|
Capacity Development
|
|
What Do Development Agencies and the International Community Mean by Capacity Development? Capacity is a complex concept to define. However, at the heart of the international development consensus is the notion that capacity is the ability of individuals, institutions, and societies to solve problems, make informed choices, define their priorities and plan their futures. The objective of aid assistance is to help developing countries build their capacities, that is boost their ability to achieve their development goals. Capacity is: “the ability of individuals, institutions and societies to perform functions, solve problems, and set and achieve objectives in a sustainable manner.” Capacity development (CD) is thereby the “process through which these abilities are obtained, strengthened, adapted and maintained over time”. The World Bank states that Capacity development is the key to development effectiveness. Since the mid-nineties, capacity has gained importance due to the realization that for development to be effective, strengthening local institutions, rules of the games, and incentives is critical. This insight has led donors and recipient countries to shift the focus from project-based short-term technical fixes to programmatic approaches that emphasize country ownership and capacity. The Asia Development Bank (ADB) adopted capacity development as a thematic priority. By doing so, ADB acknowledged that strengthened country capacity is not only a means to achieving public sector performance, but a goal in its own right. A capacity development working group was established to develop an operational medium-term framework and action plan for enhancing the effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of ADB-supported capacity development interventions. The draft report was widely discussed within and outside ADB and external comments were requested through this website. Ten default principles for capacity development 1. Don’t rush. Capacity development is a long-term process: It is not amenable to delivery pressures, quick fixes and short-term results seeking. Engagement for CD needs to have a long-term horizon and be reliable. 2. Respect the value systems and foster self-esteem: The imposition of alien values can undermine confidence. Capacity development requires respect. Self-esteem is at the root of capacity and empowerment. 3. Scan locally and globally; reinvent locally: There are no blueprints. Capacity development means learning. Learning is a voluntary process that requires commitment and interest. Knowledge transfer is no longer seen as the relevant modality. Knowledge needs to be acquired. 4. Challenge mindsets and power differentials: Capacity development is not power neutral and challenging vested interest is difficult. Frank dialogue and moving from closed curtains to a collective culture of transparency is essential to promote a positive dynamic for overcoming them. 5. Think and act in terms of sustainable capacity outcomes: Capacity is at the core of development. Any course of action needs to promote this end. Responsible leaders can inspire their institutions and societies to effectively work toward capacity development. 6. Establish positive incentives: Distortions in public sector employment are major obstacles to CD. Ulterior motives and perverse incentives need to be aligned with the objective of capacity development. Governance systems respectful of fundamental rights are a powerful incentive. 7. Integrate external inputs into national priorities, processes and systems: External inputs need to correspond to real demand and need to be flexible to respond effectively to national needs and possibilities. Where such systems are not strong enough they need to be reformed and strengthened, not bypassed. 8. Build on existing capacities rather than creating new ones: This implies the use of national expertise as prime option, resuscitation and strengthening of national institutions, and protecting social and cultural capital. 9. Stay engaged under difficult circumstances: The weaker the capacity, the greater the need. Weak capacities are not an argument for withdrawal or for driving external agendas. People should not be hostage to irresponsible governance. 10. Remain accountable to ultimate beneficiaries: Even where national governments are not responding to the needs of their people, external partners need to be accountable to beneficiaries and contribute to ownership by national authorities. Capacity development is thus a gradual process, with the country taking the initiative to tailor interventions to meet its needs by investing and building on human capital and changing and strengthening institutional practices. “Ownership” is key to capacity, and there is evidence to suggest that capacity is built faster when the process is endogenous. Why Capacity Development - A Timely Paradigm Shift from Technical Assistance Capacity Development and Technical Cooperation - From the Paris Declaration to the Achievement of the MDGs The international development community spent much of 2005 reflecting on the volume and effectiveness of aid and its role in poverty reduction. One conclusion of the major events and reviews of the last year, such as the Commission for Africa, the Millennium Review, the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the G8 Gleneagles summit, is clear: capacity development is one of the most critical issues for both donors