This is a CTP of initiative: Arche Noah (Austria)
The CTP consist of the opening of the new office in Brussels by AN. The CTP happened in a period when the organisation again reached a point “to reflect on where to go and how much to grow”. The CTP has started five years ago when AN opened the Brussels office with an aim to shape the seed marketing law. Several processes constituted this CTP. Some of the pervious CTPs rather connected to the dilemma whether AN should stay informal or professionalise. The organisational experience was that that informality did not work and there was always a decision to grow and professionalise. The CTP is about “how international are we, or regional, European, national level” … “what is the demand from others and what others want from us”. As for the interviewee the turning point is critical as AN by now gained good reputation and demand from different associations and “we are not fully equipped to respond to this demand”. As a main precondition this CTP depends mostly on individuals – “as a political scientist I believe in organisations but individuals in our board have a vision how to go on at the operational level and they used the window of opportunities – strategic level the change comes from the board and needs support from the operational level.” Thus the CTP is actively shaped through AN board meeting in every two three months that “discusses identity and opportunity of what should we do”. On the institutional level AN created and nurtures multiple values for various stakeholders: “different people have different picture about the image of AN – a very European organisation and at the same time a garden in the countryside of Vienna.” The interviewee found that AN is “too slow in reacting” to the changing environment… the window is about to close”.
Circumstances and stakeholders that made the CTP happen are multiple. On the personal level, as the interviewee works at AN only for three and a half years, the CTP is perceived as a unique organisational experience to rethink the old dilemmas - “to reflect on where to go and how much to grow”. The challenge is about to reach a shared understanding on “how international are we, or regional, European, national level” … “what is the demand from others and what others want from us”. Therefore, the actual CTP is characterised by co-production. Active role is performed by the board of AN that is guiding and shaping the rethinking of identity and activity of the initiative. The board is therefore initiating “quite some debates about this issues … that take place on the operational level, and it is disguised as everyday problem: what to do with this or that request.” Thus, this CTP is coproduced by the operational and board level: “it is all about power” and (one position is that) “the operational level should not shape those developments” while the other position is that “on the operational level the mind-set is about not like change and routine, afraid from new developments”. The interviewee also added that “it is a new responsibility to actively tackle the situation to what should we do with this. As the board has six different visions - some are converging and some stand still at the moment (we face) uncertainty how to overcome - either we grow or we shrink”.
Several earlier events played a role to help this CTP to happen. A main precondition was the financial stability from 1999. Next, the Let’s Liberate Diversity forum which did not work out and therefore AN energised its previous relations for “a new platform to reconnect partners for the seed marketing law – we became the motors of that purpose”. The CTP had quite important impact for AN: “The first sense of this CTP arrived when in 2014 March the EU parliament rejected the seed legislation. We contributed to that and now we for a short period we will be regarded powerful and need to think how to deal with it”. The opening of the Brussels office also implied that AN became a figurehead of EU seed regulation from 2012 and had a leading role in creating political activism around seed issues in Europe. This all came from the decision of the board that successfully learned from the previous lesson and create its own autonomous approach - “instead of public money - chose independence”.
This CTP involved substantial contestations internally. The interviewee found that AN already had some controversies before “quite some debates but not so much on the operational level” … “it is disguised as everyday problem: what to do with this or that request. Not enough discussion in the operational team.” In essence the contestation is “all about power” and the opposing views that “the operational level should not shape those developments” versus “the operational level mind-set is about not like change and routine, afraid from new developments”. Discussions led to the CTP and helped to take a further step ahead. The board “do talk and reflect a lot about this change”. The contestation has been primarily overcome by the clear consensual decision of the board to open the Brussels office, engage in direct political work and champion the EU seed regulation. This gave a sense of forward looking. The interviewee regards this decision as done in the “right time for further development” and AN as being “lucky to do this in the right moment”.
At the time when it occurred the CTP has not been foreseen or regarded as critical turning point. “This was not an intention on the strategic level – it was not a goal in itself. In this sense it was not really foreseen – “we were engaging in something new and were not aware of the outcome. So we could not have planned for this in the beginning”. Also there were only two or three board meetings to consider how AN can energise previous networks for the policy work on seed marketing law. Later when the impacts of going international became clearer and this raised AN profile.
The most important learning on the initiative level relates to “how to deal with power”. Also “how to reach clarity for an issue”, and find the solution that creates synergies and “meet systemic loops”. The lesson that remains from this CTP is that even if “side effects and products were not calculated” and “we focussed on the political goal … it also changed our role as an institution”. The CTP presented important lessons for the organisation and also informed later practice: “it is a new responsibility to actively tackle the situation to what should we do with this”. The CTP had a positive outcome. As an organisation AN got more resilient and more aware of its potentials: “The board had six different visions – some are converging and some stand still at the moment and there is uncertainty how to overcome: either we grow or we shrink. The middle size is getting to difficult for the organisation”.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
