The FIDAMERICA network is a very ambitious regional programme of IFAD's Latin America and the Caribbean Division that offers a platform for Internet-based electronic services geared towards creating a knowledge and information system – conformed by all of the IFAD system's regional actors – to eliminate rural poverty. It is ambitious because rural areas, which are where the local offices of IFAD projects and programmes are located, have the highest concentrations of the poorest of the poor but the lowest levels of Internet connectivity. Moreover, technical staff working in rural development projects lack an "information culture", a situation that is attributable as much to their academic training as to project work methods that tend to favour action rather than reflection.

The idea of a knowledge and information system built around an Internet-based platform of electronic services is both contemporary and efficient. Putting this idea into practice will hopefully make it possible to identify and disseminate – quickly and at low cost – effective solutions for eliminating rural poverty. This is especially valuable given the steady and rapid pace of change in technology and ways of delivering development-support services, against a backdrop of increasingly globalized markets.

The positive results achieved during the first phase of the FIDAMERICA programme (1995 to 1998) led IFAD to launch a second phase, with a view to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations in Latin America and the Caribbean, and to shoring up the institutional and financial sustainability of the network. The second phase, funded through technical assistance grant TAG 310 A, was launched in November 1998 and was to conclude in April 2002, further to an extension of the original completion date of October 2001.

The programme area was the Latin American and Caribbean region and its components were: training, knowledge and information projects, and development of electronic tools and services. The executing agency was RIMISP, a non-governmental organization with a solid background in agricultural and rural development. The programme structure consisted of a steering committee comprising the director of IFAD's Latin America and the Caribbean Division and the president of RIMISP (coordinator of the FIDAMERICA Phase II Programme). Monitoring and supervision was under the responsibility of a portfolio manager in IFAD's Latin America and the Caribbean Division.

The programme budget for the three-year implementation period was USD 944 350, financed by IFAD through a grant in the amount of USD 798 600 and by RIMISP through in-kind contributions estimated at USD 145 750. Accounting data as at 31 January 2002 indicated that USD 800 000 had been disbursed against TAG 310-A, of which USD 751 491 had been spent, leaving a balance in favour of RIMISP of USD 48 509 to cover expenses until programme completion on 30 April 2002.

Execution followed the annual workplans approved by the steering committee, which was also responsible for authorizing any adjustments arising out of the execution of activities. The plans were formulated by the programme and drew on broad-based advance consultations with project and programme officers. Due to a delay in the approval of disbursements, two annual workplans were approved during the execution phase.

The network's activities were implemented with significant input from the PREVAL-II, PROMER and FIDA-RUTA regional programmes, which contributed methodological elements and financial resources to achieve the following results: (a) a methodology for systematizing local experiences with agricultural and rural development (PREVAL-II); (b) training workshops in that methodology (PREVAL-II); (c) organization and moderation of on-line conferences on marketing and microenterprises (PROMER); and (d) writing, publication and distribution of short publications on IFAD projects in Central America (FIDA-RUTA). Valuable contributions were also made by other projects – e.g., MARENASS (Peru), PRODERCO (Honduras), PCARC (Ecuador), PROCHALATE (El Salvador) and PRODAPEN (Costa Rica) – in validating the methodology and in training field staff of various projects.

The following paragraphs describe the activities and achievements of the FIDAMERICA network during programme implementation.

Under a cooperation agreement with PREVAL-II, a new methodology was developed for systematizing local experiences with agricultural and rural development. The process entailed researching available methodologies, a development stage, validation in the field, and preparation of a CD-ROM¹ containing a description of the methodology, field guides, and ten case studies that were systematized at two training workshops. These activities were not provided for in the original project design, but were necessary given the absence of methodologies suited to IFAD projects and programmes.

Four training workshops were held: two by FIDAMERICA and PREVAL-II, with collaboration from the PRODERCO and PCARC projects; and two by the PROCHALATE and PRODAPEN projects, with support from FIDAMERICA.