and partner countries. According to the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM), in recent years, donor efforts have been made to clarify the concept of capacity development and its constituent elements. As a result of these efforts (and others), a consensus is slowly emerging among donor agencies on what capacity development means. Essentially, it refers to the ability of countries, organisations and people to manage development on their own in a smooth, efficient and sustainable way. This makes it clear that capacity development is a multi-dimensional concept. It is not just concerned with training and education or organisational strengthening. Equally important are a nation's resource endowment, public sector context and broader institutional environment (including the governance system, as well as economic, social and cultural realities). Many people might feel that this is still too broad a definition. By trying to include everything, capacity development is in danger of becoming a highly abstract and unattractive concept for aid practitioners. One way to bring the debate down-to-earth is to look at the lessons from past capacity development experiences and to identify guidelines for future efforts. Lessons from the literature as well as current donor experience point to the following guidelines: - Avoid piecemeal approaches. It makes little sense to intervene at the micro level (to train people, for example) in the absence of an enabling macro-environment for capacity utilisation (the governance setting). In a similar vein, the choice is not between capacity support for either the public sector or the private (NGO) sector, but for both of them. This is not to say that one has to get everything done at the same time. The key challenge is rather to adopt a strategic, country specific and long-term approach to capacity development, based on a realistic appraisal of what needs to be done and can be achieved under prevailing local conditions. - Take time for adequate institutional appraisal. Prior to launching ambitious development programmes and releasing funds, a solid institutional appraisal can pay dividends later. This means mapping the functions and tasks to be performed, the institutional environment (including politics, administrative capacity, and culture), the actors and stakeholders, and their levels of commitment and ownership. - Adopt process approaches. Development takes place in a gradual and evolutionary fashion, and it occurs in increasingly complex and uncertain environments. Traditional approaches to programme design and implementation fail to recognise these realities. Participatory development and institutional change, for instance, do not fit easily within current segmented project cycles. Capacity development is better suited to a process approach. This means starting from local conditions and capacities (rather than from external inputs), involving key actors and stakeholders from the earliest stages, and phasing programme activities and funds in the context of a long-term strategy. - Change the nature of donor involvement. If capacity development is about helping people to help themselves, then donors need to move away from relationships characterised by prescription, imposition, condition-setting and decision-making, to ones characterised by explanation, demonstration, facilitation and advice. If ownership is to be nurtured, donor agencies need to revise how they deliver external inputs. Early project work should first explore common ground (expectations, interests, agendas, capacities) between different actors on which realistic partnerships can be built. Initial objectives and expectations may have to be scaled back to suit realities. Particularly in Africa, one generally finds a combination of pressing needs and poor ownership conditions. There is often no alternative than to start with a limited area of convergence and to envisage a gradual development of ownership. Money flows need to be managed in a different way. Extensive pre-project activities may be appropriate as well as phased assistance. - Make diligent use of technical cooperation (TC). Thinking in capacity terms implies that there is no room for an army of external experts called in to quickly elaborate a detailed programme document or to play a dominant role in implementation. Yet a too rigorous approach should be avoided. In some countries gap-filling TC may prove to be necessary. Paradoxically, TC may be required in a transition period to help local partners assume a lead role. If local conditions are appropriate, the use of long-term experts can still be a cost-effective option. - Build in-house capacity. Most donor agencies are poorly-equipped to deal with capacity development. They tend to have a limited body of know-how and poor institutional memory. Low weight is given to institutional expertise in recruitment and promotion. There is a lack of country specialisation, partly related to frequent rotation of staff. Disbursement pressures and the high degree of centralisation leave little room for flexible management that can be adapted to the needs of capacity development. On 02 March 2005, more than 100 countries and donor organizations endorsed the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which provides an ambitious plan to reform the system of aid delivery towards rationalizing aid management . Recognizing that “while the volumes of aid and other development resources must