforts which
are found in the field (and even from
those which are not that successful).
Thus the importance of a systematization
process - not as one which describes a
project, but rather as a participatory
effort by which all those involved look at
their work in detail, analyze their results
and shortcomings, draw specific lessons,
and help others learn as well.
ENRAP's efforts have helped projects and
organizations go through such a process.
They have all found out that a
systematization process is not easy or
straightforward, and I am sure that they
have all come across the general
difficulties of time and resources that can
make such a process particularly difficult.
But they have also paid attention to more
important issues - such as the quality of
the analysis, or the importance of actively
involving all relevant stakeholders - and
are therefore now in a much better
position to learn from their own
experience. We hope that these efforts
continue, and that we learn from them!
Jorge Chavez-Tafur - Editor, ILIEA -
Centre for learning on sustainable
agriculture, and author of "Learning from
experience - a manual for organizing,
analyzing and documenting field based
information".

The first two phases of ENRAP were immersed with
building the capacities of the project and partner
staff in knowledge production and sharing. In order
to mainstream this function, and to make it
independent of a network facilitator, an initiative
for systematic diffusion of knowledge sharing tools
and methodologies among the project and partner
staff was begun in 2008. CPOs and other country
knowledge focal points from 12 countries
participated in the first workshop to get familiar
with a number of KS tools and methods. This
workshop was to be the first of the four to be
conducted over two years, in a process that
validated and tested these tools, and in the
diffusion of these tools and methods among the
partner and project staff.
After the workshop, the participants went back to
their workspaces and reverted with feedback on
what worked and what did not. This process made
the tools and methods very robust and IFAD-
specific, and ultimately resulted in the Facilitator's
Guide to Knowledge Sharing Methods & Tools,
published in 2010 (Kala, 2011).
The third ENRAP phase began with a major
signpost: the introduction of a knowledge and
learning market (KLM) in the Philippines. The
holding of such an event was symbolic of the The knowledge and
maturity and dynamism of the ENRAP network in learning market has
the Philippines. This network had started with an grown into an
annual meeting in 2004, which continued each annual event - a
year as a thematic knowledge exchange event,
thematic,
until it transformed itself into the KLM from 2007.
government-
We decided to call it KLM because first, there is this sponsored policy
knowledge we want to share and learn. Then if it is a forum with active
learning event then it is for exchange of ideas. So it participation by
is a market for ideas and knowledge products. It is community
also a market because it is not only IFAD projects representatives as
but also government agencies and communities and
well as policy makers
civil society and CBOs that are participating...so it is
a marketplace! So therefore, Knowledge & Learning
Market! (Arban, 2010)
Since then, the KLM has grown into an annual
event - a thematic, government-sponsored policy
forum with active participation by community
representatives as well as policy makers. As Sana
Jatta, the Philippines CPM puts it:
The KLM has transformed from an IFAD event where
we invited the policy makers to take part in it; now
it's the other way round - it's a government event
and we are one of the participants (2010).

13
 KNOWLEDGE FACILITATORS GROUP
The social network analysis The maps generated are
By 2008, ENRAP looked like an active, thriving based on members'
feedback on their
network. People were bonding around themes, and frequency of interactions
surveys and reports indicated that the networks and the nature of these
were growing. Many had lauded the quality of interactions. The entire
relationships that had developed among the survey was conducted in
network members and the team spirit it had created English, and to that
extent the maps are not
among the project staff and partners in the region.
indicative of the
I think what ENRAP needs to be really proud of is the interactions of those
strength of its relationships. There's really a strong members who were not
feeling of trust which has been built and that comfortable with the use
of the English language
becomes apparent even to those outside of IFAD - as many of them did not
they can see the bond that has been built (Hartman, participate in the survey.
2010).
GENDER ISSUES GROUP
Yet, no mechanism had been employed to
objectively assess the strength, density and nature
of connectivity between the network members, and
the degree of centrality that could be attributed to
some of the members. An exercise in mapping the
network that was capable of multiple levels of
analysis - as well as visual representation - was
first carried out in 2008, followed by another in
2010 for a comparative analysis. Apoorva Mishra at
ENRAP, who worked closely with the survey team,
touches on the objectives of the mapping exercise:
The purpose of the SNA (social network analysis)
was to track the evolution of the network. It's staff member, who reaches out to the other
indicative of how people are bonding and their members of the group. This is not yet a well
relationships. Since 2008, the network has grown connected group, but one can imagine how it could
and people tend to bond around thematic issues, or evolve as more work is put into facilitating this
operational concerns that involve their everyday thematic group.
work, like M & E or knowledge management (2010). The SNA was a powerful management tool, and
The following two maps from the 2010 survey one of the most significant milestones in ENRAP's
demonstrate one of the many uses that the SNA evolution. After the first mapping and survey in
results can be put to. The map on top shows the 2008, a number of remedial steps were put into
knowledge facilitators group, a group that has been action for the improvement of the network, as well
the focus of a lot of ENRAP activities, as the lead its sustainability. The SNA also helped
knowledge focal points in their countries and communicate to the IFAD management the
having a number of opportunities to meet at dynamics and significance of the network
regional workshops. The map shows that it is a relationships.
highly connected group. The map of people who One of the challenges we faced was the lack of
are specializing in gender issues appears below. engagement by some of the CPMs with the network.
This is a group that has been emerging over the A social network analysis makes the network
past year or so. One can see that one of the key tangible for the CPMs, helps them to know what the
connectors in this group, Laura Puletti is an IFAD network is all about. It made them say - 'I did not