Knowledge and information systems (KISs) were set up on the basis of over 60 local development experiences systematized by IFAD projects, 50 of which presented at the Meeting on Innovation and Knowledge to Eliminate Rural Poverty held in Managua, Nicaragua, on 25-27 September 2001. Some of the planned KIS activities did not take place, owing to delays in the systematization of local experiences by IFAD projects; these delays were caused by the lack of suitable methodologies as well as by internal project constraints.

The meeting in Managua, which presented the KISs both to the IFAD system in the region and to government representatives, was also an event of political significance, marking a break from IFAD's tradition of maintaining a low-profile presence in the region. This event was preceded by the Meeting of Rural Organizations Associated with IFAD Projects and Programmes in Latin America and the Caribbean (24 September 2001), which launched a region-wide network of rural organizations.

Five on-line conferences were held on very contemporary topics,² with an average of 700 participants per conference. Although this outcome had its origins in Phase I of FIDAMERICA, those interviewed during the interim evaluation indicated that the quality had improved vis-à-vis the first phase.

Ten short papers³ were prepared in the Best Practices series, describing successful practices for solving problems faced by most rural development projects in the region. In contrast to the systematization of experiences, a participatory methodology was not applied. Instead, the papers were drawn up by the respective project or programme officer. These papers were posted on the FIDAMERICA website and distributed by e-mail to FIDAVANCE list subscribers.

Under a cooperation agreement between FIDAMERICA and RUTA-FIDA, 14 short publications were prepared on IFAD projects in Central America. Written by journalists who conducted interviews and took photographs to illustrate their stories, the publications were produced in print versions as part of the RUTA Documenting Experiences publications series; they were distributed in conjunction with the Managua meeting by post and through the national technical units of RUTA in Central America.

The outputs of the component to develop electronic tools and services included: (I) a website with 35 pages of material on IFAD projects and programmes in Latin America and the Caribbean, in addition to the FIDAMERICA home page, which received two honourable mentions for its "excellent standards of quality in content, design, originality and clarity"; (ii) the design, updating and maintenance of these webpages; (iii) administration of nine electronic mailing lists (for a total of 1 295 subscribers), several of which were started under Phase I but saw an increase in the number of subscribers during Phase II; (iv) administration of two contracts with commercial providers of computer and Internet-access services; (v) a databank on human resources, publications and institutions – under an agreement with PROCASUR – called the On-line Information System for Rural Development (SILDER) and open to all; and (vi) a database of documentation on rural development – under an agreement with the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex (England) and with collaboration from the Chorlaví Group – including the joint preparation of a Spanish version of the ELDIS electronic publications management system.

A programme activity that was not implemented was the training of leaders of rural organizations and project field staff in computers and use of the Internet. The Phase II proposal to prioritize training in the methodology for systematizing local development experiences was not accepted by the IFAD projects, inasmuch as it did not respond to their needs and because of internal project constraints.

Impact

The interim evaluation included interviews with officers of the Latin America and the Caribbean Division, the coordinators of three regional IFAD programmes, the coordinator of FIDAMERICA Phase II, as well as managers, officers and field staff of eleven IFAD projects in six countries of the region⁴, leaders of nine rural-poor organizations, and leaders of four NGOs and coexecuting agencies of IFAD projects.

The opinions of those interviewed show that FIDAMERICA Phase II attained its general objective, namely: to support decision-making processes under IFAD operations in Latin America and the Caribbean by facilitating the systematization, documentation, archive, capture, communication, and exchange of information and knowledge through Internet-based electronic tools and services. This affirmation is based on the fact that:

(a) The concept of a network connecting the IFAD system in Latin America and the Caribbean was introduced, opening up spaces favourable for stakeholders and establishing horizontal linkages between actors as a complement to the traditional set of headquarter-based relations with the Latin America and the Caribbean Division. These new linkages enabled talented individuals in IFAD's regional system to make a contribution to the elimination of rural poverty.

