Existing Networks and Other Initiatives
		=======================================

Moderator: Anita Balasubramaniam 


Anita: From the interaction that I saw yesterday and day-before, many
       of you already have an idea of what networks exist, and some of
       you have created networks that work at the state or national
       level. What we could do in this session is list down the
       networks that exist, what do they do and challenges that people
       have faced in those networks. How can we go about creating
       better networks. 

Indrani: We are part of several networks. There is one international
	 network started with groups between West Bengal and
	 Bangladesh (they speak the same language)called ATSEC (Action
	 against Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation of Children. It
	 has been very effective in Bangladesh. The West Bengal was
	 new and functioning in a small way but the organization were
	 working on this problem for a long time. Later this network
	 became a national network. But as a national network, it has
	 become too big. Not all organizations are working on this
	 issue - some of them are working on child rights and
	 health. As a result they do not see the necessity to work
	 with each other, correspond with each other etc. If people do
	 not have keen interest and are not working on the same issue,
	 the terms might become little lose and may not
	 functional. When we started (4-5 years back) we were talking
	 about rescue and reintegration of victims. There we found
	 that if there is a big network, the network organization will
	 help in the reintegration of a child - maybe after some
	 vocational training and counseling - the child is able to
	 accept a new kind of life and has the initiative. From where
	 the child goes, we do not have the network to deal with and
	 even if we have one, the network does not share the same kind
	 of interest in the issue. So when we see it on paper, the a
	 member of the network exists but [in practice the member] is
	 not interested in doing a followup - thats the least that we
	 expect from them. Sometimes I feel it is better to have small
	 networks if you are talking about action oriented work. But
	 if you are talking about network for learning, surverys
	 etc. - e.g., nationally we have certain laws for CSEC. We can
	 find out what is happening all over India. This [large]
	 network is effective for that. But when are talking about
	 action on the ground - rehabilitation and reintegration of
	 the child, it might be very difficult. When are forming
	 network, we must be very particular about what kind of action
	 plan we are having. 

Anita: Just to summarize: (1) you need smaller networks when you want
       action at a local level (2) when you are doing something at the
       national level - policy level - you must bring around
       everyone. 
       
       Are there other such networks? 

Stanly: There are other networks like ATSEC at the national and
	international level. My point is that while choosing the
	partners in the network, we have to be careful. When are
	talking about CSE and trafficking, organizations which are
	distantly related to the issue cannot work together. I have
	been part of networks. We are failing because of different
	priorities. Some people within a network - some are particular
	about HIV prevention programs, some are particular about
	condom promotion, some are working on education etc. When we
	talk about one issue there will be differences of opinion. I
	feel that - it is debatable - in one forum we cannot work
	practically without a focus. The cause should be very clear
	and concrete. 
	
	It [A network] is dangerous also - by talking about
	trafficking we may be knowingly or unknowingly promoting
	traficking. For example, condom promotion is a good program
	but it has its own problem. Though people are honest and
	sincere, they cannot be successful in preventing traficking
	along with comdom prevention. 

	Another issue is who has to do these networks. With whom we
	have do these networks is important. We work in
	compartments. There is big gap between NGOs and people's
	movements. I have respect for public movement - though they
	are not mentioned favorably in terms of accountability etc. -
	movement has got its own weightage. We are afraid of
	movements. They have their own doubts about NGOs. It is to be
	curbed. If it can be done, we can have small network in
	every state. In every state there are people's movements. We
	are maintaining the distance for several reasons. It has to be
	considered. 

Ajeet:  People's movement. I think we have to be clear about one thing
	- that we have to move together in a group. Who is the focus
	of our activity, what is the focus of our work? Before you
	take any decision, that [questions] has to be kept in mind. It is
	true that there is a there is a difference between NGOs and
	movements, and that NGOs have become a corporate sector
	activity, it will be a problem to have so many people to move
	together. On this front we have to be unanimous as Stanly says. 

