{"id":1671,"date":"2012-10-22T16:48:17","date_gmt":"2012-10-22T21:48:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/\/"},"modified":"2016-01-27T18:15:56","modified_gmt":"2016-01-27T23:15:56","slug":"the-on-think-tanks-interview-priyanthi-fernando","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/the-on-think-tanks-interview-priyanthi-fernando\/","title":{"rendered":"Priyanthi Fernando, Executive Director of CEPA (Sri Lanka)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The interviews published by On Think Tanks<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0vippal<\/a>\u00a0on think tanks\u2019 leaders raised the interest of\u00a0ebpdn<\/a>\u00a0to sum up efforts in gathering more of these experiences from different regions.\u00a0Nayana Godamunne<\/a>\u00a0from\u00a0CEPA<\/a>\u00a0agreed to interview the Executive Director from that organisation,\u00a0Priyanthi Fernando<\/a>, opening up their best practices and the challenges they face as an organisation that tries to find its way through research in a complex environment. We encourage other members of organisation to interview their own directors and share their output with us.<\/p>\n

NG:<\/strong>\u00a0CEPA was established in 2001, what were the motivations for setting it up?<\/p>\n

PF:<\/strong>\u00a0By 2001, there was an increase in development projects, greater awareness on the benefits of impact monitoring and the need for specialised skills in monitoring and evaluation.\u00a0 In response, CEPA was set up using the skill base from the then GTZ (Now GIZ) Poverty\u00a0 Impact Monitoring Unit (PIMU). The thinking behind setting up CEPA was to create an organisation that would provide robust independent research on poverty related issues, and fill the space for impact monitoring that was thought to exist. In a sense, CEPA was established with a definite concept in mind, its orientation is a balance between client servicing; through shorter term assignments and research; through longer term\u00a0programmatic<\/strong>\u00a0funding.\u00a0 In addition,\u00a0 it was recognised that there could be times when funding for its work could be difficult and being a not for profit organisation,\u00a0 a form of \u2018insurance\u2019 was necessary to protect CEPA from undertaking work purely driven on a basis\u00a0 of financial need which could compromise its independence. This \u2018insurance\u2019 comes in the form of the \u2018Development Fund\u2019 which is a reserve of US$25,000 created by GTZ at inception and sustained by contributions from CEPA\u2019s income earning activities.<\/p>\n

NG:\u00a0You joined CEPA in 2005 as ED, prior to which you worked internationally and lived overseas for a considerable period of time.\u00a0 What was it about CEPA as an organisation, that attracted you to it?<\/strong><\/p>\n

PF:\u00a0<\/strong>CEPA has a relatively flat management structure with a great deal of pride in its participatory management style.\u00a0 All staff are encouraged to actively engage in discussions which take\u00a0 many forms – from the more traditional research brainstorming to the lunch table discussions from which some of our best ideas have originated. I am very comfortable with this type of management style. My skills, experiences and orientation were, I think, a good fit for CEPA. No doubt there have been challenging times over the last 7 years but overall it has been tremendously rewarding to be part of a highly passionate and motivated team who truly believe in what they do and what they want to do which is to bring about change for the betterment in the lives of\u00a0 men, women and children.<\/p>\n

NG:\u00a0In the Sri Lankan context, what is expected of a think tank? Has the role and function changed since you first took over as ED?<\/strong><\/p>\n

PF:<\/strong>\u00a0There are few independent think tanks in Sri Lanka and retaining that independence is a challenge in the current political and economic context.\u00a0 CEPA fiercely stands by its research quality and independence which sometimes means we have to say things which are not what our clients want to hear.\u00a0 We also strongly believe that we need to communicate our findings which are grounded through field level engagement with communities. But in the present political context the spaces for dialogue and exchange are increasingly shrinking.<\/p>\n

