The Role of Civil Society in the Prevention of Armed Conflict An integrated programme of research, discussion and network building

-Issue paper on Understanding Networks-

This issue paper is part of the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict and serves as background material for discussions and further research for the regional meetings and conferences taking place in 2004 and 2005. This paper and other issue papers are also available on the website of the programme [Link]. This paper is available for further distribution and translations, acknowledging that the source is European Centre for Conflict Prevention. Remarks, questions and comments can be mailed to Juliette Verhoeven at the ECCP ([Link]@[Link])

Understanding Networks
By Fulco van Deventer, Independent Consultant, Netherlands

1. Introduction
Networks are emerging quickly. Everywhere. They appear in various forms, from well structured with high-tech features to interrelate its decentralized units to completely loose and informal, hardly visible. They can appear all of a sudden and then disappear as soon as its function is over. In the area of peace building and conflict transformation there is a logic need to connect between people from different areas, backgrounds or ideologies. To bring complex problems into resolving structures that are highly flexible and creative. This makes peace building and Networking so equivalent. Networking is the methodology for peace building. Networks are the tangible crystallizations of the networking processes they entangle and should be studied and understood in order to use them carefully in peace building processes. This chapter will take a closer look at the concept of networks, going beyond the images created by our immediate associations with the word. It will analyze what networks actually are, in what ways they differ from regular organizations, in what forms they occur, and how they have become indispensable to our work. Networks differ in many ways from normal intermediary organizations. It is more difficult to define them as a single unit or entity, because they are made up of a group of entities that are formally or informally linked. These entities, i.e. the members or participants of the networks, can be individuals, parts of organizations, individual organizations or networks themselves. Participation in a network appears to be a voluntary and rational process in which both the participant and the network expect to gain something by making the link. We can define a network as a defined interaction (connection) between autonomous entities (members) that are working toward a common goal, or whose individual interests are better served within a collective structure. A network thus falls between a free relationship on the one hand, with maximum autonomy for the individual entities, and a hierarchical relationship on the other hand, in which the entities have a certain degree of responsibility toward and authority over each other. The members of a network can voluntarily participate, but their participation does have consequences such as less autonomy and investment of time, money and/or knowledge. This definition does not, however, help us make a clear distinction between what is or what is not a network. Networks are becoming a favored organizational form wherever a broad operational field is involved (e.g. where links are being made between different regions, or between grassroot to international levels), where problems or themes are so dynamic that rigid structures are not

The Role of Civil Society in the Prevention of Armed Conflict An integrated programme of research, discussion and network building -Issue paper on Understanding Networks-

suitable, and where loose ties are preferable to formal organizational bonds. All these features are well known in areas of violent conflicts. Networks are often formed with some kind of transformation in mind, which makes them temporary. Networks that focus on delivering more permanent services for an indefinite period slowly evolve, as a result of professionalization, into tighter institutional forms and eventually lose their typical network nature (e.g. umbrella organizations with a service character). In contrast are resistance movements who function as networks that are purely focused on social transformation (see Paragraph 5). In the field of social development, networks have proven to be a useful way to bring about change. The sustainability principle in this case does not apply to the network as an institution, but more to its ideas and knowledge and the degree to which these take root in society. This may be why more emphasis is given to strengthening the learning capacity of networks than to their institutional structures.

Understanding networks: a typology

There is no exclusive classification of Networks. They can be divided into a countless amount of dimensions. But it is worth to make some classification as it gives a certain reference. In peace building most networks could be distinguished by its function, theme or topic, like for instance the human rights networks that monitor violations and lobby for justice, networks of democratic movements that work on civic participation in society, networks of marginalized groups or victims (mostly highly informal or under cover) that work on protection, trauma and recognition, or networks of professionals in conflict transformation or mediation skills to improve knowledge and skills. These networks all have the function to facilitate the exchange of information and the process of learning, to coordinate and cooperate on policy and practical issues, to formalize interactions and connections between different groups of people in order to create a true constituency, commitment and improve the effect and impact of their joint efforts. An interesting distinction can be made between reactive and pro-active networks. Networks that are pro-active work on the basis of a shared vision or viewpoint, based upon which alliances are formed and lobby & advocacy can be carried out. There is a noticeable difference between members who serve as the driving force behind the network (the connectors) and members who have been asked to participate in order to create a larger constituency. Reactive networks are mostly the result of an added value recognized by a number of participants or initiators (not necessarily members). In this case, the network provides services that can be offered collectively better, quicker or cheaper. This is described in more detail in Chapter 4. A number of other distinctions can be made, such as: person-based networks (related to professionals as individual members, e.g. network of Early Warning Monitors or Non-violence Educators) institution-based networks (related to institutions as individual members, e.g. council of churches, network of Local Peace Movements) focus- or issue-based networks (related to collective action or theme, e.g. lobby-networks, human rights networks, reconciliation networks) and Level of operation, e.g. networks on grassroot, local, national, regional, continental, intercontinental/global level Representation; Does the network have a representative function and does it speak for its members (e.g. associations or umbrella organizations such as federations, councils and unions, with internal

