What comes next

1
Twelve years of the Neuchatel Initiative
NEUCHÂTEL
initiative
www.neuchatelinitiative.net

• What comes next?

2
Background

• The initial situation (1990-1995)
• Representatives of several donor agencies (i.e.,
  Swiss, French and others) did not agree with the
  World Banks continued strong promotion of its
  TV approach.
• The fact that in most countries of intervention
  several different extension approaches are
  implemented simultaneously creates confusion
• There was no platform where Donors might have the
  opportunity to discuss and agree upon the best
  approaches for agricultural extension.

3
What is the Neuchatel Initiative

• Informal discussion forum, primarily for donors
• Platform for shared learning
• Base for agreement on common frameworks
• Base for joint strategic studies
• Opportunity to forge relationships
• Starting point for coordination?

4
Affiliates

• USAID
• DFID
• DGIS
• Agridea
• DAAS
• ODI
• BOKU
• IRAM
• Inter-Reseaux
• ISG
• DIIS
• NAADS

• Sida
• Danida
• GTZ
• ADA
• SDC
• MAE
• FAO
• IFAD
• World Bank
• EC
• CTA

5
The Prevailing Structure I

• Affiliates
• There is no official membership. The NI prefers
  the term affiliates.
• Each donor decides if it is worthwhile to
  participate.
• A preparation group plans and organises the
  annual meeting.
• Individual donors finance collaborators for
  specific tasks (the writing and editing of their
  publications, the organisation of the meetings,
  the facilitation of its meetings).
• On behalf of the Swiss Development Co-operation
  (SDC) Agridea is in charge of the facilitation.

6
The Prevailing Structure II

• Agreements
• The shared insights are not binding for the
  involved donors, they are solely considered as
  suggestions.
• Each representative takes care of the diffusion
  of the insights within his/her own institution.
• Each donor finances its own assistance and the
  work done by external collaborators.
• Each year the NI reconsiders if the platform
  should go on.
• There is no secretariat. Minimal services are
  rendered by Agridea.

7
The Prevailing Structure III

• Ways of Communication
• The yearly meetings are an important opportunity
  to meet new people and to consolidate the social
  cohesion.
• The annual meeting must be prepared by a
  (changing) core group.
• Communication between meetings (among affiliates
  and collaborators) is maintained by e-mail and
  personal calls.
• There is an NI web site where all affiliated
  organisations are listed and where the NI
  publications are available for interested
  outsiders - at no charge.

8
Products - Outputs

• Hard
• Jointly developed guidelines
• Tools for the planning and evaluation of
  extension activities
• Shared actions in the field, mutual evaluations
• Soft
• Networking for development of common vision

9
History of Neuchâtel

• 1995 Neuchâtel Identify an alternative to TV
• 1996 Rome Search for best practice
• 1997 Cape Coast Extension training
• 1998 Segou Common Framework and FAs
• 1999 Uppsala Monitoring and evaluation
• 2000 Neuchâtel Financing poverty

10
History of Neuchâtel (continued)

• 2001 London Financing poverty continued
• 2002 Washington, D.C. Redefining and taking
  stock of extension thinking
• 2003 Rome Demand driven extension
• 2004 Århus Demand driven extension continued
• 2005 Berlin Market Oriented Advisory Services
  started
• 2006 Vienna Market Oriented Advisory Services
  continued and new vision for the future of NI

11
Neuchatel Initiative Products so far!
12
Why discussing future?

• So far NI has been successful in what it was
  meant to do
• Created a strong network and convergence in
  thinking extension
• Created new ideas and approaches to extension
• Seen a multitude of new approaches working

But conditions have changed and affiliates are
pressing on for stronger impact in terms of
alignment and harmonisation in extension Therefore
a need for new vision, stronger communication
and a more formal structure
13
A new vision

• To convene evidence based analyses of the impact
  and relative effectiveness of different
  approaches to agricultural advisory services.
• To promote high level political dialogue among
  governments, donors, regional bodies and other
  actors in order to ensure that advisory services
  regain an appropriate level of attention within
  the wider rural development agenda.
• To disseminate and promote findings both
  internationally and through greater embeddedness
  in local and regional learning.
• To enhance harmonisation through increased formal
  collaboration and institutional support to
  advisory services.

14
New Objectives

• Overall To provide a network and forum that
  proactively advocates for improvement of
  agricultural advisory services
• 1 To convene evidence based analyses of the
  impact and relative effectiveness of different
  approaches
• 2 To promote high level political dialogue in
  order to ensure that advisory services regain an
  appropriate level of attention within the wider
  rural development agenda
• 3 To disseminate and promote findings both
  internationally and through greater embeddedness
  in local and regional learning

15
Core Tasks

• Continuation of past approaches based on annual
  meetings and promotion of internal advocacy
  within affiliate organisations.
• Continuation of past approaches based on
  preparation of analyses of advisory service
  experience, but with redoubled emphasis on
  critical, empirical rigour.
• Closer and more proactive links with the GDPRD
  (and other international and regional networks).
• Creation of a resource desk that will provide a
  clearing house and dissemination base for
  advisory service information and analysis and a
  proactive contact point for the network, but not
  as a full-fledged secretariat