increase to achieve these goals, aid effectiveness must increase significantly as well to support partner country efforts to strengthen governance and improve development performance”, signatories to the Paris Declaration committed to five pillars to enhance development effectiveness - ownership, alignment, harmonization, managing for results, and mutual accountability . These commitments are implicit recognitions as well of weaknesses in traditional technical cooperation approaches. Fukuda-Parr, Lopes and Malik in UNDP (2002) noted that technical cooperation is still frequently criticized for: • Undermining local capacity: Rather than helping to build sustainable institutions and other capabilities, technical cooperation tends to displace or inhibit local alternatives. • Distorting priorities: the funding for technical cooperation generally bypasses normal budgetary processes, escaping the priority-setting disciplines of formal reviews. • Choosing high-profile activities: Donors frequently cherry-pick the more visible activities that appeal to their home constituencies, leaving recipient governments to finance the other routine but necessary functions as best they can. • Fragmenting management: Each donor sends its own package of funds and other resources for individual programmes, and demands that recipients follow distinctive procedures, formats and standards for reporting, all of which absorb scarce time and resources. • Using expensive methods: Donors often require that projects purchase goods and hire experts from the donor country, although it would be far cheaper to source them elsewhere. • Ignoring local wishes: The donors pay too little attention either to the communities who are supposed to benefit from development activities, to the local authorities, or to NGOs, of whom should comprise the foundation on which to develop stronger local capacity. • Fixating on targets: Donors prefer activities that display clear profiles and tangible outputs. Successful capacity development, on the other hand, needs to be intrinsically included. In the 1990s, UNDP, OECD-DAC, international financing institutions, and many aid agencies initiated and revisited their technical cooperation approaches resulting in greater emphasis on partnership, ownership and participation, policy dialogues, and results-based management. Very explicit in the technical cooperation reform agenda was the central role of capacity development affecting a paradigm shift in development transformation, i.e., fostering home-grown processes, building on the wealth of local knowledge and capacities, and expanding these to achieve whatever goals and aspirations the country sets itself . From a supply driven approach to technical cooperation therefore, a more demand-oriented development cooperation framework anchored on capacity development (at the national, organizational, and individual levels) has begun to evolve Countries that have an incentive to build capacity have been more successful in initiating and achieving their goals, as in the case of Poland. Spurred by the desire to join the European Union, Poland implemented macroeconomic reforms successfully, leading to its transformation in three decades. Aid alone is thus not an answer as gaps in knowledge and capacity keep countries from applying successful practices applied elsewhere to their own circumstances. (Reducing Poverty Sustaining Growth, Shanghai conference, May 25-27, 2004). This underscores the need to accelerate governance reform and capacity building. The Bank’s experience has shown that focusing on policies and institutions, country ownership of the development process, role of private sector, partnerships, knowledge and learning is more useful than just physical investments in building capacity. (2003 Annual Review of Development Effectiveness). Some of the activities, though not exhaustive, that lead to capacity development are technical assistance, training, training of trainers, organizational or institutional reorganization, improved access to information, establishment of partnerships, communities of practice, help desk, study trips, and improved material conditions such as purchase of computers. Although the importance of capacity is recognized, identifying, assessing, monitoring and measuring capacity has proved difficult mainly because capacity is a process, not a definite output. There are few measurements of outputs, performance, or capacity gains linked to specific capacity support. Performance, though related, is not synonymous with capacity, nor is the relationship direct and linear. It is therefore important to distinguish between the two to avoid misleading conclusions. Key Considerations Pertaining to Capacity Development • Contextual, Endogenous Process and Opportune Timing The development of a society’s capacity is an ongoing endogenous process. The need for developing capacities often arises from (i) pressures for better government from the elite and leaders at the top, as well as citizens and clients at the bottom; (ii) new opportunities in the market place; or (iii) social challenges. In this sense, the task of capacity development is never done. Moreover, the process cannot be rushed, nor can it be expected to evolve in a controlled and linear fashion. A lag usually exists between any investment in capacity development, the emergence of new capacities and their translation into performance improvements. Windows of opportunity for change open and