AfricaLink East Africa Assessment Synthesis
Trip Report
August-September 1997

Jeffrey A. Cochrane, USAID/AfricaLink Advisor
13 November 1997

The AfricaLink Advisor visited East Africa to evaluate the effectiveness of the AfricaLink program in the region, and to discuss with implementing partners and targeted network members their suggestions for improvements. This report is a synthesis of the major findings of that assessment. Details from specific interviews are contained in separate country-specific reports.

The International Centre for Research on Agroforestry (ICRAF) has received $340,000 to date to facilitate networking in the region. Funds are to support agricultural research activities generally, broadly defined to include environmental and natural resource management networks. ICRAF was selected by USAID as the implementing institution in East Africa because of its extensive knowledge of key networks in the region, particularly those associated with the Association for the Strengthening of Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA).

Funds for AfricaLink/ICRAF are from the Productive Sector Growth and the Environment (PSGE) Division of USAID’s Sustainable Development (SD) Office. The Office is in the USAID Africa Bureau in Washington. Funds were delivered to ICRAF as part of their ongoing relationship with the USAID Global Bureau.

The ICRAF project manager, Mr. Michael Hailu, was asked to recommend sites to be visited as part of the assessment. He was asked to identify a range of sites, from places where implementation has been quite positive, to problematic sites, along with sites at which could be discussed possible new activities. Having discussed both successes and problems with staff at these sites, a number of general conclusions can be drawn.

Extending the net to national networks

AfricaLink is funded through USAID/Washington's Sustainable Development Office, specifically the Productive Sector Growth and Environment (PSGE) Division. Staff scientists in PSGE work closely with regional networks of partners, and AfricaLink is designed to support those regional networks. In practice this means that assistance is targeted generally at the leadership of national networks, who represent their countries on regional committees. Many of these national leaders expressed a keen interest in being able to communicate with their colleagues nationally.

For example, in Ethiopia at the Institute for Agricultural Research, the Deputy General Manager seemed much less interested in discussing regional networking than in pointing out which of his provincial research stations had access to email. In Uganda a coordinator of a regional bean research network asked specifically for assistance for national networks of bean scientists, pointing out that it is not always the designated national leader with whom communications is required. In Kenya at a center outside the capital city, a scientist noted how access to senior staff in Nairobi via email had eliminated the need to make regular trips by road to deliver messages and documents.

ICRAF is already providing some funds in support of national networking. In general, however, extending AfricaLink to serve national networks poses administrative challenges. Nationally-based activities are usually managed by USAID's bilateral missions. AfricaLink would have to work closely with these bilateral missions, and would essentially have to be invited by the bilateral mission or USAID representative. In the cases of countries where USAID does not have representation, one of the three regional support missions in Africa would control.

Administrative challenges are probably not as important as financial challenges. AfricaLink's present strategy is to work only with networks that already have a working relationship with staff of USAID. Funding is thus secured in consultation with such staff. For example, the funds being used by ICRAF were secured by a member of USAID staff who regularly works with regional networks in East Africa. That member of staff will quite reasonably want those resources placed primarily at the disposal of the regional organizations with which he works, as opposed to nationally based organizations with which he has no particular association.

If an AfricaLink type activity were to be undertaken with a national network, programmatic staff of USAID would normally have to be associated with it. Staff of USAID's bilateral missions will be the most likely to have an existing working relationship with these national networks. While the procedures for securing funding would likely be straightforward in countries where USAID has a mission, in non-presence countries it is unlikely that USAID staff will have a direct relationship with members of national networks. Funding would then presumably have to be funneled through regional channels. The process of marshalling internal USAID support for the funding of national networks in non-presence countries could be quite difficult.

The issue of technical support raises a further hurdle. AfricaLink's regional networking partners are supported by a small network of regional Help Desks. In East Africa the Help Desk is situated physically in Kampala. Help Desk staffer Charles Musisi is charged with the responsibility of responding to technical support questions and facilitating seminars throughout East Africa. However, an auxiliary Help Desk has been funded in Ethiopia because of the special technical support problems perceived to be faced by network partners there. If support were to be extended to national networks, it might be appropriate to fund a national Help Desk in each country. Funding would logically though not necessarily be found within the appropriate bilateral or regional USAID mission.

The recommendation is that a memorandum be drafted in collaboration with AfricaLink's various implementing partners (ICRAF, WARDA, SACCAR, NESDA, AfricaIPMLink, etc.) explaining these issues and offering a recommendation to USAID missions in Africa.

Directory services

USAID implementing partners in particular noted that the listing of an email address does not necessarily mean that a person is accessible by email. Problems often seem to arise to impede the smooth flow of email. Perhaps there is a software problem at the user's site. Perhaps staff at a site have email but do not know how to use it properly. Perhaps the Internet service provider has a server configuration problem. Perhaps the email address has simply changed.