Also, as the name CEPA suggests, the nature of our work has a strong poverty focus which was very much part of development rhetoric in the earlier 2000s. Much of the government and non government development activities focused on poverty reduction and alleviation. But more recently, Sri Lanka has been classified as a middle income country which has implications for our work. As far as funding is concerned, Sri Lanka is no longer a priority country for poverty reduction programs so accessing donor funds has become much more difficult. In addition, with the government statistics indicating lower absolute poverty figures, the term poverty is no longer part of the government rhetoric. This is not to say that there is no poverty in Sri Lanka but that use of the term is now not politically savvy. Also CEPA has specialised skills in impact monitoring which was and still is a niche skill. But impact monitoring, in the present context, is not considered an important activity as many implementers are looking at blind rubber stamping of their initiatives rather than critical analysis of the impacts of their projects.<\/p>\n

NG:\u00a0How has CEPA coped with these challenges?<\/strong><\/p>\n

PF:<\/strong>\u00a0Our biggest asset is our staff. We have a relatively young team of researchers, many of whom have been at CEPA for at least 5 years. Attracting and retaining good staff is always a challenge, specially when there are more financially lucrative jobs in other sectors. At CEPA we have a relatively flat structure. We have three skill teams and 5 thematic research areas. Our research staff are categorised into 3 levels as Junior Professionals, Professionals and Senior Professionals depending on their skills and experience.\u00a0 The organisation culture is one that does not encourage competition between skills teams or between individuals at each level but one that fosters individual capacity building within the overall framework of a CEPA team. At each level, there is a lot of capacity building and research staff are provided opportunities to lead and take ownership of their work when working on specific assignments. This organisational culture which supports guiding, mentoring and individual capacity building within the context of a team with a common set of core values and objectives is a core strength of CEPA as evidenced during difficult times when all of the staff have pulled together as a team.<\/p>\n

We have also adapted and reorganised the way we work without changing our core values. We are recipients of the IDRC Think Tank Initiative which has provided us core funding to take stock, conceptualise and strategise our research focus and activities in the longer term.\u00a0 TTI funds have provided us \u2018thinking time\u201d which is a critically important aspect of a think tank and an activity rarely funded by donors. We have now organised our research focus into 5 thematic areas; environment and climate change, infrastructure, migration, vulnerability and post conflict and set up a new skill team for Communications and Policy which again is an important component of a think tank.<\/p>\n

NG:<\/strong>\u00a0How has CEPA contributed to the way public opinion and policy is framed in Sri Lanka?<\/strong><\/p>\n

PF:\u00a0<\/strong>CEPAs work is grounded in empirical research from the grass roots. We are committed to empowering these communities with the knowledge that we generate and strongly believe that in a liberal democratic environment these communities can use the knowledge we put out as a constituency when they vote or voice their demand for better access to and provision of public services for instance.\u00a0 We also work through the media and have a range of public events for discussion and debate. On a case-by case basis we also take our work to higher levels of policymaking where we feel we have something of public interest which should be shared. The most recent example being the lessons learnt from our role as the external monitor for resettlement for the Southern Transport Development Project which is Sri Lanka\u2019s first Expressway. Given the impetus towards infrastructure led growth in Sri Lanka we felt the need to share the best practices and lessons learnt from our work as widely as possible. We have done this in the form of public discussions, media articles, a publication and a position paper for parliamentary debate which would influence the way in which resettlement is handled in future development projects.<\/p>\n

NG:<\/strong>\u00a0What are your thoughts on how knowledge is produced and acceptance of that knowledge in the global forum?<\/strong><\/p>\n

PF:<\/strong>\u00a0To produce new knowledge you need money and there isn\u2019t enough\u00a0 of it to go around. As a think tank we are competing with other think tanks and academic institutions for a piece of that pie.\u00a0 I believe we lose out when we compete against each other.\u00a0 There is so much we as an intellectual community can bring to the table if we work together. Some competition is good, but there are benefits from synergising and complementing too.<\/p>\n