close with changes in leadership, which could bring with it a new look at development priorities, partnerships and resource availability. Sometimes, it is important to secure “quick wins” at the outset to mobilize political support and commitment to longer-term capacity investments. The ability of a country, an organization or a community to avail of opportunities to better their human development depends on the capacity base it has built that enables adaptability and flexibility to manage risks and changes. The challenges of investing in capacities are often about managing trade-offs: making an investment that has an immediate return, or investing in initiatives that have a 5-10 year or longer gestation period, for example, investing in primary and secondary education for girls. • Political Economy Addressing capacity needs by putting in place skills, systems and processes will not hold the promise of sustainable results if the process does not take into account the inherently political and complex realities in the environment. Political, economic and social incentives relate to mindsets, norms and values. Sustainable results require effective participation, public access to information that leads to voice of the people (particularly women and disadvantaged sections of society), civic engagement and accountability for capacity results. The change processes related to capacity development come with changes in roles and responsibilities that can be most unsettling to vested interests and established power structures. External partners inevitably become part of this process and the political economy. • Incentives and Performance Perceptions and concerns about development performance usually provide the entry point for thinking about capacity issues. When a system or organization is seen to be under-performing, attention is drawn to the inadequacy of capacity. The opposite is also true. Good performance is usually associated with an organization or system managing and using capacities effectively. Yet, capacity does not automatically translate into improved performance and better development results. To illustrate: a car engine may have all the components to run smoothly, but it would still sit idle without fuel and a driver. By the same token, capacities may be in place, but appropriate incentives need to be present to put them in high gear and in motion toward the desired development destination. Sound governance practice is a critical enabler in any environment. Countries are more likely to develop and make use of available capacities when there is strong political ownership and commitment at the highest levels, wide participation, transparency and clear accountability. In turn, capacity development processes can contribute to enhancing participation and accountability and thus strengthen governance. An institution needs a supportive policy and legal framework, access to resources and the goods and services of other institutions, and the support of stakeholders in order to succeed. Similarly, a staff is motivated to apply its skills when it is adequately compensated for its efforts and when achievement is acknowledged and rewarded. • Quality of Engagement, Alignment and Harmonisation Development cooperation has the potential to facilitate and promote local processes, but unless carefully applied, it can undermine ownership and local capacity. For this reason, it is critical to pay careful attention to aid relationship dynamics. Each side of the “partnership” comes to the table laden with its own ideological and political baggage. Aid relationships are affected by and contribute to shaping an influential political economy that has evolved in many countries to become a quite unwieldy, complex architecture. This architecture consists of stated objectives of a more or less shared nature but comprises equally misperceptions, vested interests and power differentials that feed an often vicious cycle of engagement. Breaking through the dynamics of engagement is not easy as it tends to involve changes in the aid systems that are usually induced by multiple competing parties. Changes and real transformation require genuine cooperation and collective responsibility. • Thinking and Acting in Terms of “Best Fit” Rather than “best practice,” it is “best fit” that often contributes most to sustainable change. These days, attention is focused on improving aid practices in ways that are more responsive to the capacity development challenge. This agenda includes harmonizing and aligning external support around country strategies, systems and processes, finding ways to make the aid relationship more equitable, transparent and participatory, and identifying roles, approaches and delivery systems for external partners that add value to local capacity development processes. It is difficult to generalize about roles external partners may play, given that what is needed is contingent on the task at hand. External partners today may play more facilitative roles related to the management of change processes, rather than the more interventionist roles they may have played in the past. “Process facilitation”—an approach that is consistent with the idea of capacity development as an endogenous process — can help avoid disempowering local actors by ensuring that local partners remain in the driver’s seat while donors reinforce local ownership and commitment. In practice, evidence shows that a period of capacity substitution