	The other part: It is difficult to move together with so many
	people with different background. It is certainly not possible
	to deal with all aspects of the issue - trafficking and
	prostitution. Before we embark on this journey, there has to
	be clear cut understanding of the issue of prostitution. As he
	[Stanly] said, few people who are distributing of condoms
	regard the distribution as an end it itself instead of
	understanding the whole gamut of issues involved. It is
	counterproductive in a different way. We have to have a
	comprehensive understanding of the issue. Then we can define
	role for ourselves. What happens then is that one has an
	understanding of what others are doing, how does it all fit
	together.

Parashu: Thats very debatable. 

Anita: I think the essence is that there are networks have certain
       goals - law, policy etc. At the same time, there is also a need
       for local support networks which help each other. (??)

Ajeet: Even after they understand the whole issue, if they are doing a
       different things, then we want to complete the definition (??) 

Indrani: I am trying to cite an example - there is a network called
	 maitri which is a network of womens' organizations who work
	 on atrocities against women. there are several members in
	 that network who receive foreign funds. There are
	 organizations which does not believe in it. What we decided
	 is that this network does not receive funds directly. All the
	 member organizations can have their programs. If there is an
	 activity that costs, say Rs. 5000, then each organization
	 contributes to the extent that it is willing to offer. Every
	 three months one organization becomes the secretariat. That
	 is agreed upon in the meetings. We have a fixed day every
	 month when we meet, and on special issues and before special
	 programs, we meet. There are different programs - not all the
	 members are involved all programs (there are 55-60
	 members). May be 10 organizations who doing that work. They
	 meet to take that program forward. There have been instances
	 when 2-3 organizations disgareed with a particular program,
	 and they stayed away from that program. Officially they said
	 that they are part of the network but do not agree with the
	 program and therefore will stay away. From 1995, we are still
	 able to work with each other. There has been a lot of taking
	 and giving each other. 

Manavade: Our capacity of working is limited. When the support is
	there from all the corners, we feel strengthened. Whatever we
	talk is significant. Whenever we want to have policy lobbying,
	such organized group is required so that a network works. In
	Maharashtra, as part of NACSET we are working on this
	issue. The network is expanding every month into a different
	district.
	
	Whatever possible the individual organization strength, or are
	in excess of something, they can extend. This is the benifit
	of the network. That is why the network is important. 

Anita:	We got to know about networks in Maharashra. Are there some in
	Goa. 

Sophia: In Bombay we have a network called CDE Ward - a [municipal]
	ward level network. The street children have been taking
	services from different organizations. Because of that we
	started this network. Because so many organizations were
	involved, a clear rehabilitation plan would not happen. We can
	exchange our resources and so that there is no overlap e.g.,
	shelter services and vocational training. There was initial
	opposition. Now there are 7-8 organizations and we have
	monthly meeting. More are joining the network. 

Anita:	Local networks need not be limited to working on the same
	issue. They can come together to pool in resources. 

Subhash: We have experience with networking. We are part of a network
	called Global Alliance for ... Women. It is a support-based
	group. There is a National Network for Sex Workers. We are
	different NGOs but we have commonality on certain
	points. Among those NGOs there are two main streams - one for
	legalization and one for decriminalization. NGOs with
	different focii are working together [on specific
	issues]. Within Kerala we are working with a network called
	Trivedi - a state-wide network of womens organization figting
	atrocities against women etc. - on specific programs. So it is
	possible to have a network with NGOs having different focus
	with a common agenda. There is a common interest here among
	groups against child trafficking. 

Stanly: There is always an element of danger - I am a small NGO, part
	of a national network, and always there is a chance of taking
	advantage of a national network to reach my goals sometimes
	without the knowledge of the network. I will be using the
	banner of ATSEC but will be focusing on my work. It definitely
	affects the whole network. This has to be tackled. 

	We have one experience with CACT (Campaign Against Child
	Trafficking). We found cne member of that network abused the
	network. Majority of the partners against revealing the
	identity of the organization or people involved. We take
	action against petty politician, we do not take the same
	amount of action on that particular NGO, activist. There is
	discrimination. We also have double standards. 