(b) There are now more support elements for decision-making, thanks to the shared information and knowledge flowing from on-line conferences, systematized cases, best practices and the availability of technical news and documents received through electronic mailing lists.

(c) Project work methods have also been modified, especially as regards communications, data transmission and publication of reports on electronic media and via the Internet.

Effects

The effects achieved, which together determined the impacts described above, relate to the fulfilment of the programme's four specific objectives. The indicators for these objectives are described below.

Specific Objective 1: To support the development of human resources within IFAD's operations in Latin America and the Caribbean in terms of using Internet-based tools and services to improve project and programme efficiency and effectiveness. The effects of this objective relate to the training activities, and the following achievements were identified:

(a) The methodology developed by FIDAMERICA and PREVAL for systematizing local experiences with agricultural and rural development was validated, and four training workshops on methodology were organized: two by FIDAMERICA and PREVAL, with support from the PRODERCO and PCARC projects; and two by the PROCHALATE and PRODAPEN projects, with support from FIDAMERICA.

(b) These workshops provided training to 78 technical experts from projects, coexecuting agencies and government institutions.

(c) At the workshops, 18 experiences were systematized, and the respective documents and presentations with electronic audio-visual media were prepared.

(d) A CD-ROM was produced to disseminate the methodology and the field guides; it also contains ten experiences systematized in the workshops.

(e) The goal of training leaders and/or members of rural-poor organizations was not achieved, owing to: the priority given to training field staff in the new methodology, the fact that the FIDAMERICA training proposal did not respond to project requirements, and internal project constraints.

(f) The systematization of local experiences led to discussion on the project's modus operandi, beneficiaries' expectations, the results of interventions, and lessons learnt.

Specific Objective 2: To promote and organize dynamic, sustainable processes for the systematization, documentation, archive, capture, communication, and exchange of knowledge and information in specific topics identified as being of high priority for IFAD operations in Latin America and the Caribbean. The following effects were identified:

(a) IFAD projects and programmes, working together with coexecuting agencies, systematized more than 60 local agricultural and rural development experiences, 50 of which were presented at the Managua meeting.

(b) The Meeting on Innovation and Knowledge to Eliminate Rural Poverty was organized; it was attended by over 150 persons, representatives of the Nicaraguan Government, of IFAD's Latin America and the Caribbean Division, other cooperation agencies, 27 rural development projects and programmes in the region, 8 regional IFAD programmes and 20 rural organizations, most of them coexecuting agencies of IFAD projects.

(c) Ten best-practice papers were prepared and distributed via the FIDAVANCE electronic mailing list and posted on the FIDAMERICA website.

(d) Five on-line conferences were organized on relevant topics, with an average of 700 participants⁵ per conference.

(e) Fourteen short papers were drafted on success stories in Central America, and subsequently published in the RUTA Systematizing Experiences publications series under a cooperation agreement between RUTA, IFAD and FIDAMERICA.

(f) The dissemination of impacts (best practices) and processes (systematization of local experiences) is becoming institutionalized among IFAD's projects and programmes in the region and is contributing to improved decision-making. Within this process of institutionalization, not only is systematization viewed increasingly as an activity of project executing units, but the methodology has also been transferred to no fewer than 25 coexecuting agencies;⁶ some projects intend to incorporate it as a mandatory activity in future coexecution agreements.

(g) Communication, networking and exchange of knowledge between projects has been facilitated and improved.

(h) The meeting of organizations in Managua (25 September 2001) was very important, and new knowledge was acquired through conversations held with staff and rural leaders.

(i) The outputs of the network have modified projects' work methods through the incorporation of new methodologies, such as the systematization of experiences, the microenterprises strategy and M&E methods. The project is analysing the advisability of establishing a systematization school to train field staff of coexecuting agencies in application of methodology.