is sometimes unavoidable. A country can design such intervention by the international community, however, to be made as constructive as possible, with a clear state legitimacy and an exit strategy for external partners in place from the outset. Examples of application of capacity development approach Capacity assessments of public institutions were carried out in Timor-Leste and Afghanistan using an enabling environment and organizational capacity assessment methodology. In both cases, a range of capacity development strategies across ministries and government departments were developed. In Afghanistan, a number of donors had adopted and/or supported many of the provisions of a Capacity Development Facility (CDF) that was established following the capacity assessment. The UNDP capacity assessment framework has been applied in a number of countries (.e.g, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, among others) and contexts (e.g., local service delivery, governance, peace and crisis prevention, and institutional development for government agencies, among others. What's new in this approach? - Provides an endogenous process that fosters ownership - Brings rigor and a systematic method for assessing existing capacity assets and needs; avoids ad hoc identification of capacity needs - Provides a comprehensive view of the issues that could be addressed in a capacity assessment - Provides a method for generating quantitative as well as qualitative data to support the identification of priority capacity needs - Makes sense of complex development situations, when it is not always obvious where best to intervene to promote capacity development Capacities for Whom? Capacities for What? For Whom? - Public Sector (ministries, departments, agencies, local governments, etc.) - Civil Society Organizations - Other implementing partners Some scenarios where you would recommend a rigorous CD approach include: - Designing a support programme for the National Human Rights Commission/ National AIDS Council/ - Designing a programme that goes directly through a ministry or a civil service commission or a Planning Commission - Running a decentralisation support programme - A justice sector support programme - A disaster risk management project The UNDP framework distinguishes between “technical” and “functional” capacities. * Technical capacities, also referred to as ‘hard’ capacities, are associated with particular areas of professional expertise or knowledge, such as economics, engineering, fiscal management, agriculture, education, etc. Technical capacities vary and are closely related to the sector or organizational context in focus. * Functional capacities, also referred to as ‘cross-cutting’ capacities, are associated with programme, policy, development, and change management expertise or knowledge that are relevant regardless of sector, profession or organization. These are the capacities that UNDP focuses primarily on supporting in conjunction with the technical capacities, particularly on emerging functional capacities that are less easy to define and often depend on much broader, societywide rules, norms and values. There are five functional capacities that from UNDP experience are critical to policy and programme support. These capacities are not new and may look quite simple and straightforward - we are all doing these! However, based on UNDP’s development experience, it is the oversight of these capacities, the indifference to their importance, and inadequate recognition of capacity weaknesses in addressing them, that could contribute to the non-sustainability and failure of many development programmes. These functional capacities are: i. Engaging in Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues - This capacity relates to capacity to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders (e.g., all relevant public, private and societal agents, as well as external partners). It includes the skills to perform the following: identify, motivate and mobilize stakeholders; create partnerships and networks; raise awareness; develop an enabling environment that engages civil society and the private sector; manage large group processes and open dialogue; mediate divergent interests; and establish collaborative mechanisms. ii. Assessing a Situation and Creating a Vision and Mandate - This capacity pertains to the abilities to effectively access, gather, analyze and synthesize data and information, and translate it into a vision and/or a mandate. Applicable to institutional development and programmatic support, the objective is to strengthen capacities to understand and respond to issues holistically through effective synthesis of information, and anticipate long-term needs and development planning. It focuses on the ability to assess desired capacity levels in the future against capacities that exist at present, thus articulating the capacity needs that can lead to capacity development strategies. iii. Formulating Policies and Strategies - Conceptualizing and formulating policies, legislations, strategies, and programmes require analyzing a range of development parameters that may affect needs and performance in a given area; exploring different perspectives; long-term strategizing; and setting objectives. At the enabling environment level, it may also include conceptualizing sectoral and cross-sectoral policies, legislative and regulatory frameworks, inter-ministerial/inter-sectoral coordination