14
realise that my projects are talking to projects in
another country', or that 'my CPO was so popular
that his advice is sought by other CPOs on
management and implementation issues'. After the
network analysis findings were shared with them, it
made a significant impact on many CPMs who were
then much more convinced about the value of the
network (Kala, 2010).
Research into ICTs for rural livelihoods
In the second phase of ENRAP, we were not able to
do much work on innovations that would help
communities to directly access & share knowledge.
So, in the third phase, we thought we needed to do
something more specific on the benefits of
leveraging ICTs for communities. There is not much
validated information on how ICT innovations work
towards enhancement of rural livelihoods. The
intention of this action research relates directly to
the overall objective of the project - to improve
knowledge sharing for poverty reduction (Kala, 2010).
In 2007, ENRAP commissioned two scoping studies,
in South and Southeast Asia, to determine the
impact different ICT innovations can have on rural
livelihoods. These studies reviewed the existing
knowledge that was available on the subject - why
the rural poor need ICTs, how they could improve
livelihoods, what case studies were available and
what factors determined the success of these
interventions. On the basis of the findings of the
scoping studies, ENRAP commissioned seven In the third phase, we
research studies - three evaluations of publicly needed to do
funded ICT initiatives, and four action research something more
projects. The studies focused both on agriculture-
specific on the
based livelihoods and on those that were relevant
benefits of
to the landless and the unemployed, who were
leveraging ICTs for
dependent on wage labour and who offered non-
agricultural skills. The findings established the communities. The
potential of ICTs in rural livelihoods, particularly intention of this
action research
the potential of mobile telephony. The studies
relates directly to the
found that casual workers were able to expand
overall objective of
their markets and chose to do more remunerative
work and farmers could improve their production the project - to
methods, and get more timely information on price improve knowledge
trends. For both, incomes went up significantly. sharing for poverty
The studies also explored the question of reduction
sustainability of these ICT interventions: were the - Shalini Kala
farmers and the rural unemployed willing to pay
for these services?
We found communities and contexts that were very
similar to the IFAD projects. We were very particular
that the research was done in real locations, real
situations where the actors - the companies that
run mobile telephony services, for example, or the
research organisations - are intending to take this
forward. There is a very high chance of these
innovations being upscaled and made sustainable.
The methodology of research and the parameters
have been established and tried out (Kala, 2010).
Photo: Pankaj H Gupta
15
In fact, these research outputs have a great deal of
relevance not only for IFAD projects, but also for all
the development agencies working for poverty
reduction in the developing world.
The research examined the question if ICTs have a
direct role to play in livelihood enhancement. We
are increasingly looking at how the poor can use
mobile phones to deal with information asymmetry,
at the marketplace for example. And I think it's still
an open case...mobile penetration in the rural areas
will have a great deal of socio-economic impact on
communities, but how we are able to measure that
impact will be a challenge for organisations like
IDRC. Research will provide larger evidence for
scaling up or otherwise to agencies like the IFAD. It
will also help the private sector to decide to diffuse
the activity and expand connectivity in the rural
areas...IDRC's role is to see if the expense on mobile
telephony is beneficial to the poor or a burden
(Sayo, 2010).
The research on ICTs for rural livelihoods was the
last of the activities of the third and final phase.
The partnership between IDRC and IFAD that was
christened as ENRAP in 1998 came to an end in
September 2010. And while ENRAP as a project has
formally closed, what remains is the network of
relationships and connections that were forged
over a decade. It is this network - now facilitated
by IFAD - that will continue to be sustained and
expanded, by people as committed as ever to
helping remote communities to overcome poverty.
16
The SNA map above shows what would happen to the network in the absence of members from the
IFAD headquarters, the ENRAP facilitation group at IDRC and the CPOs. The map shows that despite
the absence of these central movers of information, there would still be an active network, and
nobody would get completely disconnected. It demonstrates a healthy state of the network. A scenario
like this indicates the level of autonomy the network members enjoy in information flows, free of
hierarchy; it is also useful in predicting the sustainability of the network beyond facilitation by IDRC.

17
 BUILDING CAPACITIES

KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION
Before knowledge can be shared, it needs to be transformed into a shareable form or a product.
This process of knowledge production - be it writing or researching and analysing or making
videos - requires to be learned. Responding to this need, ENRAP conducted a number of capacity
building workshops that enhanced the abilities of project and partner staff in documentation.

DIGITAL VIDEO
Many barriers that knowledge
sharing faces in the region - diverse
languages, inadequate literacy skills
- are overcome with a visual
medium like the video. Video lends
itself well to the oral storytelling
culture prevalent in the region, and
is capable of emotion, empathy and
engagement. This exciting medium
was much in demand, and ENRAP
helped organise more than a dozen
workshops in projects in several
countries. Many of the people
trained continue to use this medium
for project documentation.
WRITESHOPS
All project and partner staff, during
implementation, often witness interesting
developments and experiences that could
be invaluable to others. But many lacked
the necessary skills to write engagingly of
these experiences. ENRAP organised
several write-shops in Laos, the
Philippines, India, Nepal, Vietnam and
Pakistan to enable the participants to
write a range of material and qualitative
reports. A write-shops manual was also
developed as a resource for facilitators.
FOSTERING NETWORKS
AND LINKS
ENRAP promoted both face-to-face and electronic
sharing to foster networking. Though personal
gatherings require substantial investments in time
and money, it's often the best way to cement bonds
between members of a potential network, who can
then continue being in touch electronically. This
included national experience-sharing meetings;
exposure visits; and country knowledge facilitator
mechanisms to support national coordination of
networks. These were supplemented with a range of
electronic sharing platforms: national, regional and
thematic e-discussion and e-mailing lists; e-bulletins
and newsletters; bilingual national websites, and
making available a range of documents and other
resources through the ENRAP website.