The Role of Civil Society in the Prevention of Armed Conflict An integrated programme of research, discussion and network building -Issue paper on Understanding Networks-

participatory mechanisms to bring forward the overall opinion) or does the network has a professional function to share, safeguard and improve professional quality of its members? Initiative and historical development; Where did the initiative to establish the network come from? Was it initiated from within, or was it requested by an external actor (government (international/national) or donors)? This distinction will exclude a certain type of organization from being it a real network. This needs further explanation: In certain situations exists a managerial interest to count with an organized structure that reaches or covers many people at distinctive levels (e.g. from grassroot to international level) at the same time. This happens for example when international institutes or funding organizations want to connect with the Civil Society in a region. From this perspective organizations are established, under the name of networks, that pretend to represent a big group. They normally develop from the top to the bottom and they respond well to technical, political and administrative agendas, mostly defined by outsiders. In these organizations the connecting structures as well as the network activities are funded from above (outside funding) instead of membership funding. These networks will attract easily many members in a relatively short time because: membership is mostly free or even paid for, close to the networks means close to important power channels, there is a whole economy around these networks of paid volunteers, tendered projects, and expensive consultancies. This kind of networks are clearly the opposite of the so called genuine networks starting from a grassroot initiatives, focused on practical problems and fully based on physical and financial membership contribution. I would exclude the first type of organization from the original network definition and refer to it as channels of dominance (channeling funds, information and power often leading to cooptation by important institutions), mainly because the history is different, its role in peace building processes is disputable and its organization features can be best understood by treating it like the well known and well described hierarchical organization (see regular Management and Organization Literature).

3.

Inherent tensions

Networking is based on connecting various interests, experiences and behaviors of people into something with a higher goal. This becomes concrete in networks that are full of inherent tensions that result from their complicated structures or the varying demands stakeholders place on them. To understand networks better, it requires a thorough understanding of these tension as well as the fact that the tensions cannot be solved but should be managed. It is useful to clarify a number of potential sources of tension. Learning versus applying Each network faces a strategic choice: will it focus on facilitating collective learning (exploration) or applying the collective knowledge contributed by its individual members (exploitation)? The first choice refers to a level of inter-organizational learning that is more complex than organizational learning and thus requires higher costs for knowledge management and a very long-term perspective. The results of this approach are not immediately discernible, but they may be predictable based on the exhibited learning behavior. The second choice refers to the exploitation of existing knowledge based on the short-term maximization of profits. Such a network is clearly output oriented, and its members perform complementary activities. Networks in peace building, since it is a relatively new area, usually expect both elements from themselves. The complexity of the field and issues requires time for analysis, study and reflection while the seriousness of the situational conflicts cries for immediate action. And thus the objectives of learning, capacity building and the practical application of lessons learned are all very important for these networks. However, we have to realize that it is difficult to combine both types of objectives in one organizational set-up. The culture, dynamics and management styles of each extreme are very different. However, this does not diminish the fact that networks will have to incorporate both orientations in order to be effective in the long term.