Anita: We heard about West Bengal, Karnataka, Kerala and Maharashtra. 

Julia: There is nothing like a organized network. There is an informal
       network. 

Hansa: but effective? 

Julia: Yes. 

Ajeet: The UP chapter of ATSEC was formed but it is not at all
       effective.

Anita: When you say that it is not working, are you saying there is a
       need for one of the NGOs to champion and take the network
       forward to ensure it stays functioning? Why is there no
       network? There is no enthusiam to network or no stability? 

Ajeet: I myself didnt participate. 

Anjali: We are part of a network in Pune. It is not functioning
	well. The reason is that each NGO has time for its own
	activities, and very few time find time for the common activity
	and perceive the importance of it - though they want
	to. Though the number of the NGOs may be large, it is finally
	the people who direct the network. 

Anita:	There are two things (1) there is their own activity (2) there
	is network-related acitivity. So probably the activity of the
	network does not connect closely their own activity. 

Anjali: Child rights. Each of us is working on child rights. Policy
	matters and changes in law should equally concern you as much
	as working at the grassroots level. 

Apte:	Networking is required at three different levels: 
	
	1. Grassroots level where direct help is required for the
           clients e.g., a girl is rescued and needs to be
           rehabilitated. 
	   
	2. Judiciary level where where networking with different kinds
           of people. 

	3. Government officials because they create policies and
           implement them and at every possible level - national and
           international level. 

	Not everybody understands the importance of networking. 

Anita:	Andhra Pradesh? 

Dr. Subbaramaih: [..inaudible..]

Anita: Tamil Nadu? 

Chandravel: There is no formal network on trafficking. Every
	    organization have their own focus and do collaborate on
	    issues.
	    
	    I am part of the NACSET.  There was communication gap and
	    therefore that got dropped.

	    Even if I go to meeting where there is a talk about
	    forming a network, the organization that organizes the
	    meeting ends up dictating [the areas of cooperation] and
	    there is no discussion on what all of us can do together
	    through the network. 
	    
	    The expectations from the network have to be clear. One is
	    joining a network without clear understanding as to what
	    one does in the network. No questions are raised. 

Anindit: There is a network in Andhra Pradesh called NATSAP (Network
	 Against Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation in Andhra
	 Pradesh). Kuranbhai (?) Prajwala and HELP are partners in
	 that network. I have worked with various organizations in AP,
	 this is quite a functional network. They work not only in
	 terms of services, because the entire restoration process is
	 done entirely through this network but also...ATSEC was a
	 great idea but it is not working anywhere. It is also about
	 leadership. Most NGOs are overworked. The resource problems
	 are real. At the same time, ATSEC requires good
	 leadership. It had good partners including
	 Odanadi. Leadership is the core issue. 

Apte: Resources are also crucial. To have computer, people, etc. not
      all agencies have those resources. Ultimately they get cut off. 

Vasu: The key in AP is the link from secretariat to the member down to
      the village. That relationship is missing in several of
      network. People attend programs attend by programs. We need to
      be a living network - we need to have a secretariat. We cannot
      live without one. Conducting training, documentation of
      experiences - both successes and failures, analyzing why we are
      succeeding and why are failing, who are the associates - this is
      the work that has to be done continuously by the
      network. Information sharing is makes the step on the ladder.
      Mostly what happens is that these networks operate in big
      cities, we expect NGOs from villages to attend "our"
      programs. They may not have any interest in coming - what I am
      going to learn there and how am I getting recognized there. I
      agree on the leadership part of it. 

      If we study the earlier networks which have fairly succeeded in
      its work: (1) village reach: Mahila Samakhya - it is a kind of
      network at the district level, they have succeeded in reaching
      the tribal hamlet, village level, panchayat and when you compare
      the change - thats one thing [reach out] that we have to learn.
      (2) Network of panchayats in Tamil Nadu spearheaded by
      Ilango. He is not talking about one model but several. We have
      to recognize the achievements of Odanadi or somebody else, and
      bring them together. If the NGOs wont feel important and
      empowered by being part of the network, they will not be part of
      it. 