KNOWLEDGE SHARING TRAINING WORKSHOPS

In order to mainstream knowledge sharing, ENRAP initiated a process of devising a set of knowledge-sharing methods
and tools for wider diffusion at the project level. These tools and methods were first tried and tested on the field, and
then validated. This process finally evolved into a publication, Knowledge Sharing Methods & Tools: A Facilitator's Guide.
Knowledge facilitators now use the guide to run workshops and connect project staff and partners with knowledge
sharing functions. Elements of these workshops include an overview of the elements of KS & KM in the IFAD context;
capturing and disseminating lessons learnt, and sharing of case studies, best practices and change stories.
18
Photo credits, clockwise: 1. LIRNEasia, 2 - 4. IFAD Philippines
 RESOURCE MATERIAL FOR CAPACITY BUILDING
ENRAP has produced/sponsored the production of several capacity building resources to help
projects to upgrade. These include a facilitator's guide to knowledge-sharing methods and tools;
A guide to organising writeshops, with writeshop case studies from outside the IFAD networks.
The interactive ENRAP website also offers a platform for sharing and exchange, as well as access to
a range of documents: workshop reports, training manuals, relevant articles, reports by consultants,
policy documents, links to other networks, archives of e-discussions and links to blogs.

1
SYSTEMATIZATION
Project and partner staff regularly produce quantitative monitoring reports. But the reporting
systems lack qualitative accounts that describe how and why some things work well while others
go wrong. Systematization offers an evaluative technique that is analytical, field-based and
participatory, and is eminently suitable as an experience-sharing tool in projects like IFAD. ENRAP
introduced systematization through demonstration exercises in some of the projects in India, the
Philippines, and China. The systematization reports produced during these exercises were
repackaged into other products like videos, booklets and presentations.

INNOVATIVE USE OF ICTs

With communication technologies becoming rapidly affordable, there
is a huge opportunity to leverage ICT innovations into poverty
alleviation programmes. ENRAP promoted demonstration experiments
with innovative uses of ICTs that could facilitate lateral learning,
critical information access and livelihood expansion. This included
commissioning of action and evaluative research in China, Sri Lanka,
India and the Philippines. ENRAP also supported experiments in
community radio and helped set up village telecentres.
3

CONNECTIVITY KNOWLEDGE SHARING

The primary task for ENRAP was fostering a culture of
A 'minimum connectivity' being essential for any electronic sharing,
sharing and networking among projects - within and across
ENRAP supported many requests for facilitating Internet
national borders. But networking wasn't easy, given far-
connectivity; particularly from IFAD project management units
flung locations and with electronic connectivity being a snag
located in remote, isolated areas. Often, this took the form of
in many projects. ENRAP began by fostering networks of
feasibility studies on the connectivity needs of projects and
communities that could be geographically or thematically
possible solutions, with a view to catalysing partner governments
linked and helping projects resolve their connectivity
to invest in connectivity. Brief interactive training sessions were
problems. With improved connectivity, ENRAP's focus shifted
also rolled out to acquaint project staff and partners with
to innovative use of affordable technologies to expand
connectivity options and alternatives and with skills to use ICTs.
livelihood options for the rural communities.

Photo credits from top: 1. IFAD Philippines 2. Pankaj H Gupta 3. LIRNEasia

19
Scripting a success story:
Knowledge networking in the Philippines
The narrative of IFAD projects in the Philippines is significant for our understanding of the evolution of a network and what
potential it has in knowledge sharing and its subsequent impact on project efficacy. Looking at the steps along the way will
also help us to understand what factors enable the fostering of such a network, as well as the role an external, specialised
agency like ENRAP can play in achieving that success.

An ongoing network is essential to any meaningful
exchange of ideas and information and is necessary
to sustain the gains from face-to-face visits or
other contact. The establishment of an informal
network, i.e. linking up people with similar
interests, was an integral part of the development
strategy in IFAD projects in the Philippines, that
began with a consultative process and went on to
invest in exchange visits, documentation and
organising an annual knowledge sharing event. The
informal network in the Philippines consists of a
core of 60 active individuals and 13 institutions,
mainly from the projects, partner staff, and line
agencies. They also include past staff members who
have moved to other jobs. Another 60 to 100
individuals, from the provinces, with limited net
access, link up occasionally by email with the core
network. They are usually individuals who have had
face-to-face contact during workshops or
exchange visits. Much of the facilitation work to
sustain the network is done by the IFAD country
office in Manila, but there are multi-focal points in
the network and ENRAP has played an important
role in fostering the network (Quizon, 2009).
Photo: GMB Akash