The Role of Civil Society in the Prevention of Armed Conflict An integrated programme of research, discussion and network building -Issue paper on Understanding Networks-

Collective versus individual interests Did the members join the network out of a collective interest? Do they base part of their identity on their participation in the network? Or is participation seen as a faster and better way to achieve an individual objective? Networks are often formed out of collective interest (or the hope for a collective interest), even though the individual members may be participating for their own specific purposes. The intention here is not to stigmatize this type of participation, but to be more realistic in the approach to networks and to be able to discuss and strive for the right balance between collective and individual interests. As long as the collective interest is strong, coordination of the network will be determined by social mechanisms. If the individual interest becomes more prominent, then coordination will more likely be defined in formal legal agreements, such as contracts. In such case institutionalization will take place automatically, flexibility will decrease and costs of interaction might increase drastically. Regional networks that consist of members with strong national interest are a typical example of this case. Homogeneity versus diversity Networks can initiate a strict socialization process in order to create a clearly homogenous, institutional culture. Admission criteria and candidate-membership are instruments used to weed out potential members that do not fit within the prescribed culture. Networks that do not have such a socialization process and whose memberships are thus more diverse will have to invest more time and money in coordination. The more heterogeneous the network becomes, the more difficult it will be to keep the members together and to formulate institutional opinions. On the other hand, such a network represents a much more interesting arena for debate, and it will have a much broader perspective on various levels. A combination of two dimensions: practice versus policy and representation versus professionalism We can distinguish two dimensions in which networks, and especially networks on peace building are active, namely practice versus policy and representation versus professionalism. Networks can thus focus on implementing activities in practice or influencing policy, and they can act on behalf of their constituency (members) or based on their professional insights (best practices, proven methodologies and theories). As illustrated Figure 1 below, these dimensions form four quadrants, within which organizations can be placed based on their characteristic typologies. By nature, networks are often active in various quadrants at the same time, which creates a number of inherent institutional tensions that cannot be resolved in a technical way (i.e. by changing the networks structure or regulations). Examples of such tensions can be a rift between the managing board and the secretariat, insufficient agreement between lobbying activities and lessons learned during concrete projects, the inability to bring forward a network opinion due to insufficient member involvement, or excessive bureaucratization created in response to a risky participation structure (with general assemblies, elective procedures on the various governing levels, inclusive planning procedures, etc.). An important exercise for each network is to position itself within the four quadrants of figure 1 based on its structure and its functions, and then to find out whether this signature is consistent with its original goals and institutional mandate. Figure 1: Two dimensions along which organizations can be categorized

Political parties

policy

Professional lobby inst. Research institutes Universities professional 4 NGOs (projectimplementation)

Unions Networks ? Movements

representative

The Role of Civil Society in the Prevention of Armed Conflict An integrated programme of research, discussion and network building -Issue paper on Understanding Networks-

The Role of Civil Society in the Prevention of Armed Conflict An integrated programme of research, discussion and network building -Issue paper on Understanding Networks-

4.

Why organize into networks?

As noted above, a network can be seen as formal or informal cooperation or as a formalized relationship between autonomous entities. By participating in a network, the members position themselves on a continuum between the freedom and autonomy of the society on one side, and a hierarchical relationship on the other. Many variations and degrees of networks can be found between these two extremes. The coordination or formalization of the relationship can be seen as an investment intended to achieve a specific return, or profit. Far-reaching forms of cooperation decrease the autonomy of the individual members and must therefore offer a clear added value or return. This is of course the incentive for individuals to organize themselves into a network. Networks are formed for various reasons: - When there is a scarcity of means, cooperation based on complementarity may offer a solution. - If the context and interventions are complex, the exchange of information and experience can become essential. - Economies of scale can be achieved through collective learning, analysis, and implementation. - Cooperation can strengthen the power of interventions. This is particularly true with respect to advocacy and lobbying. - Through the organization of networks, more people can be reached and interventions can take place on various levels. - Networks can create arenas that encompass a variety of opinions, and which therefore prevent one-sided thinking. - Networking entails confrontation and entering relationships in which opinions must be expressed and may conflict. It forces participants to come out of the isolation that can so easily befall organizations. For this reason, networking can be seen as a methodology with which new approaches and relations related to complex issues are constantly being constructed. Figure 2 presents the various types of networks (i.e. the varying degrees of formalization and cooperation that all fit within the definition of networks). It also shows the increasing level of benefit, which should be proportional to the degree of cooperation. Figure 2: Relationship between degrees of cooperation and benefit1

high collective legitimacy

Additional resources

Benefits are higher than costs

Advocacy

pro-active

Degree of benefit

More complex impact ms complejo

Information London, Earthscan Publications Ltd, (1997)