Specific Objective 3: To adapt or design specific Internet-based electronic tools and services to support the processes described in Specific Objectives 1 and 2. The mission identified the following effects:

(a) The FIDAMERICA website contained between 35 and 27 pages on regional projects and programmes, several of which were redesigned and updated.

(b) Over the period 1999-2001, the FIDAMERICA website registered about 2.5 million hits, and visitors downloaded about 20 megabytes⁷of documents; these figures are significantly higher than those registered for Phase I. The website was awarded a certificate of quality from Dobleu.com and the Web Select Award by Majon, two leading Internet ranking firms.

(c) Nine electronic mailing lists – belonging to FIDAMERICA and other regional programmes – were managed.

(d) The SILDER on-line database was set up, with 5 405 persons, publications and institutions registered.

(e) The ELDIS database of documentation on rural development was launched in Spanish, with free access for FIDAMERICA users.

(f) FIDAMERICA helped to disseminate actions of regional programmes and to facilitate access to their services by way of Internet-based electronic means.

(g) The FIDAMERICA network's electronic products and services have given projects access to knowledge on M&E systems, application of the gender focus, rural microenterprise, market access, the environment, coexecution arrangements, participatory methodologies, microfinance, etc.

(h) The definitive adoption of e-mail as the means of communication has streamlined the IFAD system and its operations in Latin America and the Caribbean. Governments in the region have also contributed to this outcome as they use e-mail in their regular operations. Although this was an outcome of FIDAMERICA Phase I, the second phase has helped to consolidate it.

(i) Recent loan contracts have included a clause establishing the borrower's obligation to facilitate project access to the Internet and to the FIDAMERICA network's products and services.

(j) A number of FIDAMERICA network products have enhanced IFAD's image, projects and programmes by disseminating news, official information and knowledge. Amongst these products are the FIDAMERICA webpage, on-line conferences and electronic mailing lists.

Specific Objective 4: To create conditions for the financial and institutional sustainability of FIDAMERICA upon completion of this activity. The mission identified the following sustainability indicators:

(a) Progress was made in the direction of achieving institutional sustainability, inasmuch as those interviewed attached great importance to carrying out a third phase of the FIDAMERICA Network Programme. One third considered a third phase necessary in order to complete the organization of the KISs and to incorporate rural-poor organizations into the network. The other two thirds felt it was important to carry out a third phase, for the same reasons as stated above. Some cited the need to develop products that responded to the interests and capacities of farmers' organizations, project field staff and coexecuting agencies. No one felt a third phase was unnecessary. This shows that the network already occupies an important place in IFAD's regional projects and programmes in Latin America and the Caribbean and that its products and services form part of their everyday activities.

(b) No progress was made in terms of establishing a representative body of network participants that could assume the network's administration. This should be interpreted as an indicator of the nascent development of the network and as tacit recognition of the efficiency of RIMISP in carrying out these tasks.

(c) Progress was made towards achieving the financial sustainability of the network, since many Phase II activities and products were cofinanced by regional projects and programmes. This aspect of the network's sustainability should also be analysed in light of the strategic role defined by IFAD for the FIDAMERICA network and thus its obligation to finance actions assigned to the programme. The Interim Evaluation Mission was unable to establish the total amount of cofinancing, but estimated that it was substantial. The following activities and products were cofinanced:

i. RIMISP cofinanced 15% of the FIDAMERICA programme budget;
ii. development of the methodology for systematizing local experiences, cofinanced by PREVAL-II;
iii. training of field staff in application of the methodology, cofinanced by the PREVAL-II programme and by PRODERCO, PCARC, PRODAPEN and PROCHALATE and all projects that sent field staff to the workshops, covering per diems and travel expenses;
iv. systematization of local experiences, financed by all the projects, which seconded personnel and allocated other resources to this activity;
v. the Meeting on Innovation and Knowledge to Eliminate Rural Poverty: the meeting's organization was cofinanced by all the regional programmes, while the travel and accommodation costs of field staff and rural leaders were completely financed by the participating projects;
vi. on-line conferences, cofinanced by PROMER and the Chorlaví Group;
vii. creation and updating of webpages, cofinanced by regional projects and programmes by means of various contributions;
viii. best practices, using project resources;
ix. publications in printed format and on CD-ROM, cofinanced by the PREVAL-II, PROMER and RUTA-FIDA regional programmes and the MARENASS and PROCHALATE projects;
x. development of the SILDER on-line database, cofinanced by the PROCASUR programme, the Chorlaví Group and the Interchurch Organization for Development Cooperation (ICCO);
xi. development of the ELDIS documentation database in Spanish, cofinanced by the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex (England) and the Chorlaví Group.

Other Objectives. The activities of FIDAMERICA Phase II helped to raise IFAD's profile in the region, highlighting its presence and role in rural development and poverty reduction. This was possible thanks to the diversity of international agencies and regional NGOs that took part in on-line conferences and to the participation of other institutions in the Managua Meeting on Innovation and Knowledge to Eliminate Rural Poverty.

Conclusions

The execution of FIDAMERICA Phase II, the effects and impacts achieved, and the opinions of the main actors involved led the Interim Evaluation Mission to draw the following conclusions:

Performance of RIMISP. All those interviewed agreed that the performance of RIMISP as executing agency of the FIDAMERICA Network Programme-Phase II was very good and that its flexibility, resolve and professional prestige contributed significantly to programme execution.

Programme Organization. Thanks to its small and efficient steering committee, the strengths of the RIMISP, and periodic monitoring by the IFAD portfolio manager, Phase II displayed an appropriate level of responsiveness. However, regular evaluations would have provided timely indications of the degree of user satisfaction and of any changes in user needs and demands.

Institutional Support for Execution of FIDAMERICA. Overall programme performance could have been improved had the Latin America and the Caribbean Division taken steps to counter the apathy of some executing-agency managers and officers through greater involvement by portfolio managers and cooperating institutions, especially the latter, which have not really been brought into the network.

Knowledge and Information Systems (KISs). The core action was the establishment of four KISs based on the development experience of IFAD projects and programmes in the region. At the end of execution of the TAG, it was clear to the Interim Evaluation Mission that, although the task had only been partially completed, the effects and impacts achieved were greater than anticipated. Proof of this is the adoption – by nearly all the projects and programmes – of the practice of systematizing local development experiences, active horizontal communication within the IFAD system in the region vis-à-vis the most highly valued products (i.e., systematization of local experiences, on-line conferences and best practices), and the interest of officers in expanding coverage of the network, incorporating field staff and beneficiaries.

A further observation was that the establishment of the KISs turned out to be far more complex than anticipated, and this resulted in a considerable delay in obtaining the final outputs, some of which were not delivered, e.g., comparative studies within each KIS and the publication of documents. However, this cannot be attributed to a one-sided offering by FIDAMERICA, because the programme to establish the KISs was widely consulted with project managers and officers by means of visits to their offices and by the organization of an event to formalize agreements, in Panama City in October 1999; the date of this event – it should be noted – made it possible for the annual workplans to include the systematization tasks for which the projects were responsible.

The conclusion drawn by the Interim Evaluation Mission is that the delay was due mainly to the projects' lack of knowledge about how to systematize their experiences and about the extent of the task to which they had committed themselves. This constraint was detected by FIDAMERICA nearly six months after signature of the agreements with the projects. Its response was immediate and the decision was taken to include two new activities in the programme: development of a methodology to systematize development experiences by means of an agreement with PREVAL-II; and training for project field staff. Pursuant to this decision, the first training workshop took place in August 2000 on a new methodology for systematizing local experiences with agricultural and rural development. This activity had not been foreseen in the design phase and had to be added to offset a shortcoming that represented a hurdle to the programme's main objective.