mechanisms, participatory planning and budgeting and other arrangements for prioritization, planning and formulation of programmes and projects. iv. Budgeting, Management and Implementation - This category includes project management capacities that are essential to the implementation of any type of policy, legislation, strategy and programme. It also includes execution aspects of programme and project implementation; costing of capacity development activities; mobilization and management of human, material and financial resources; and selection of technologies and procurement of equipment. Core management functions, such as public financial management and procurement are the main focus, as well as other conditions that facilitate the implementation of policies, strategies and programmes and effective service delivery. v. Monitoring and Evaluation - This pertains to the monitoring of progress, measuring of results and codification of lessons, for learning and feedback to ensure accountability to partners and the ultimate beneficiaries of development. It also covers results-based management and monitoring and evaluation systems, as a means of reporting to donors. It naturally links back to policy dialogue, planning and improved management of implementation through drawing lessons from experience. Within each functional and technical capacity mentioned above, there are several core issues that can and should be explored from a human development perspective. Not all of these issues will necessarily be analyzed in any given assessment, but they provide a mapping of critical areas of capacity common to any country, to which a capacity assessment could be applied. The selection of core issues defines the scope and content of a capacity diagnostic exercise. The core issues in the UNDP Capacity Assessment Framework are: • institutional development; • leadership; • knowledge management; and • mutual accountability. Human rights and gender equality overlay each of these core issues. Priority Actions for Donor Agencies These are promising reform attempts. Yet much remains to be done to put capacity development upfront. Five priorities for future action are identified: 1. Create Incentives for Change Many people within donor agencies do not yet see capacity development as a priority. Project officers, in particular, give it less attention because they are under terrible pressure to 'push money' and to deliver concrete and measurable results, and because their performance is seldom related to results at the level of capacity development. Little progress will be achieved in the absence of new performance and accountability criteria. This, in turn, cannot be done without full political support from the agency's top management. One way to convince them is to demonstrate the benefits of a capacity development approach. Process approaches, for instance, can provide more scope for leverage and donor influence over a project, over time. This is in contrast to the current project cycle where once a programme is approved, the donor agency can exert little control or corrective measures, and only at certain times. 2. Refine Tools and Instruments (See Capacity Assessment Tool Below) Much work remains to be done in this area. Different models, guidelines and instruments are available to do institutional assessment. But these tools are generally too complicated, abstract and detached from the reality in the field. They are not always suited to day-to-day management purposes. In practice, guidelines are often ignored or dealt with in a quick fix manner. Checklists seldom provide accurate or relevant information. Action planning workshops are a much used instrument that offer a great potential for participation, but questions as to their cost-effectiveness may arise. Experience also suggests that workshops are not always a useful tool to bring hidden agendas and major institutional bottlenecks to the surface. Since capacity needs vary from country to country and within developing regions, another main challenge is to institutionalise country specific approaches. 3. Learn to Deal with Politics The best capacity development initiative is likely to fail in the absence of an appropriate governance environment. A classic example is donor support to build capacity in the Treasury to manage the national debt, but where the values of fiscal responsibility are not accepted by local power elites. These efforts are bound to fail. The message is clear: effective capacity development requires donors to adopt a much more political approach to programme design and implementation. It is much less clear how this can be done in practice. Donors tend to have limited knowledge about local politics. They experience great difficulties in finding adequate institutional responses to pervasive governance constraints. They are generally reluctant to scale down objectives and expectations to suit local governance conditions. The way forward is first, for donors to recognise the limits of their ability to promote institutional change, second, to improve the capacity for upstream institutional analysis and third, to move away from project-related institutional appraisal to more comprehensive sectoral or macro-approaches. 