By Helen Bradbury: Team Leader, Alliances Lesser Caucasus Programme
Information matters, it is our currency, the substance, the commodity which keeps our programmes running. We live in an age of information, are afloat on and sometimes drowning in a sea of it. We may check the oracle of google in answer to any question, live feeds, notifications and a torrent of minutiae in a mélange of events of great importance, continually assail us. Once there were spin doctors, now most of us spin daily be it personally or professionally. We are aware of the need to manage information, to have enough of it and of the right kind and most of us are aware too of the need to understand its quality and to know when and what we have is enough or too little.
M4P of course poses challenges in this as in many other aspects of its implementation, but for me the use of information is its heart. M4P is particularly finely calibrated to need high quality information and implementers able to gather, sort and feed it into the programme, implementers who aware of what they are doing, and why they are doing it. Name any stage of the programme process, let’s start with the team. We need practitioners with the right kind of understanding, flexibility and skills to interpret information, to plug it into the strategic framework and intervention planning. We often eschew experienced workers from the field of development with fixed frames of knowledge, for people with less direct experience and fluidity, choosing them for their qualities of perspicacity, ability to adopt, adapt, expand and respond. All stages involve the gathering, processing, articulation and feedback of information; market analysis, market system monitoring, ongoing capacity building, WEE implementation, calibrating interventions and of course M and E, results measurement, measuring systemic change; another entire galaxy of information management on its own. All stages require meticulousness, precision, rigour and common sense in the use of information to produce systemic market change which impacts the men and women of the target group.
The demands for the articulation of this information are multi-faceted and as dissemination channels proliferate so do the needs of those in direct relation to the programmes; donors, consultants, theorists and developers of practice, who must fulfil their own specific functions and feed information into their own burgeoning webs of outreach. Networks, e-groups, email notifications, photographs, film, presentations, numbers, interest stories. Hard numbers for professionals to crunch validity, interest stories and illustration for those we need to care.
Finally to the approach itself, literally. How you come to know something is often as important as what you finally know. M4P, market systems development; has been seen as a challenge to, a critique (I would argue an illumination through comparison) of other methods and methodologies in development. The process of reassessing even unlearning knowledge is not an easy one and is as emotional as it is intellectual. The juncture between those who in some measure know, understand and use the approach and those who do not, is therefore sometimes a tricky one. Perceptions and points of view are influential in the translation of the system. The heart of M4P is simplicity but as in all the best cases, simplicity provides the skeleton and blueprint for processes which as they build can seem like an overwhelming mass of complexity from an external point of view, particularly as no two programmes, externally at least the same. What, who and where are M4P, where does it come from, how do you do it, who does it, where can I find out more?????
Thus we come to two new websites, this one of the ALCP where we have a downloads page dedicated to compiling our own and other information that helps to answer these questions and the M4P Hub that was and the BEAM Exchange that now is. In our disparate, diversified, geographically spread world, an approach developed at the time of an explosion of information dissemination, needs sites like these. To now be able to direct someone to the right kind of information which presents, expounds and solidifies is essential in a growing field. To be able to refer to and interact with a cohesive entity which can provide a universally accepted centre point, platform, resource centre and indeed identity, is heartily welcomed.
From the ISET Economist news (http://www.iset.ge/news/?p=4633)
By Eric Livny
The “do no harm” (primum non nocere) principle is well known to students of medical schools. It is one of the most fundamental maxims in medicine, as formulated, for example, in the Epidemics book of the Hippocratic Collection:
“The physician must … have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm“.
Doctors are taught that medical interventions are not risk-free. Thus, when facing a “problem” one should consider whether to use a particular procedure (e.g. surgery or chemical treatment) or do NOTHING.
Not surprisingly, this very principle has applications in many fields other than healthcare. And it is high time for this principle to be studied and applied in Georgian policymaking.
Heather Briggs, agronomist, agro-consultant on plant productivity, international expert on cheese and journalist visited Tbilisi to hold the training for agro-journalists last week. "Batumelebi" newspaper interviewed her.
For the first time in Georgia a training on agro journalism was conducted for media representatives wishing to report specifically on rural issues and news. The main purpose of the training was to fill knowledge gaps of media practitioners in crops, livestock husbandry and agriculture management and to introduce the basics of agro journalism. Heather Briggs, an international expert and member of British Guild of Agricultural Journalists - was invited to lead a 5 day training from January 26th to February 2nd. About 50 representatives of regional, national broadcasters and printed media participated in the event. The training was organized by the Georgian Regional Media Association and facilitated by the Alliances Lesser Caucasus Programme.
By Helen Bradbury: Team Leader, Alliances Lesser Caucasus Programme
We are in an interesting conundrum. Gender in most places has been written-in to law. Bar a few notable exceptions, every country in the world, has varying degrees of success in applying universal suffrage. Fifty countries are signed up to the CEDAW convention (the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women). On the CEDAW world map of Discrepant Government Behaviour Concerning Women, the countries shaded dark green which denotes ‘virtually no enforcement of laws consonant with CEDAW or such laws do not even exist’, are where you expect them to be and in fact they are relatively few. It is the next two categories which disturb, covering the vast majority of the globe, the mid and lighter green, where laws are partly or fully consonant with CEDAW but there is little effective enforcement or spotty enforcement of them and the issue is low priority or hit and miss. After the gains, the laws and ratifications of the last centuries it seems that we must tread very carefully indeed for we must counteract indifference, in which inertia and inactivity stop us moving forward.
Government Momentum Builds on Animal Movement Route after the years of discussion and information exchange. The biggest challenge in Georgian sheep sector – the Animal Movement Route issue has come to the point when there is a willingness and concrete plan for taking actions and reaching tangible results.
The Eco Films LTD film The Road, commissioned by ALCP KK, was shown at the BIFED - Bozcaada International Festival of Ecological Documentary on October 31, 2014. The documentary was presented in the non-competition section and highly appreciated by the audience.