The projects adopted the methodology immediately, and by mid-2001 more than 60 cases had been systematized, 50 of which were presented at the Meeting on Innovation and Knowledge to Eliminate Rural Poverty, held in Managua, Nicaragua, on 25-27 September 2001. In addition, all those interviewed felt the methodology was important insofar as it was a product that the IFAD system in the region needed in order to improve decision-making. This confirms that the Phase II strategy was correct in prioritizing it, even at the cost of reducing emphasis on other actions.

The KISs were also enriched by other products of the network, such as the on-line conferences on current issues, the best practices disseminated by Internet-based electronic means, and the print publication in the RUTA Systematizing Experiences publications series, under an agreement with the RUTA-FIDA programme. An event that had a major impact was the Meeting on Innovation and Knowledge to Eliminate Rural Poverty in view of its contribution to the dissemination of knowledge, its political relevance (there was participation by government authorities), the presentation of IFAD's focus on the characteristics of poverty, and the networking between institutions and individuals.

Training. A second area of work under Phase II was the training of field staff and beneficiaries, with the programme design providing that the main topics would be computers and use of the Internet. In practice, these topics were replaced by the systematization of local experiences, given the urgent need to focus on this issue. The outcomes of these activities were fully satisfactory, inasmuch as: training was provided to 78 technical experts from projects, programmes, coexecuting agencies and government institutions; over 60 local experiences of projects and coexecuting agencies were systematized in less than a year; and the practice of systematizing was enthusiastically adopted by all the projects, thus ensuring the sustainability of the KISs and the evaluation of the impact of projects and programmes in the region.

Given the urgency of systematizing experiences, training in computers and use of the Internet was postponed, and a number of activities were not carried out. A further obstacle was the fact that the projects did not accept FIDAMERICA's proposal, for such various reasons as lack of budget, high cost of trips abroad, the existence of local/national supply of acceptable training, lack of Internet connections for farmer organizations, limited connectivity for project field staff, and the unavailability of appropriate products for these users, especially for farmers. This does not mean that FIDAMERICA should give up on training – which is crucial to making efficient use of an Internet connection – but it should formulate and spearhead proposals that are better suited to project possibilities and local context, while retaining responsibility for the design of content and evaluation of outcomes so as to ensure efficient use of the network's services.

Development of Electronic Services and Tools. In parallel with the other actions, the development of electronic services and tools helped to secure the very satisfactory level of achievement of the program's objectives and enhanced overall performance. Proof of this was the signing of new agreements with Internet service providers to supply high-quality services; the creation, updating and maintenance of up to 35 webpages for regional projects and programmes; the administration of nine electronic lists with 1 295 members; the development and launching of the SILDER on-line database, under an agreement with PROCASUR; and the development and launching of the ELDIS documentation bank in Spanish, in addition to the honourable mentions garnered by the website.

Other Actions and Outcomes. The network's products and services were also helpful in promoting other regional programmes and as a platform for delivering their products and services. This conclusion is based on the opinions of regional programme coordinators who have improved their working relationship with the projects and, ultimately, are expecting a qualitative and quantitative improvement in their technical supply.

Quality of the Network's Products and Services. Overall, quality has been satisfactory for most users and the Interim Evaluation Mission gathered many positive comments, especially with regard to on-line conferences, best practices and administration of the electronic lists. At the same time, though, some products were the subject of less than favourable comments, which should be borne in mind for the future:

(a) FIDAMERICA's dissemination and knowledge-management functions do not usually have a project-internal counterpart that gives them due attention. Accordingly, many of the network's valuable products are not adequately disseminated or tapped.

(b) The on-line conferences were not geared to the time availability or intellectual level of the field staff of projects and coexecuting agencies, although they were ranked very favourably by project and programme officers; it was as if they were two separate products.

(c) The projects' webpages are relatively not sufficiently interactive or dynamic; moreover, they only contain information of a general nature, whereas they should include systematized experiences, best practices and other relevant content.