20

In the trajectory of IFAD projects in the Philippines
that began in 1978, many people consider 2004 to
be a breakthrough year, when the first national,
multi-stakeholder meeting of project directors,
M & E officers, implementing partners and desk
officers of government line agencies was held.
Though IFAD had consistently supported rural
poverty alleviation projects for over two decades,
the managers of these projects - leave alone the
other actors - had never communicated with each
other and, in fact, were not even aware that other
IFAD projects existed in the country. This meeting
was the first event that ENRAP had supported in
the Philippines, and it triggered off a revolution of
sorts in networking and knowledge sharing in the
country's IFAD operations. The meeting became an
annual affair, to be hosted in rotation by each of
the three ongoing projects in the country, and
acquired a thematic focus around which knowledge
sharing revolved. It was eventually to transform
into the Knowledge & Learning Market (KLM) - an
annual event hosted each year from 2007 onwards
at Manila.
The beginning of a consultative process
Though IFAD had supported projects in the
Philippines since 1978, the style of implementation
changed dramatically in 1998, with the Western
Mindanao Community Initiatives Project (WMCIP).
"There was a two month consultative process even
before the project was approved. Nearly a hundred
people representing many stakeholders
participated in the project design. So, in a way, the
project was already running even before it started!
This participatory approach that was fostered right
from the beginning helped knowledge networking
Photo: GMB Akash
too" says Tony Quizon, a consultant to IFAD in the
Philippines. By ensuring the participation of
diverse stakeholders right at the start, there was a
much wider sense of ownership of the project. The
principal stakeholders - project staff and director,
implementing partners, civil society organisations, Many people
desk officers of the line agencies, and CBOs consider 2004 to be
representing the communities - who had played a a breakthrough year,
part in designing the project continued to when the first
participate and exchange ideas and knowledge national, multi-
with each other at various stages of the stakeholder meeting
implementation. This was to serve the project well of project directors,
in the years to come and laid the foundation for a M & E officers,
collaborative work culture in the Filipino IFAD implementing
projects and for exchange of ideas and knowledge partners and desk
between stakeholders. This culture of exchange got officers of
a major boost with the first multi-stakeholder government line
meet of 2004. agencies was held
School-on-Air
One of the ways to disseminate the CHARM best practice
documentation was through the medium of radio. Modules
of curriculum on sustainable agriculture, natural resource
management and rural infrastructure development were
designed and broadcast in two local radio stations in two
provinces of Cordillera highlands over a period of three
months, twice a week. To make the broadcasts more
interactive, those farmers who enrolled and participated
were given graduation certificates. This motivated several
farmers to register for the course and participate in the radio
programme. A total of 93 farmers received certificates in the
first batch, but of course, the audience was much larger.
21
Networking and Knowledge sharing
initiatives in the Philippines
Knowledge & Learning Market (KLM):
Bashu Aryal, CPO Nepal visited the KLM in Philippines in
Since the purpose of meeting people from other 2008. It was an eye opener for him. "In the KLM, every
projects and other stakeholders was primarily to project was presenting their experiences and as Philippines
exchange ideas, innovations and knowledge, this is a very fragmented country, it was a good opportunity to
annual meeting was reformatted as the learn from each other. They were able to come together,
"Knowledge & Learning Market" (KLM) from 2007 discuss issues, share learnings. I noticed that the people
onwards, and the profiles of those participating in were active in trying to share their experiences, to present
it have since diversified. Each KLM is organised what they had done. That is very different from Nepal. In
around a particular theme like food security, my country, people will not be that much willing to
climate change adaptation or microfinance, and express or publicise what people are doing.
features exhibits, product displays, interactive
workshops, testimonies and cultural performances I also noticed that while Lando (the CPO) was leading it,
- but most of all, face to face communication. organising it, all the project people were also actively
A particular emphasis in each KLM has been to participating in it. In my view, this motivation has been
focus on community initiatives, with direct institutionalised. This will continue whether there will be
participation by community representatives who ENRAP or whether there will be support from the CPM.
come and present their own stories. Concurrently, Photos: IFAD Philippines
the KLM has also attempted to extend the reach of
its networking by collaborating with a pan-Asian
CSO each time - like the Asian Council for People's
Culture in 2007, the Asian Farmers Alliance in
2008, the Asian NGO coalition in 2009 and the
RP-Japan in 2010. The KLM has thus become the
central, collaborative networking and knowledge
sharing event of IFAD projects, other international
development agencies, relevant government
departments and community based organisations
in the Philippines.
But it's not just the KLM that sustains and
nurtures the knowledge sharing strategy of IFAD in
the Philippines. Ongoing, year-round activities that
have been mainstreamed with project
implementation keep up the momentum. This
knowledge production takes months of systematic
work. And the foremost method of knowledge
production is documentation.

22
Systematization & Documentation:
ENRAP has supported a number of documentation
initiatives among the projects in the Philippines.
These include:
n2005 Documentation of best practices: This
was drawn from the CHARM project and created
several knowledge products: a radio programme on
sustainable agriculture (School-on-Air) and five
videos. Overall, 40 cases were documented. The
CHARM documentation was the result of a write-
shop for 25 participants drawn from implementing
agencies and LGUs, and project staff.
n2006 Write-shop: Nearly 50 project
stakeholders met over three days and shared 31
'best practice' cases. These were put together into a
booklet and CD for further sharing.
n2006 Video training workshop: NMCIREMP
hosted it with the participation of 15 project, LGU,
NGO and DAR staff, producing 5 videos.
n2007 Training session for technicians: 17 local
government agricultural technicians came up with
11 reports on indigenous knowledge systems in
highland rice.
n2007 Systematization: NMCIREMP undertook a
major systematization exercise lasting for 10 days.
Again, the participation in this exercise was multi-
stakeholder. Five reports were produced, each
studying a specific element of project element.
n2009 Voices from the field: Documentation and
write-shop at the national level. 25 stories written
during the workshop and published for wider
dissemination.
A unique feature, common to all the
documentation exercises in the Philippines, was
that the participants were so diverse! The
documentation workshops were not the exclusive
domain of the project and implementing partner
staff but also pulled in representatives from the
focal government department (DAR) and local
government units (LGUs), as well as community
based organisations. The stakeholders have
expressed appreciation that these workshops are
not just sites of skills and training but have evolved
into hubs of conviviality and bonding. This kind of
positive networking has fruitful, long-term
implications for the success of the project.
Exchange Visits:
ENRAP supported many inter-project and inter-
country cross-exchange visits. At the regional level,
project directors and M & E staff of Filipino
projects were encouraged to participate as
facilitators and resource-persons at regional
trainings. This gave them an opportunity to test out
their ideas and "validate their own experience,
broaden their awareness of the issues faced in
other countries and learn about new development
approaches" (Quizon, 2009). Experience-sharing at
the inter-project levels was considered invaluable
too, as PMOs regularly sought help from other IFAD
projects on various aspects of project management.
Newer projects actively sought to learn from the
more experienced projects, especially in designing
and establishing M & E systems, in sourcing
manuals, in learning how to initiate and implement
partnerships with government and non-
government actors, in seeking technical knowledge
about agriculture and NRM. ENRAP also facilitated
electronic discussions among the wider Filipino
community.
23
Indicators of success in knowledge sharing and partner staff in the
and networking in IFAD Philippines Philippines are a highly
There were specific impacts of the KS and connected lot. The map
networking activities. One of the systematization shows direct interactions
reports that worked out a methodology of between the project and
formulating an ancestral domain sustainable partner staff and the CPM
development plan, was adopted as a law at the (Sana Jatta), the CPO
national level, and that benefited all the (Yolando Arban) as well as
indigenous communities of the country (Quizon, the government focal
2007). Another best practice documentation on officer in DAR (Susan
fish sanctuaries was adopted as a model both by Perez). It shows that there are
the local government and the agricultural research no central movers of information,
establishment, and brought national level and there is direct and multi-stakeholder
recognition to the community that formulated the interactions, across hierarchies.
technology, even as the best practice The single most celebrated success in the
documentation by the CHARM project was Philippines network has been the establishment of
adapted into a radio program, 'School-on-Air'. KLM as an annual event. As a face-to-face meeting
The SNA map to the right shows that the projects ground for a number of diverse stakeholders, the
Photo: GMB Akash