Figure based on figure 5.4 Trade-offs in NGDO collaboration, by Alan Fowler, Striking a Balance,

Costs are higher than benefits

reactive

The Role of Civil Society in the Prevention of Armed Conflict An integrated programme of research, discussion and network building -Issue paper on Understanding Networks-

Strategies, or functions, of a network are listed along the diagonal line in the order of passive to more pro-active forms. Networks formed with high expectations on the benefit side, will carry out more pro-active functions and need a higher degree of institutional formalization. If certain heavier forms of cooperation do not achieve the proportional results/benefits, then the network will be in crisis, and should adapt to a lighter institutional form or should design more effective programs. The order of progression suggested in figure 2 should not be taken too literally. The purpose of the figure is more to give insight into the relationship between investments and returns in networks and the various types of interventions that correspond to each level of investment. An interesting difference is that part of the value of reactive networks lies in the infrastructure that they offer. Networks can remain dormant for a long time, but still be re-activated if the various parts of the network have to be reached at short notice. The effectiveness of such a network is not so much based on what it achieves, but on who can potentially be reached (in other words, being and relating determine to a great extent the value of the network). An interesting example can be find in networks with an alert or watch-dog function to violation of human rights. The presence of such a network already can cause prevention of violations. The value of pro-active networks is based on the changes that they bring about, and they are thus transformative in their nature (see Chapter 6). These networks cannot afford to be dormant.

5.

Forms of networks

The institutional form of a network is ideally the product of its function and the context. The following sections will describe a number of network forms. The spider web model This model assumes that there is a strong centralized network, consisting of a central board and a secretariat, surrounded by circles or levels of members. Various levels of membership are possible. Each level entails various privileges and responsibilities. Most of the coordination and all forms of communication within the network are ultimately the responsibility of the secretariat. The secretariat thus also serves as a clearinghouse, to remove any ambiguity from the information and to ensure a minimum quality standard. The members elect a board, which has authority over the secretariat. The secretariat will have to be in a continual process of professionalization in order to preserve the networks added value for the individual members. This network form is usually found in a highly formalized environment (with legal frameworks) in which sufficient means can be generated (through member contributions or external financing) to pay for the relatively high coordination costs. This type of network is also preferred in situations that require quick action, standardization of the interventions and build-in checks and balances. It is a dangerous model for hostile situation since the center could be easily attacked, which will destroy the whole network. With the current information and data technology some of these endangered networks create a virtual secretariat with libraries, newsletters, and standard correspondence hosted on virtual disks outside the hostile zone but accessible for all members. Strongly centralized networks tend to be exclusive in that not everyone can become or remain a member. The danger of this approach is that the network culture can become strongly homogenized to the exclusion of alternative or innovative viewpoints.

The Role of Civil Society in the Prevention of Armed Conflict An integrated programme of research, discussion and network building -Issue paper on Understanding Networks-

Fledgling networks that opt for this form often first choose to have a rotating secretariat. This is a less expensive option, in which one of the countries temporarily carries out the coordinating tasks. The advantages of this option are lower costs and a less hierarchy. The disadvantage is that a rotating secretariat inevitably proves to be inefficient and ineffective. The fish-net model or cell-structure This model assumes that every participant has a coordinating responsibility. There is no central secretariat, because every participant maintains and coordinates relationships within its own immediate environment. This type of network occurs in informal societies, or contexts that are very threatening. The advantage is that these networks are not easily stopped, since they encompass many parallel lines of communication. Interventions achieve their objectives, though their paths might be unpredictable. This type of network is also considerably less expensive than the previous model because there is no expensive central coordination point and a lot of voluntary commitment is involved. A big disadvantage, however, is its informality. Since there is no central authority, there is no supervision of quality or information flows. Such a network can only exist if all the individual members are strongly committed to the objective or to the subject matter. If this commitment diminishes over time, members will lose interest and holes will appear in the net. It then becomes very difficult to reactivate the network. Networks focused on a specific event prefer this model (e.g. the cell structure of terrorist/criminal networks or hooligans, who can effectively organize massive riots using their cell phones). Movements that evolve from singular events start almost implicitly with this form. In a later stage centralized networks may develop. (P2P networks on the Internet also make effective use of this model to exchange and host huge amounts of data). The chain model A chain network is one whose actors are linked in succession (like lights on a Christmas tree). This form is common in situations characterized by consecutive steps, such as the transference of products in a supply chain or the gradual development of knowledge. Each step in the network has its own added value. These networks are very fragile due to the inherent risk of losing one link in the chain, which would result in stagnation of the entire flow of the network. For this reason, relationships are preferably established by means of contracts, and a high level of formalization quickly arises. These chains are by necessity based on one dominant strategy. If that strategy proves to be no longer applicable, the network will have to be rebuilt from scratch based on new paradigms and strategies.