As a southern think tank there are mindsets that affect the acceptance of the knowledge that we generate. Often when we are writing up research proposals we are asked to collaborate with northern research organisations.\u00a0 Many of the journals produced in this part of the world are not considered \u2018peer reviewed\u2019 by the knowledge gurus of the North. There is a knowledge hierarchy and a knowledge agenda set by the north which is based on the assumption that we don\u2019t have the academic, qualifications and skills to produce reliable and acceptable knowledge which I strongly disagree with.\u00a0 There are many southern think tanks like CEPA which have staff with excellent academic qualifications, skills and local knowledge which are equal, if not in some cases, better than those of northern researchers. I think the assumption that\u00a0\u00a0 knowledge produced by southern institutions is not up to mark needs to be challenged.<\/p>\n

NG:\u00a0As a not for profit organisation CEPA\u00a0 is dependent on external funds for\u00a0 its work. What do you see as the disadvantage of this?\u00a0Are there other \u2018non traditional \u2018 sources of funds that CEPA could tap into? What about funding from Asias booming economies?<\/strong><\/p>\n

PF:\u00a0<\/strong>Yes, there are a couple of issues. First, the donor sets the agenda and to be eligible for funding, we have to spin the research question or hypothesis to fit that agenda.\u00a0 These agendas usually have a time frame; but issues and buzzwords come and go, they are defined in geographical spaces far from the real life world of the communities they are intended to benefit.\u00a0 So, sometimes there are misfits between what is required by the community and what is required to obtain funding. At CEPA , we try to resist agendas set up donors and look for\u00a0 funding sources which give us leverage to find an issue which we are interested in researching.<\/p>\n

Then there is the issue of showing results \u2013 indications that we have an impact. The change that we are seeking to bring about sometimes is a slow process and may require more than a single intervention. So there is the issue of showing short term results at the expense of longer term real impact.\u00a0 I\u2019d like to share a comment that I received on my personal blog when I talked about the effectiveness of think tanks \u2013<\/p>\n

The focus on “uptake” has a sickly underbelly – because it can incentivise the researchers to push their findings to policymakers, when we know the world is a complex place and no single research can give all the answers\u2026. so there are (or at least can be) moral implications in how strenuously we push our findings out there\u2026. research needs to be judged by how well it can trigger and sustain an active policy focus and effective policy dialogue on a given issue\u2026.what we need to be judged by is whether or not we made people think.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As for other sources of funding, it is encouraging that local corporates are setting up Foundations, some of which are interested in funding knowledge sector activities.\u00a0 One has ambitions of becoming the local Gates Foundation!\u00a0 A\u00a0 project of the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex with which we are linked, is exploring philanthropy and development, and is showing that\u00a0 Sri Lanka, is quite high in the giving index, so maybe this will get translated into support for the knowledge sector though at the moment it is much more on the lines of direct support to the needy.\u00a0 As for funding from Asia, much of the funding comes in the form of bi lateral loans and some grants mainly for infrastructure related projects. There isn\u2019t any for \u2018soft\u2019 activities such as research unfortunately.<\/p>\n

NG:<\/strong>\u00a0Lastly, how do you see CEPA negotiating a place in this complex environment?<\/strong><\/p>\n

PF:<\/strong>\u00a0In the last 10 years, CEPA concentrated on developing the skills of creating robust research findings, and building a reputation as a serious research organisation.\u00a0 In the next decade we would like to maintain and develop this skill base further, but also look more at how we can transform the knowledge we\u2019ve gained from our research into an informed dialogue among citizens, government decision makers, civil society organisations and the private sector.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The interviews published by On Think Tanks\u00a0and\u00a0vippal\u00a0on think tanks\u2019 leaders raised the interest of\u00a0ebpdn\u00a0to sum up efforts in gathering more of these experiences from different regions.\u00a0Nayana Godamunne\u00a0from\u00a0CEPA\u00a0agreed to interview the Executive Director from that organisation,\u00a0Priyanthi Fernando, opening up their best practices and the challenges they face as an organisation that tries to find its way […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_hide_content":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":"","footnotes":""},"tags":[458,290,384,196,262,335,291],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1671"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1671"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1671\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1671"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1671"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}