24
KLMs foster a culture of not just knowledge
sharing, but also of cooperation among the
participants. For example, the forum offers instant
prospects for a policy dialogue, as the government
policy makers are present at the KLM, as are the
management representatives of the projects. It also
gives communities an opportunity to showcase
their achievements and to test out their
experiences. And of course, it provides the project
staff with a platform to exchange ideas and
information and to enlarge their awareness about
developments outside their own project areas.
But the achievements and impact of the Philippines
KS efforts went deeper and further than these
successes. In an assessment done by independent
consultant Tony Quizon in 2009, the following
impacts are listed:
nFostering a culture of learning and sharing
among the project staff, partners and government
departments.
nProviding functional knowledge about
implementation issues - how to coordinate with
the government departments, how to set up M & E
systems, technical information on agriculture, trade
and markets.
nProviding models of success (in the form of best
practice documentation) that could be analysed
and scaled up in other projects.
nSustaining a demand-driven network.
The enabling factors
The following emerge as the most critical factors in
creating an enabling environment for the
successful evolution of a dynamic knowledge
network in the Philippines:
1. Support of IFAD Headquarters: Bashu Aryal
feels that the most critical factor is the support of
the CPM, as "the resources are at the disposal of
the CPM. If your CPM is not supportive, then
however motivated or strong the local leadership, it
does not matter" (2010). Sana Jatta, the CPM in
the IFAD headquarters, believes that projects need
professional autonomy:
We were keen to facilitate them. From my point of
view, we gave them the means, and left them to do
it themselves, not try to interfere or direct them one
way or the other and let them work together as a
group (2010).
2. Motivation of the CPO and project and partner
staff: However, Bashu who visited the KLM in
2008, admits that the quality of motivation and
competencies of the staff also matters:
"Yolando (the CPO) is also an active sort of person,
and in addition, the project people were also very
active and enthusiastic to participate and share."
(2010).
Sana Jatta too considers this an important factor
when he says that "When we established the CPO
in 2007, we encouraged a group formation, and we
were lucky to have Yolando Arban leading from
there. He is good at managing people, encourages
people to work together. The whole team has
certain competencies which helped." (2010)
3. Government support: The Philippines projects
work closely with the local and national
governments. In fact a focal officer in the
Department of Agricultural Reform (DAR) is
exclusively responsible for all IFAD operations in
the country.
"I also noticed that the agriculture secretary -
effectively the agriculture minister of the
Philippines - spent the whole day at the KLM and
participated in events. In the South Asia context, it
is unheard of for ministers to take so much interest.
Besides, Philippines has one focal agency (DAR) that
looks after all the IFAD projects in the country. This
does not happen in Nepal or India." (Aryal, 2010)
4. Institutional support for knowledge sharing and
networking: a specialised agency like ENRAP
provided critical skills, intellectual and financial
support to the knowledge sharing and networking
activities. ENRAP supported connectivity and
infrastructure issues, helped set up a Regional
Information Centre, supported national-level multi-
stakeholder annual meetings that were to eventually
turn into the KLM, and also conducted several
write-shops, video training workshops and
“I am both inside and
outside the egg!”
When asked about the factors
that helped make the
knowledge network a success in
the Philippines IFAD projects,
Yolando Arban, CPO, narrates
this story:
“A farmer once asked me – what
makes an egg hatch? So I said,
the warmth, the incubation. He
said no, that’s not enough. If the
chick does not poke the shell, it
cannot go out of the shell.
So, it’s a combination of internal
and external factors that makes
an egg hatch. Internally, there
should be a desire to learn and
share. Secondly, there should be
champions to really promote
knowledge learning and
sharing. I would say those are
the knowledge facilitators.
Third, there should be resources
that will help engage to learn
and share. Lastly, there should
be an enabling environment.
Since we had these factors
working for us, putting together
a knowledge network was not
so difficult”.
When asked about his role –
was he outside the egg or inside
– he laughed and replied, “Both
inside and outside!”
25
systematization exercises (Quizon, 2009). Sana
Jatta too acknowledges the role of ENRAP as a
catalyst:
"Of course, ENRAP was the facilitator, the oil if you
like. They provided the funding, and training to the
team to work around certain themes, put a
framework around which you could gather, and
equipped the team to work together as a team, as a
group." (Jatta, 2010)
5. Diverse stakeholders working together as a
team: The work culture in the Philippines displays a
distinct penchant for bringing together all
stakeholders at each stage of the project, and at
every workshop or training or event or decision
making process. Working together with different
stakeholders means that it becomes easy to link up
with people you have already met or known
through an existing network. In the Philippines, this
helped in channels of communication being always
open between the project and the government and
technical institutes. Thus, policy dialogue was
easier, and getting government cooperation in
implementation was greatly facilitated as were the
information flows between scientific institutions
and the communities.
6. Thematic commonalities between projects:
Projects had common implementation issues in the
Philippines, as most of them were NRM and area
based projects, shared similar characteristics of
poverty, and a project design that encouraged
community initiatives. Sharing of knowledge
became all the more urgent and useful given these
commonalities.
7. The project design itself: Quizon, who
conducted an extensive assessment of the
Philippines knowledge network in 2009, attributes
the success to project design.
The very design of the project creates a need for
knowledge sharing and information at the
community level. In case of the Western Mindanao
project, the programme is based on the community's
initiative. The community had to propose projects
that would expand livelihood options for them.
Because of this, there is demand from below, for the
communities to see what other communities are
doing, what kind of projects the others are
proposing. Communities want to know what other
livelihood options are possible. Many times I have
seen communities have searched for information on
their own (2010).
Photo: GMB Akash
26
The Legacy of ENRAP
Ronald Hartman, Country Programme Manager,
IFAD
Contrary to what others may think, the
information technology infrastructure is not
going to be the longest lasting impact of
ENRAP, it's going to be the social networks and
the professional networks that have been
developed...for me, the biggest take home from
ENRAP has been the personal relationships it
has facilitated, between our division, between
our partners in the field, between all the other
stakeholders
Sana Jatta, Country Programme Manager, IFAD
ENRAP was the facilitator, the oil if you like, of
the knowledge sharing initiative in the
Philippines projects. They provided the funding,
training for the team to work around certain
themes and provided a framework around which
you could gather. They provided the know-how
to work together as a group, as a team
feel that they are very much closer to each
other and we also have ties between countries.
Sharing and learning has very much been
enhanced. I cannot imagine whether we could
have status that we have today without ENRAP
Atsuko Toda, Country Programme Manager, IFAD
I think knowledge management is extremely
important. In Vietnam, we have a KM plan
where we work with policy makers, organise
face to face workshops, publish quarterly
newsletters, have a country-specific
website...ENRAP has organised trainings that
have helped us to do all that
Yolando Arban, Country Presence Officer-
the Philippines, IFAD
ENRAP brought us together, ENRAP developed
our competencies. In the Philippines, even if
you go to the remotest project area or local
government unit, and speak to the
communities, they will say ENRAP. I think
that's the best evidence that the legacy of
Ganesh Thapa, Regional Economist - ENRAP will stay. It's a legacy that is still
Asia Pacific Division, IFAD remembered, because it is felt
ENRAP has been instrumental in promoting
experience-sharing among projects across
countries. I think ENRAP did a good job of
promoting knowledge sharing and capacity
building. IFAD should continue this kind of
work in the future
Dagva Dalantainyam, Director, Rural Poverty
Reduction Programme, Mongolia, IFAD
We have learnt a lot from our interactions with
ENRAP. It was a good opportunity to work with
Yinhong Sun, Country Presence Officer - the ENRAP team who helped us in
China, IFAD disseminating our accumulated knowledge and
information to the communities. We now know
Last couple of years I clearly feel that ENRAP
that when a new project starts, it is wise to
has added a lot of energy to the IFAD
include knowledge sharing in the project design
programme by linking/building up the country
and the regional networks. The project staff
27
Bashu Aryal, Country Presence Officer- Susan Perez, DAR, Government of Philippines,
Nepal, IFAD. the Philippines
Lucie Lamoureux, Facilitator and KM Trainer,
ENRAP provided critical support for our KM4D Associates We have to give credit to ENRAP as an
knowledge management initiatives at two institution to make all these achievements in
What I find really interesting about ENRAP is knowledge sharing (in the Philippines IFAD
levels: at the project level, they supported
the progression it has made from the early projects) possible. We started small and
trainings and capacity building programmes.
days when it was trying to put all knowledge reached this far. Without ENRAP as the focal
Notable ones were the digital video
into a database to the realisation that a institution, I don't think we could have reached
documentation, where they brought together
network is about people and putting these this far. After ENRAP, I hope that IFAD can
staff from different projects for practical
people in touch to share, to meet, to exchange. institutionalise this kind of mechanism in
training in video, and writing and presentation
I feel that ENRAP came on its own in the knowledge sharing among IFAD Asia-Pacific
skills workshops. At the national level, ENRAP
second phase through all the activities, projects
trained trainers in systematization, created
workshops. It's added a great deal of
gender and KM focal points. And from 2005
networking - it's a good network and I know it
onwards they supported the annual national-
will continue beyond the actual funding of
level meetings. Their support has been
ENRAP
invaluable