6.

Sustainability of networks

The sustainability issue for networks is complex, especially for those networks related to peace building. Automatically people tend to promote the sustainability of networks, as if networks are beautiful creatures on themselves that should live forever. But why should a network need to have a long life? Networking however seems only relevant when there is a shared interest or problem which requires a joint action, a temporary contraction of goals and resources. It is very important to make the distinction between institutions and functions. Strengthening of Civil Societies, means in most capacity building efforts the establishment and development of civic institutions and organizations, that can eventually perform a certain role or function in society. More logic seems to think the other way round and give prior attention to functions that are required in society. This is precisely the case with networks organization, that exist for a reason. First study their function and position in society (i.e. legitimacy and mandate); the institutional shape required to support them and make them function well, is then of secondary importance. So the question of how to make a network sustainable is not a relevant question. It makes more sense first to define its role and temporality before worrying about the institutional appearance.

The Role of Civil Society in the Prevention of Armed Conflict An integrated programme of research, discussion and network building -Issue paper on Understanding Networks-

The function or role that a network fulfils within a social context can be seen as a relative position taken along two main dimensions: 1) The change or transformative function (effecting real change in a society) versus the consolidating function (offering permanent services/care that answer to a structural need in society); 2) The social objective versus the economic objective The combination of both dimensions shows four different functions or roles in Society (illustrated as four quadrants):

Figure 3: Four complementary functions in society

social need for new basic services need for paradigm shifts in society entrepreneural conditions consolidation

Transforming Society

Offering Care

new ethics change

technological revolutions

I IV

II III

Subsidies tax

Research & Development

technology & product innovation budgets economic

Generating Profit

Quadrant I Interventions aiming at changing ideas, relations, values and/or behavior in society have a transformative function. Once the transformation has occurred, for example through social acceptance of a new idea or changes in civil behavior sustained by new laws, the intervention is finished. In this respect the transformative function is a temporary one. Actors involved in effecting long-term transformations usually discover that institutionalization is needed. Institutes always tend to be less temporary than their transformative function. The continued existence of such networks is either supported by rigid structures, or they are able to evolve their vision and goals into new transformations. Most activist networks and peace movements can be placed in this quadrant. An interesting example is the Israeli Public Committee Against Torture that fought years for a change

The Role of Civil Society in the Prevention of Armed Conflict An integrated programme of research, discussion and network building -Issue paper on Understanding Networks-

