Building a community of practice to produce hydrological evidence: the iMHEA example

The IAHS HELPING decade aims to foster a stronger connection and interaction between scientists, practitioners, policy makers, and end-users towards the goal of global water security. This is a formidable challenge. Despite increasing and highly valuable efforts of scientists to reach out beyond their own discipline and working environment, the ultimate goal of co-creating actionable knowledge is still a long way off in most contexts. Establishing communities of practice has been posited as an approach to creating inter- and transdisciplinary environments that enable cross-learning, pooling of expertise, and collaborative working towards a common goal. However, establishing such communities of practice is very hard, and the conditions and driving factors that allow them to emerge and be productive are poorly understood. It is therefore informative to analyse existing case studies to gain a better understanding of how they can be created and made sustainable. Here I analyse the case of the Initiative for the Hydrological Monitoring of Andean Ecosystems (iMHEA), which is a grassroots initiative that emerged 15 years ago as a collaborative attempt to generate a solid scientific evidence base to support water management in the upper Andes.

It started as a small network of 4 partners operating 6 catchments in Ecuador and Peru, using a common monitoring protocol. Since then, it has grown into a network of 22 partners, monitoring 51 catchments at 24 sites along the Andes. Partners represent academia, civil society, and local, regional, and national governments. Originally focused on sharing technical expertise, iMHEA has evolved into a more holistic knowledge co-creation community with a strong focus on community involvement, knowledge exchange, and supporting decision making at various levels.

We attribute the success of iMHEA to several factors, of which we believe the following are key. The members’ ability to raise funding, both at the start and at various stages of its development has certainly been a major factor. At the same time, its nature as an informal network has allowed it grow organically and bridge periods of very limited resource availability. Another identified factor is the clear common goal and mission statement, which gave it a clear sense of purpose, direction, and transparency for existing and future members. Lastly, the active approach to multidirectional knowledge exchange, allowed it to create value for all its members, creating a strong motivation to participate and contribute actively.