Vincent Darlong, Country Presence Officer -

India, IFAD
Our real challenge is - how to build the
Shalini Kala, Coordinator, ENRAP-IDRC Jose Roi Avena, DTI, Government of Philippines, capacities of the communities to improve their
the Philippines ability to access the right information at the
For me ENRAP demonstrates the power of
I think the first impact of ENRAP in the right time. ENRAP has shown us what to do to
small efforts that can trigger unimaginable
Philippines could be summed up in the achieve that, and how to do it. They have
change; change that may be hard to even
comment of the Project Director of CHARM, trained our staff in how to capture knowledge
track. And I think that is the character of
when he said during the first ever national and what kind of knowledge to capture...some
knowledge; sharing it and making it flow
meeting of all IFAD projects in the Philippines of the documents and videos that we produced
better and faster is life-changing in more ways
organised by ENRAP - that he did not know with ENRAP support have been useful for
than one. Nurturing networks to enable
that other IFAD projects existed in the country! policy change. In fact, the decision to scale up
practice find the platform to interact with
Because of that meeting, we were able to meet the NERCRMP was due to the systematization
research and expertise is seen to be helping
improve poverty reduction outcomes. For NGOs, other project staff...because of the documentation done with ENRAP support
reasons like this, it has been a privilege to be opportunities provided by ENRAP
part of the ENRAP journey