These faults can be quite frustrating to network leadership. What seems to happen is that a list of email addresses is provided in a report, which the leadership then uses for the distribution of a meeting announcement or other important notice. If a large number of intended recipients fails to receive the message, the leadership becomes discouraged with the technology, and reverts to more familiar telephones and fax machines.

Peter Ewell of CIP in Nairobi suggests that AfricaLink publish regular surveys of connected network members to verify connectivity status. The reports might explain such things as the nature of the email connection (e.g. is it on the user's desktop, or is it in a secretary's office), reliability notes, the last date of a verified communication, and suggestions for alternative addresses with colleagues.

The labor requirement to do as suggested by Dr. Ewell is enormous. There are some 700 network members already listed in AfricaLink's database, and the number is growing steadily. For the AfricaLink Advisor sitting at a desk in Washington, simply knowing on a routine basis who is or is not a member of a given network in Africa would be a substantial undertaking.

The AfricaLink Directory is proposed as a tool to provide the kind of information Dr. Ewell and others need to be able to communicate effectively with their network partners. As discussed in Nairobi with Dr. Ewell, here is an example of how it will work.

Assume that Dr. Ewell himself is tasked by the chair of the PRAPACE network to maintain the network's membership rolls. As Dr. Ewell works regularly with the members of that network, he is in an excellent position to know on a routine basis with little additional effort the connectivity status of each member's office. Dr. Ewell could thus easily maintain a network membership roster solely for the PRAPACE network.

Using the Web, Dr. Ewell would enter and update the PRAPACE membership roster directly on the USAID server. After logging in with a username and password, Dr. Ewell points his Web browser (e.g. Netscape or Internet Explorer) to the data maintenance section of the AfricaLink Directory. He is presented with a simple form in which he enters the required information, including any comments he would care to make about the interests or connectivity status of particular members. After activating the "submit" button with his computer's mouse, the AfricaLink Directory is immediately updated.

Anyone consulting the Directory at that point, anywhere in the world, would see the updated record. Reports generated in Washington from the Directory would contain updates from the PRAPACE network as well as all the other networks assisted by AfricaLink. Printed copies of these reports could easily be distributed to those who do not have access to the Web.

The key principles are that particular Directory records are maintained by administrators with particular knowledge about those records, and the data entry is decentralized for real-time updating using the Internet. The AfricaLink Advisor in Washington simply maintains the Directory facility and manages access for network information administrators.

The AfricaLink Directory was recently updated to permit decentralized data maintenance by an intern who worked in Washington from June to August, 1997. The facility was made available to network membership administrators in October of 1997. AfricaLink's key implementing partners (e.g. ICRAF, SACCAR) are now determining who will be responsible for the records of particular networks in their areas.

Service quality

The procedure used to facilitate initial access to the Internet under AfricaLink's East Africa program has been as follows:

• Lists of targeted networks and their membership in the region are compiled and sorted by country.
• In each country, a survey of options for Internet connectivity is conducted, and the most favorable option is selected by ICRAF.
• In behalf of all the targeted networks' memberships, ICRAF negotiates with the selected Internet service provider to provide the necessary equipment and installations for Internet access.
• ICRAF contracts with the service provider directly, and agrees to pay basic costs to service providers for the first year.

An alternative procedure used by AfricaLink in other regions is as follows:

• Lists of targeted networks and their membership in the region are compiled and sorted by country.
• Members are sent a letter advising them to visit their local service providers, determine which are the best, and secure for the funding agency (e.g. ICRAF) pro forma invoices for basic service.
• The funding agency sends checks to pay the costs listed in the pro forma invoices, payable to the service provider, but delivered to the network members.
• Once service is established, the network members use the funding agency checks to pay the service provider.

This alternative procedure, which is used by SACCAR and WARDA for example, requires that individual network members take a greater responsibility in securing their own Internet access. The hope is that they become more knowledgeable consumers, and develop a positive working relationship with their local service providers.

Administratively, however, this alternative is more complicated. Instead of one check to a single vendor for all network members in a given country, separate checks must be drawn for each and every network member. Pro forma invoices must be individually reviewed. Information must be provided individually to network members so that they know what questions to ask as they seek service.

While administratively simple, the East Africa procedure does apparently have its drawbacks. Taking the Kenya case as an example, the service provider that seemed most appropriate at the time the initial connectivity program was begun was Form-Net. In recent months, Form-Net has apparently fallen on hard times. Network members seem to be much happier with the services of a competitor called ARCC. Those who were placed in the Form-Net service by ICRAF are now turning to ICRAF to resolve the problems they are facing with Form-Net. This is placing great technical support burdens on ICRAF.

