Networking and Advocacy

In the last five years, ASE has pursued networking as one of its major functions. As such, it was involved in a total of 19 networks; it even had established a separate unit and charged it with the responsibility of coordinating all its network-related functions. ASE’s involvement in networking during this period had, therefore, shown a marked increase over its involvement prior to the year 2000. The main reason behind this surge in ASE’s involvement was that the Strategic Plan document for the period 2001-06 had criticized ASE’s overall approach to development as being too inward-looking, and no better than navel-gazing, and recommended that ASE be proactively engaged in networks that are pertinent to its mission. The other reason was that in the past five years there was a craze for networks among those NGOs who saw the need for a paradigm shift—from service delivery to community empowerment through advocacy and other means.

ASE considers its active involvement in networking up until the year 2006 to be a positive development. There is, nonetheless, no denying the fact that it took up a lot of its staff’s time—notably that of those at the Head Office—so much so that they did not always have enough time to properly perform their regular duties. The fact that ASE’s regional programme offices were totally excluded from this networking was not a desirable thing, either. The current Strategic Plan will, therefore, focus on the following:

• Reducing the number of the networks that ASE would get involved in;
• Being engaged in selected networks proactively and effectively;
• Encouraging the programme offices to take part in networking activities;
• Creating a strong linkage between the networking and advocacy functions of ASE; and
• Mainstreaming the networking and advocacy functions across all ASE’s departments, units and programme offices.   

To that end, ASE has identified the following.

• Frontline networks:  These are the networks that are highly relevant to ASE’s advocacy work that it plans to undertake systematically and proactively—with the aim of advocating the interests of the poor and marginalised.  ASE will also need to undertake carefully designed research, so as to make its entire advocacy evidence-based. The networks that ASE will want to work with in this regard are the ones in the establishment of which it had a role, besides the fact that it has been serving them in leadership capacities. Such networks as SLUF, PROFIEET and LIFE Net fall under this category. ASE will, moreover, continue to work closely with the CRDA, CS-CAFÉ, PANE, Gender Network (initiated by ActionAid Ethiopia), in light of their relevance to its advocacy work.

• Second-category networks: Those networks that are less relevant to ASE’s functions but once in a while take up agendas that are quite pertinent to its work fall under this category. ASE will work with these networks if it believes its staff can spare the time needed to do so and whenever they advocate an issue of interest to ASE.        

To ASE, advocacy is the process of influencing government policies and practices by providing the Government with evidence-based feedback as well as by piloting new approaches and methods that have added value. Accordingly, in the coming five years, ASE will be advocating the following issues.

• Promoting farmer innovations: The purpose being the recognition by the formal research, extension and education systems of the country of the creativity and innovativeness (indigenous knowledge) of the local people in agriculture and natural resources management (through PROFIEET);

• Productive safety net:  With a view to identifying the drawbacks of the approach in terms of affecting participatory and sustainable development, as well as the traditions, norms and values of the community, as well as the environment (through PANE and SLUF);  

• FTC: Adoption of the participatory learning approach, which considers collective learning, farmers’ research and innovation as core functions of the process—instead of focusing on the linear model of technology transfer (through PROFIEET);

• Poverty issues (PASDEP): Monitoring the level of the community’s satisfaction with the basic services that the Government has been providing it with, and promoting the formulation of pro-poor policies and practices to ensure delivery by the Government of better services (through PANE);

• Environmental issues (land tenure): Doing research to find out exactly how the land tenure and the land use policies of the Government have been affecting sustainable development and the environment (through SLUF);  and

• Creating an enabling environment for NGOs (including NGO legislation):  Creating more space for CSOs in the social, economic and political life of the country, with particular emphasis on the issuance of NGO legislation and GO-NGO communications (through the CRDA).

In order to gain the maximum benefit from networking, ASE has developed a guideline that shows the various procedures to establish, sustain, manage, coordinate, operate, monitor and evaluate networks.