28

Phet Sayo, Senior Programme Officer,
PAN Asia Network, IDRC
I think ENRAP's been highly successful. It's been
following the evolution of all the trends in the
communications and networking technologies.
IFAD should consider operationalising a lot of
the networking activities of ENRAP and should
start thinking about mainstreaming ICTs for
livelihoods enhancement and understanding
how a networked society may or may not
benefit the rural poor
Apoorva Mishra, Research Officer, ENRAP-IDRC
ENRAP's is a story of a group's self-awareness
and recognition of being part of a network. It's
been fulfilling to see how people have
connected with each other despite the
boundaries of languages, remoteness and
diverse perspectives. The road has not always
been smooth but as people find each other in a
peer group, exchange experiences and practical
knowledge, they build relationships that will
carry forward. What ENRAP leaves behind is a
network which we hope can be leveraged and
strengthened even further as IFAD takes over
the network facilitation
Chase Palmeri, Knowledge Facilitator -
Asia Pacific Division, IFAD
In the field, people feel the impact of the
ENRAP network. It looks like IFAD has got
better in how it works, and what it does. It's
changed in the way it works. It's changed
because ENRAP was working behind the
scenes. It's almost like a grassroots movement
which has percolated up
Laurent Elder, Programme Leader,
PAN Asia Network, IDRC
Many donors fund the development of new
seeds, agricultural extension work, irrigation
programs or loans for farmers, but very few
support the complex activities that are, most
often, the unsung heroes of agricultural
development. Knowledge sharing, learning,
capacity building are the grease that makes the
wheels of agriculture keep turning smoothly.
ENRAP, for over a decade, was an essential part
of greasing those wheels in emerging economies
of Asia. Fortunately IFAD and IDRC had the
foresight to support and manage this type of
activity for three phases. ENRAP would not have
succeeded as well if it had not been for the
myriad staff that guaranteed it was always on
top of things: Apoorva Mishra, Sucheta Rawat
and Shalini Kala amongst others.
29
Epilogue
Glance at the programme of the Asia-
Pacific Annual Performance review event
held in November 2010, and one cannot
help but notice the predominance of
learning and knowledge events in the
three-day workshop. Out of the 38 thematic
sessions, eight were exclusively knowledge
management events. This is symbolic of
how knowledge management has taken
centrestage in IFAD project management.
This is a long way from 2007 when it had
emphatically stated in its strategy for
knowledge management that it was not a
knowledge institution, but a financial one
(IFAD, 2007).
The previous pages have narrated the
process of fostering a network of
knowledge sharing among a range of
stakeholders - a process that involved
countless capacity building workshops,
experiments with innovative methods of
knowledge sharing, and managing the
limited resources to derive maximum
benefits. The result of these efforts is a
vibrant, focused network. But as the
partnership comes to an end, the question
is: will the energy of the network continue
Photo: IFAD, China
to grow and enrich the efforts of IFAD in
alleviating poverty in the region? Or will the
dependency on the network facilitation
team make the transition difficult? There
are no easy answers to that. Shalini Kala,
who was the coordinator of the network for
eight years, believes that:
In countries where it has attained a certain
momentum, it'll continue to grow on its
own. People will find ways of continuing to
collaborate in useful ways. In any case, the
financial dependence on ENRAP was very
limited. Look at Philippines - they are
continuing with KLM with government
support. But in case of countries where the
networks are not so mature - as with some
countries who only joined in the third phase
- things may slow down a bit. At the country
level there are now systems in place - they
meet at the national level, they have KS
strategies and plans, KM has been
integrated with their annual plan budgets -
all this makes them independent. But
regionally, there may be fewer opportunities
for exchanges. This is something IFAD should
provide for (2010).
A number of strategies were employed to
make the network somewhat independent.
One was that ENRAP was inspired by
purpose and vision, rather than being
resource-led. All activities supported by
ENRAP required a significant contribution
from the project. Secondly, a conscious
attempt was made to avoid the centrality of
the network facilitator in the information
flows. Instead, what was encouraged was
more autonomous, lateral exchange of
information. When the network mapping
done in 2008 showed a dependency on
ENRAP facilitation, a conscious attempt
was made to correct this - and by 2010, this
dependency had been moved to IFAD. Most
importantly, as Renald Lafond, who helped
shape the vision for ENRAP, points out:
Some other networks facilitators do all the
work of knowledge management themselves
- at ENRAP we thought it was better to show
projects and partner staff how they could do
it, and let them do the work. This way, we did
not create dependency (2011).
What ENRAP leaves behind is not only a
thriving network of people who will engage
with each other to achieve their common
goal of poverty reduction, but a rich
repertoire of ways and means of sharing
knowledge - methodologies that help in
improving information access for
communities, and in measuring and
improving the impact of that access to
make it truly effective in poverty reduction.
We are hoping that these two components -
the ICTs for rural livelihoods research and
the social network analysis - would enrich
IFAD's thinking, one as a tool for networking
and the other for expanding livelihood
opportunities. The major lesson I take away
from this third phase of ENRAP is that IFAD
should consider operationalising a lot of the
network activities that have been initiated
by ENRAP. ENRAP's role was to support
networking within the IFAD structure and I
think to that extent there have been major
successes. Knowledge sharing and
knowledge management are major
challenges for any large organisation.
I believe IFAD should incorporate these into
their usual way of doing business and that
internalisation of knowledge sharing is
already happening. If anything, IFAD should
start thinking about investments in ICTs and
livelihoods, and understanding how a
networked society may - or may not -
benefit the rural poor (Sayo, 2010).
Ultimately, the fundamental purpose of
such networks is "to contribute to