Indrani: I would like to go back to funding/non-funding based
	 network. In Bangladesh, ATSEC had a secretariat, USAID
	 funded, staff, computers and building. The network did not
	 work because first thing that came to people's minds was that
	 they are not funded by USAID in many members. So why should
	 we get into it? A non-funded network (Maitri) works because
	 even organization with one room and no computer can make use
	 of the our organization which has computers and staff. If you
	 are able to convince people that you are going share what you
	 have, the nonfunding network will succeed. 

	 Networks having chairpersons and assistants, power levels, 
	 will also fail. 

Shanmuga: Network as a formal entity, secretary etc., is an
	  organization in itself and that has problems e.g., money,
	  funding, ego. 
	  
	  A slightly different perspective: There is no formal name
	  for the network, you stay in bilateral relationships and
	  that is the basic unit of network. If you have enough of
	  those relationships, whether there is a name or not, there
	  is a network. That could be one way to go. 

Dr. Subbaramaih: Many funding agencies like to fund networks. So
		 organizations that want money will form their
		 networks without including the people who are doing
		 real work. 

Chandravel: Even if there is no formal network, because I have
	    information about Odanadi, I can always refer someone to
	    them. It is question of teams coming together. 

Anjali:	 What is a reason for success of Asha network? 

Julia: The conference has been good. We have learnt what other
	organizations do. We have a tailoring programs and we want to
	build self-help groups with the girls. We wanted an exposure
	that we were looking for and during this interaction we have
	identified an organization that we can go to. 

Anita: All of you have talked about networks that exist. Is there one
       thing that you all would like to see? 

Hansa: We could have large network that is geared for advocacy. Or we
        could have a smaller, more proactive collaboration resolving
        day-to-day issues. If we want to have a large gathering, we
        could join ATSEC. On an everyday basis the network might not
        be functional but if we have a leadership potential we could
        take it forward. If you want more proactive collaboration, I
        would like to hear what you are looking for - something large
        or proactive collaboration? 

Anita:	Many of you mentioned about things lacking in other
	network. If there is one common thing that could be addressed
	as a group, what could it be? 

Chandravel: We have some 50 people focusing on different issues. Why
	    cant we make networks for...

Stanly: It is a teamwork - every body cannot be goalkeepers - you
	should know the focus and where we are taking the ball. What
	should the main focus, thats the main thing. 

Anjali: I feel the need for a network for (1) information sharing (2)
	what needs to be done.

Manavade: Network members will have an agreed code of conduct and a
	  policy system. These should be clear. 

	  Whats really the focus of the network, whether it should
	  focus on all or certain issues, they should be made clear. 
	  
	  The membership should be based on the agreement basis. 

Venkata: We are jumping ahead and talking about the mechanics of the
	 network. 

Ajeet:	 Small or big depends on the issues. It should not be any
	 official type of network. 

Apte:	 Since we are working in India with the federal systems, there
	 are probably units that work closely (laws and policies are
	 similar in a state). At the same time there are certain
	 common things, UN conventions should be made available to
	 everybody. 

Ashis:	 It should be formal. Every partner will know objective and
	 activities of the network. 

Anita:	 I understand that there is a need for local networks, but
	 there are larger issues at the state and national level in
	 which a forum like this, perhaps, where there are people from
	 different states can address issues. 

Indrani: What we need to do is information sharing. What is happening, 
	 and what do we need to do. What are laws in a particular
	 state and what are some special things that are happening in
	 that state. Share that. So that others in other states can
	 lobby. 

Anjali:  Net is the right place for that. 

Apte:	 In adoption case, one week is observed throughout the year,
	 all agencies observe that. If we also adopt that a week, say
	 Dec 3 - Dec 10, in which we locally highlight the issues,
	 take it up with the local press etc it becomes important.