in the law. After the new law prohibiting torture was accepted, the organization had to shift its original objectives towards newly emerging problems like for instance the assassination of prisoners. The sustainability of a network aimed at social transformation is thus expressed in how well its ideas take root in society (new behavior/ideologies/laws). To achieve this transformation, the function, or legitimacy, of the network is very important. Without legitimacy the desired change will not occur. Legitimacy can be achieved through a large and active constituency or broad public recognition in the relevant context. Some networks can have a limited constituency (of direct members), for example, but still be widely referred to or readily identified with by members of the society. If social changes occur, new needs are created with respect to care and basic services (quadrant II), but also new ethical frameworks are needed for the economic sector (quadrant IV). Quadrant II In society there is a need for structural social services aimed at supporting and improving the social status-quo, but not necessarily aimed at effecting change. The clients of these services can be renewed permanently (e.g. new students or new patients), or they may have permanent needs (for services, information, security). These services are often the responsibility of the government, which either carries out the activities itself or contract others to do so. When these services break down or become ineffective, the need arises for structural changes in society (e.g. when insecurity is rising fast after the outbreak of violence, when curative health costs have become too high in a gray society, or when transport systems collapse because of the high demand). Then a plea for help will be made to transformative powers as described in quadrant I. Many networks on peace building have a primairy function in the first quadrant (transforming violent societies into less violent societies) but also play an important role in this second quadrant like providing information, mediation services, psycho-social care, educational tasks, bringing security, etc. Normally these networks ask for a membership contribution to cover part of the costs of this services. Institutional sustainability becomes more relevant in this quadrant when clients depend on the provided services (e.g. consequence are serious when health care, education and transport structures all of a sudden collapse). Sustainability will come true when the providers are capable of offering an efficient and effective service with an acceptable price/quality ratio. If either one of these requirements is not fulfilled, the service cannot be considered to be sustainable nor the providing institute. Quadrant III This quadrant is comprised of the business sector, that is the sector that achieves continuity by generating profits (added value in economic terms). Sustainability depends on the position in the market and is determined by the competitive advantage the products and services have in this market and the degree of efficiency with which the business is able to produce them. To achieve sustainability, permanent innovation is required (quadrant IV). Any profits gained will in part be used to finance the functions in the other quadrants, by means of taxes, subsidies, sponsoring and budgeting for product innovation. It is an interesting tendency that professional networks, with an important transformative role in the first quadrant, tend to sell their skills and services (e.g. training and documentation) on a profit base, in order to create a surplus that can be used for carrying out activities in quadrant I an II, necessary when external funding agencies and members withdraw. Quadrant IV This quadrant holds the function of research and development aimed at the creation of new technologies and products. These activities have an economic objective, in contrast to quadrant I where research and development is aimed at social issues. The two quadrants are not always easily to separate since new social insights require new technologies (e.g. environment-friendly

10

The Role of Civil Society in the Prevention of Armed Conflict An integrated programme of research, discussion and network building -Issue paper on Understanding Networks-

products or production methods) and new technologies can bring about social transformations (e.g. the industrial revolution and the impact of the Internet). Just as in quadrant I, the sustainability of institutes involved in research and development lies in their innovative function and the degree to which such innovations prove to be of practical use. Now, why is all this relevant for networks? To understand networks, we need to have a clear understanding of which function or functions they aim to fulfill in society. It might be clear that networks that mainly operate in quadrants I and IV, for example, are held accountable for their innovative capability and transformative impact. Legitimacy of these network is thereby an important prerequisite (on behalf of whom are you transforming societies and who gave you the mandate?). Institutional sustainability does not come in the first place. Some networks have proved to have a high impact just for a very short time and their organizational structures and procedures are very lean and informal. Institutional sustainability is much more an issue for networks that fulfill functions within the quadrants II and III. Some networks position themselves originally in one quadrant but slowly shift into another quadrant, such as transformative networks that also begin to offer care services, or care-giving networks that begin to sell some services on a profit-making basis. The complexity of such networks increases enormously, because each quadrant has a different strategy, its own structure and management style and its own organizational dynamics. In this case, sustainability has to be evaluated at different levels, and in relation to the various functions.

7.

Why is funding networks difficult?

The more complex development issues become, the higher is the need to work with organizations that enclose different levels, different interest and different understandings. Working on conflict transformation, institutes from the international community or the donor community find it very difficult to operate in a scattered field with a large amount of individual actors. They desperately look for networking efforts and networks in order to count with a relevant scale and coverage. But once networks are found or created it seems difficult to fund or contract them within the familiar framework of one to one partnerships. This is due to a number of specific network characteristics: Networks can quickly expand beyond the carrying capacity of their formal constituency. Financing networks is usually the responsibility of its members (by membership contributions). If networks are financed from outside or above, it can disturb the financial foundation upon which networks ought to grow. Networks that develop into highly professional organizations become alienated from their constituency. Networks that become too fixated on the issue of representation will never accomplish very much (the issue of figure 1). How to strike the balance? It is difficult to estimate where the legitimacy or ownership of the network lies: sometimes this is only one powerful initiator with paper members, and sometimes this is a limited number of organizations that claim to represent a broad part of society in order to gain legitimacy for their views. Networks are usually not aimed at achieving concrete and clearly visible results, especially considering that this organizational form is most often chosen to work on many levels and to address complex issues. The desired results often involve learning and exchanging knowledge and experience, encouraging involvement, and changing policy. Before such results become apparent, many small and long-term processes will have taken place that are less visible but no less relevant. Assessing the effect of such networks thus requires different observation and evaluation methods. A full understand of the internal dynamics of a network is required to come up with a sensible funding structure. The funding of networks requires a rather different approach than used for funding programs and projects of the so-called partner organizations. In some cases when there is a joint interest, the funding agency could or should be a part of the network in order to achieve its objectives. Funding agencies have agendas and can

11

The Role of Civil Society in the Prevention of Armed Conflict An integrated programme of research, discussion and network building -Issue paper on Understanding Networks-

create alliances based on these agendas, which means that they can be the initiator of a network. The notion of ownership thus takes on a different meaning.