(d) During much of the implementation period, the network's products and services were not properly promoted, with dissemination limited almost exclusively to FIDAMERICA's website. This situation was remedied in late 2001 when someone was hired to oversee the dissemination of news and promote the network's products and services by sending e-mail messages to list members, with good results.

(e) The SILDER on-line database is relatively unknown and underutilized in several countries, probably because of insufficient promotion.

Need for New Products and Services. Some of those interviewed felt that FIDAMERICA lacked a number of services whose viability and appropriateness should be analysed: (I) webpages that heighten the visibility of farmers' organizations and coexecuting agencies of projects and programmes; (ii) access to agricultural and craft markets through the FIDAMERICA website, requested both by rural leaders and by project field staff; (iii) farmers' organizations and coexecuting agencies indicated a need for the website and other network products to be used to disseminate their projects and facilitate identification and management of new sources of financing; and (iv) services and/or linkages for virtual education for local promoters and technical staff, e.g., at the undergraduate and graduate level, etc.

Issues Not Addressed by Phase II. Internet connectivity and access for projects, coexecuting agencies and farmers' organizations was not provided for in the design, nor was it possible to address them during execution of Phase II. However, this issue has a major impact on the network's efficiency in that many "natural" users are left out, including IFAD's target group. This is undoubtedly an issue of significant technical complexity and will surely require significant investments from IFAD projects. Even so, FIDAMERICA should not lose its leadership in this area of such great potential.

Sustainability of the Network. The sustainability of the FIDAMERICA network – which is at once a policy instrument of IFAD and a platform for delivering Internet-based products and services – should be analysed from two standpoints: (I) service continuity, on the basis of real demand and positive input-to-output ratios in the broadest sense, i.e., project impact and outcomes, human and professional development, institutional prestige of the IFAD system; and (ii) financial sustainability of the network's services, to which each network user should contribute the necessary resources. Execution of the second phase met both criteria, as verified by the Interim Evaluation Mission, which established the existence of such demand and of cofinancing for most of the activities carried out, when they responded to demand.

An aspect that did not contribute to the network's financial sustainability was the lack of accurate references on FIDAMERICA in the formulation and appraisal documents for older projects and in the respective technical assistance missions.

Lessons from Experience

FIDAMERICA's experience in the area of Internet connectivity and access for rural-poor organizations and the access of project field staff and coexecuting agencies to the network's services indicates that a more thorough evaluation should be conducted of the nature of the context and assumptions, before defining the intervention.

Regional programmes that deliver products and services to projects must make sure that they respond to actual demand, at the very least with respect to: (I) expected products; (ii) implementation strategy and format; (iii) timeliness of supply; and (iv) costs. In practice, the regional programmes offer a basic supply that is defined in terms of IFAD's policies and strategies for the region, and rightly so, since that is their role within the IFAD system in Latin America and the Caribbean. However, this implies immediate acceptance of this supply by the projects, which is not always possible, for instance, when the supply lacks viability, budget funds are lacking, or there are conflicts with country programmes and/or at the sector or internal level.

Experience with FIDAMERICA also shows that the general performance of the regional programmes hinges, to a great extent, on the institutional support they receive from IFAD's Latin America and the Caribbean Division, including the cooperating institutions, which oversee most of the technical and financial operations of the projects.

Like gender issues and M&E, knowledge management too requires ad hoc counterparts within project and programme structures, with set functions and an assigned budget. This means that minimum guidelines should be formulated for ongoing projects as well as for the design of new projects.

Regular evaluations under the regional programmes will surely enhance their effectiveness and efficiency, thanks to timely feedback on how well users' needs are being met. These activities, coupled with supple decision-making and implementation arrangements, will undoubtedly help to achieve the desired results.

The varying opinions expressed during the on-line conferences are an indicator that there needs to be a clear idea of the target users of the services, since otherwise some of the members of the target group will be those who benefit the least.

---