development and to shift the overall
balance of forces in favor of the poor"
(Eade, 1997). The story of ENRAP has
illustrated how this was done, and how it
can be done in the future.
30
References
Agrawal, A. (2005) Environmentality: technologies of government and the
making of subjects. Durham: N.C. Duke Press.
Arban, Y. (2010) Interviewed by the author at the IFAD Asia Pacific
Review, Nanning, on November 2
Aryal, B. (2010) Interviewed by the author at the IFAD Asia Pacific
Review, Nanning, on November 5.
Choudhury, D. (2010) Interviewed by the author at the IFAD Asia Pacific
Review, Nanning, on November 3.
Corbridge, S. (1995) Development Studies: a reader London: Arnold
Corbridge, S., Jewitt, S., Kumar, S. (2004) Jharkhand: environment,
development, ethnicity New Delhi: Oxford University Press
Darlong, V. (2010) Interviewed by the author at the IFAD Asia Pacific
Review, Nanning, on November 2.
de Silva, H (2008). Draft ICT4RL Research Scoping Report, New Delhi:
International Development Research Centre (unpublished).
Eade, D. (1997) Capacity building: an approach to people centered
development UK: Oxfam.
Ferriera, S.D.M. & Neto, M. (2005) Knowledge management and social
learning: exploring the cognitive dimension of development. Km4dev
journal 1(3) p. 4-17.
Hartman, R. (2010). Interviewed by the author at the IFAD Asia Pacific
Review, Nanning, on November 4.
IDRC (2006) ENRAP II Final Report to IFAD New Delhi: International
Development Research Centre (unpublished)
IFAD (2002) The Rural Poor - Survival or a Better Life? The choice
between destruction of resources and sustainable development. A paper
submitted by IFAD to the World Summit on Sustainable Development
Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August - 4 September 2002
IFAD (2007) IFAD Strategy for knowledge management
Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development [online]
www.enrap.org.in [accessed 30 October 2009]
IFAD (2005) COSOP India Main Report 2006-2010. [online] www.ifad.org
[accessed on 26 October 2010]
IFAD (2010a): The rural poverty portal [online]
http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/web/guest/region/home/tags/asia#sout
hasia [Accessed 19 December 2010]
IFAD (2010b) The rural poverty portal [online]
www.ifad.org/rural/index.htm [accessed on 20 January 2011]
Jatta, S. (2010) Interviewed by the author at the IFAD Asia Pacific Review,
Nanning, on November 3
Kala, S. (2010) Interview with the author, December 6 & 7.
Kala, S. (2011) Telephonic conversation with the author, January 20.
Kay, C. (2009) Development strategies and rural development: exploring
synergies, eradicating poverty The Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (1) pp 103-137
Lafond, R. (2010) Telephonic Interview with the author, December 20
Lafond, R. (2011) Telephonic interview with the author, January 19.
Lewis W. (2004) The Power of Productivity, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press
Liang, L. (2009) Access Beyond Developmentalism: Technology and the
Intellectual Life of the Poor in response to A Dialogue on ICTs, Human
Development, Growth, and Poverty Reduction, September 11, 2009. [online]
http://publius.cc/access_beyond_developmentalism_technology_
and_intellectual_life_poor/091109 [Accessed on 14 November 2010]
Mishra, A. (2010) Interview with the author, December 7
Patnaik, U. (2006) Poverty and neo-liberalim in India Rao Bahadur Kale
Memorial Lecture, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune,
February 3. [online] http://www.networkideas.org/featart/jan2007/Neo-
Liberalism.pdf [Accessed on 10 April 2009]
Quizon, A. (2009) Assessment of the Knowledge Network of IFAD Projects &
Partners in the Philippines ENRAP, IDRC Regional Office for South Asia,
New Delhi. (unpublished)
Quizon, A. (2010) Telephonic conversation with the author, October 2010.
Saxena, N.C. (2010) High growth can't hide India's failures Hindustan
Times, November 15, 2010. [online] http://www.hindustantimes.com/
StoryPage/Print/626776.aspx [Accessed on November 16, 2010]
Sayo, P. (2010) Interviewed by the author at IFAD Asia Pacific Annual
review, Nanning, China, 1-5 November, 2010.
Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom New York: Alfred A. Knopf
Schumacher, E.F. (1993) Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if
people mattered London: Vintage Books.
Scoones, I. (2009) Livelihood perspectives and rural development Journal
of Peasant Studies 36 (1) pp 171-196.
Siochrú, S. (2010) Interviewed by the author at the IFAD Asia Pacific
Review, Nanning, on November 4
Thapa, G. (2010) Interviewed by the author at the IFAD Asia Pacific
Review, Nanning, November 2-5.
Valdés, A., Foster, W., Anríquez, G., Azzarri, C., Covarrubias, K., Davis, B.,
DiGiuseppe, S., Essam, T., Hertz, T., Paula de la O, A., Quiñones, E.,
Stamoulis, K., Winters, P., Zezza, A. (2010) A Profile of the Rural Poor
Background paper for IFAD Rural Poverty Report 2010 [online]
www.ifad.org /rural/rpr2010/background/2.pdf [accessed 14 December
2010]
World Bank (2007) World Development Report: agriculture for development
New York: Oxford University Press
31
Acknowledgements:
Many people contributed to the writing and production of
this publication. The following spent time with the author
sharing valuable insights and views during the IFAD Asia-
Pacific Review at Nanning, China in November, 2010: Anuro
Herath, Atsuko Toda, Bashu Aryal, Chase Palmeri, Dagva
Dalantainyam, Dhrupad Choudhury, Ganesh Thapa, Jayantha
Gunasekera, Lucie Lamoureux, Nei Fengyang, Nilakshi de
Silva, Phet Sayo, Ron Hartman, Sana Jatta, Séan Siochrú,
Susan Perez, Sriganesh Lokanathan, Vincent Darlong,
Yinhong Sun and Yolando Arban. Jorge Tarfur, the author
of a wonderful systematization manual, contributed with
his piece on the importance of this participatory
documentation approach; Renald Lafond, associated with
ENRAP since inception, found time to talk to the author
despite having retired several years ago; Tony Quizon
offered many insights that helped a great deal in writing
the chapter on the Philippines. Vivian Azore at the
Philippines IFAD office helped to source photographs. At all
stages, the whole ENRAP unit in IDRC, New Delhi helped
willingly: Sucheta Rawat, Reema Singh Gideon, Apoorva
Mishra, and of course Shalini Kala, who for a lot of IFAD
people working in remote areas is synonymous with ENRAP.

For further information, please contact:

IDRC Ms. Chase Palmeri
South Asia Regional Office Knowledge Management Facilitator, IFAD
208, Jor Bagh, New Delhi 110003. India Via Paolo di Dono, 44, 00142 Rome, Italy.
Tel: 91 11 24619411 Tel: 39-0654591 Email: ch.palmeri@ifad.org
www.idrc.ca / www.crdi.ca

32