8.

Strengthening networks

What can we do to strengthen networks and where do we start? This chapter will provide a brief summary of some practical tips. Networks tend to become too complex as a result of too much variety among their members, themes or functions. External funders play an important role in this process since they can unwittingly push the network in this direction (by introducing additional themes or functions or by introducing extra members that are supposed to also become part of the network). It is extremely important to be aware of this danger, and that we invite suggestions to reduce the complexity of networks (by combining themes, splitting functions and reducing the rigidity of institutional structures). Just like any other type of organization, networks will have to be evaluated based on their stage of development. Again due to external pressure, networks also tend to quickly become too institutionalized, which can smother the interesting dynamics within the network. Many examples can be cited of transformative activist networks that have prematurely ground to a halt as a result of prolonged discussions about the constitution, structures and budgets. These issues will become important at some stage, but as a stakeholder you should make sure that they do not become part of the agenda too soon. The funding of networks should coincide with their nature and form. A lump sum institutional funding can severely disrupt the natural growth cycle of a network. A network that provides services to its members should ideally be financed via its members (membership contributions). Networks that provide commercial services can use the surplus from the sales. If the network is pro-active with a purely transformative goal, membership contribution and income generating activities are never the way to gain funds. Then it is important that a trustful external funding agency agrees on an institutional program to be put in place that will make the organizational growth of the network tangible and manageable. As described in this paper, networks are full of inherent tensions. These tensions will always be present, so structural changes should never be promoted as the solution to all problems. Various ways will have to be sought to bring tensions out in the open and to make them manageable so that the network can learn to permanently deal with them. Networks need the help of outsiders to achieve this, which is a role that financiers can play. The essence of networks lies in their coordination and the connecting. This is a very expensive aspect. The more complex the network is, the more time will be needed for its coordination. Coordination should be seen as the primary process of a network and not as costly overhead. A strong network is able to effectively and efficiently coordinate its activities. Capacity building of networks should focus on this. As noted in the previous chapter, a partnership with a network can take on various forms. Funding agencies can take part in the network as a financing member or as a member of the managing board. Strengthening the network can thus be initiated from within, if the funding agency fulfills this role in a constructive way.

9.

Recommendations for understanding networks

Although this whole chapter tends to give the reader tools to understand the nature of networks, as organized structures but also as a methodology (networking), it is still helpful to mention some rules that can be followed for unfolding and assessing networks especially peace building networks in conflict areas:

12

The Role of Civil Society in the Prevention of Armed Conflict An integrated programme of research, discussion and network building -Issue paper on Understanding Networks-

Position the network in the schedule as drawn in figure 1. This unfolds the signature of the network: how is its structure and function related to its aims? Then check the network on three levels of consistency: Consistency of mandate and legitimacy; to what extent does a network work towards it professed aims and objectives and to what extent is it legitimate in the eyes of its members? This relates to the issue of effectiveness. Consistency of resource spending; what is the ratio between spending for network activities, programs and logistics and the costs for network staff and organization. This relates to the issue of efficiency. Consistency of content within a specific context: what does the network actually do as opposed to its professed aims. This is about impact and relevance of the network seen in the wider political context in which it operates. Try to understand the network from an historical perspective. Who were the founders, how did it develop with regard to its objectives, activities, structures, members, funding agencies, etc. What kind of crises did it pass and how did it overcome these crises? Put the network in its political and cultural context and look carefully at the power dimension: who benefits from the network, who is leading it from within and from the outside, what are strategic connections between the network and various governmental levels and business sectors, to whom the network is a threat and what is the possibility of cooptation? Focus in the first place on the role of the connectors within the networks, who do they connect and how do they connect? See structures and formal procedures as of a secondary importance. Try to understand networks as temporary contractions around issues of broad concern.

13