Had the alternative procedure been followed, ICRAF could simply have advised its network partners to change companies and send a new invoice. As the partners would have had the initial experience of negotiating with their local service providers, renegotiating with a new provider would not have been that difficult. The partners would at this point now be quite knowledgeable consumers.

ICRAF is now advising its partners to select whichever service provider the partner itself deems most appropriate. The conversion to this new strategy is not expected to pose major problems.

Accountability in Basic Funding

In several locations it was observed that modems are in use that were not provided by AfricaLink. However, AfricaLink did in some of these cased provide a modem. It was not always clear what happened to the AfricaLink modem.

This raises the issue of accountability in the basic funding process. Depending on how funding is organized, there may be an incentive in some cases for organizations to accept an offered modem even when one is not required. Perhaps the organization decides that it has nothing to lose by accepting this extra modem, possibly storing it as a backup.

It is possible to organize funding procedures to provide incentives to organizations to use resources efficiently. For example, a basic "package" of support has been designed that includes a modem. Since not all organizations need a modem, organization directors should be encouraged to adjust the package to fit their particular needs.

If the basic support package is expected to cost about $800, organization directors should be encouraged to propose alternative uses for that $800 at their organization to enhance information management through Internetworking. For example, if the organization already has email, they may wish to apply the funds toward the installation of a local area network. By encouraging organizations to be creative in utilizing the resources being made available to them, we avoid the appearance of penalizing those organizations that have already taken the initiative in securing electronic mail access without the assistance of AfricaLink.

Training

In almost every interview, a request for training was made. There seemed to be an almost universal lack of comfort with the technology. The feeling was that training would be quite helpful, but few seemed able to articulate precisely what type of training would be required. The more articulate seemed to feel that seminars in a classroom or laboratory setting would be helpful.

A series of trainings have been undertaken recently in Southern Africa. It is difficult to draw conclusions about their effectiveness without undertaking what would undoubtedly be an expensive study. An impression gleaned from having attended one of these seminars, and from having discussed them with trainers, is that the principal outcome of classroom or laboratory seminars is not so much an increase in specific technical working knowledge but instead an increase in the level of comfort and desire to use the technology.

For a network to function, there must be a general consensus among its members as to how network communications will be undertaken. Classroom seminars and laboratory experiences can help introduce network members to new technologies in a non-threatening environment, and build a consensus about how such new technologies can be used effectively by the network. The next logical step, however, is to provide training opportunities to build specific technical skills for the technology to be used. A classroom or laboratory setting might be used for this purpose, but there are potentially more effective alternatives.

Most people learn to use basic Internet technologies (email, the Web, conferencing) simply by using the technologies at their office or home. Given the multiplicity of software, computing environments, and uses to which the technology can be put, learning directly in a work environment can be the most effective. A person intending to use Pegasus Mail at work might find a seminar on Eudora Pro quite unhelpful. Trying to teach both Pegasus and Eudora at the same seminar could be quite confusing.

ICRAF is preparing to embark on its own series of training seminars. It is suggested that it consider carefully the objectives to be achieved. Are the objectives primarily motivational and consensus building, or are they primarily skills enhancement? Given $5000 for training, would it be more effective to import trainers and rent a laboratory, or would it be better simply to engage a skilled technician to visit individual offices and spend a day working with staff at their desks? Or is some strategic combination appropriate. These are questions that ICRAF and its Help Desk will be considering in the months ahead.

Future Directions

In Uganda we are engaged in an experiment to see if we can extend participation in regional networks to some of our more remote colleagues. High-frequency radio technologies will be applied in situations where access to basic telephone infrastructure is non-existent. The issues are discussed in detail in the Uganda report. There are quite a few reservations about this technology. It is quite expensive -- $8000 simply to establish service at a site, followed by substantial usage charges that are typically quite a bit higher than ordinary access to the Internet via telephone infrastructure. We wonder if the extension of the nation's wired or cellular infrastructure might soon make our investment obsolete. We are proceeding cautiously, but we observe great enthusiasm among the often quite desperate potential recipients of this technology. While we might wait a year or two to see what develops with national infrastructure, we are being urged by many of our colleagues in Africa to proceed immediately.

Not everyone can or should be an expert on the Internet and its related technologies, but it is good to have an expert close at hand. This is the feeling underlying the move towards regional and perhaps even national Help Desks, as well as Internet resource and reference centers, sometimes called telecenters. Uganda is once again our center of experimentation. ICRAF is intending to capitalize on the enthusiasm of Esther Lwanga of the Agricultural Research Information Service to build such a resource and reference center. More than the average amount of resources will be provided, on the condition that ARIS advertise and make strong use of its new resources in service to the broader networking community. The Institute for Agricultural Research in Ethiopia might play a similar role.