4. Tackle Internal Constraints Some donor agencies have accepted the principle of flexibility - as a precondition to implement process approaches - but have not yet translated this flexibility into the nitty-gritty details of internal working methods, procedures and regulations. The current aid climate does not make things easier. Disbursement pressures and accountability requirements are reducing the scope for flexible management adapted to local conditions and process approaches. 'New style' projects that emphasise capacity development require people with facilitation skills rather then the more traditional 'control' oriented approach. This has major implications for new hiring as well as for training of donor (field) staff. In the absence of concrete changes at this operational level, the development of guidelines, checklists and other tools for capacity development will not yield the expected benefits. 5. Involve Developing Countries in the Debate So far, the debate on capacity development has been largely donor-driven. This reflects legitimate donor concerns with improving their performance and ensuring greater impact and sustainability. However, these efforts will not yield the expected benefits if the partners at the receiving end are not able to sort out their own ideas, to come up with alternatives, or to participate in the search for new management systems. Donor agencies can help themselves also by helping to generate recipient views on capacity development and to create institutional platforms for a constructive dialogue with the donor community The Capacity Assessment Tool The Capacity Assessment Tool (by UNDP) was developed after a rigorous review of existing tools and methodologies that are being used by development agencies including donors, international NGOs, UN agencies, and international financing institutions . It is oriented largely towards public service institutions (e.g., government, civil society organizations) although it may well find applicability in private institutions. The generic template allows the tool to be adapted to different sectors, institutions and contexts. It has seen applications in the context of public sector reforms, national/local governance, post-conflict/transition situations, and policy coordination/alignment, and various levels from national (e.g., ministry, department, bureaus) to local (district/provincial/municipal) levels involving one institution or across several institutions. The UN Development Group (UNDG) has likewise issued a draft Capacity Assessment User Guide based on UNDP’s leading work on capacity assessments and the UNDP capacity assessment user guide and tool. A capacity assessment is “an analysis of desired future capacities against current capacities; this generates an understanding of capacity assets and needs, which in turn leads to the formulation of capacity development (CD) strategies.” It is integral to the planning and programming process, as the understanding of capacity assets and needs will serve as key inputs into the formulation of capacity development response strategies. Moreover, the indicators used to measure capacity assets serve as a foundation for the subsequent monitoring and evaluation of capacity development. The Capacity Assessment Framework is composed of three dimensions: * Dimension One: POINTS OF ENTRY UNDP recognises that a country’s capacity resides on different levels - enabling environment, organization and individual - and thus needs to be addressed across these levels . - The individual level is the first and basic unit of capacity, in whom skills and knowledge are vested. - The organizational level provides the framework for individual capacities to connect and achieve goals beyond the capability of one or even a few people. They also offer continuity and act as a repositories of knowledge and experience, reducing dependency on single individuals, while enabling access to accumulated knowledge. - The enabling environment level encompasses society as a whole, and especially of a country and its governance. It provides an ethos that largely determines the value system within which people and the economy function - embracing elements such as trust, honesty or concern for the poor, and conversely corruption and greed. The importance of this level of capacity was not fully appreciated until quite recently, with most efforts focusing on individuals and/or institutions. But experience has shown that externalities such as corruption, governance systems or conflict-prone attitudes are extremely resilient to change and have impeded many capacity development initiatives. Why is the point of entry important? A clear objective for a capacity assessment will help define a point of entry. A capacity assessment may be used to conduct an assessment of the enabling environment of a national or sub-national entity, for example. Or it may be applied to organizations in the public sector, such as a ministry, a department or a special office such as the Auditor General’s. Or it may be conducted with private, non-profit or civil society organizations. The specific assessment questions and capacity indicators will then vary according to the objective/s of the capacity assessment, and the point of entry selected. Capacity assessments at the individual level are generally conducted within the context of an organizational assessment; for example, they may be used to identify programme champions or change agents. Wide-scale individual performance appraisals, on the other hand, are generally carried out through performance management systems and are the responsibility of the countries or organizations concerned. As such, this capacity assessment methodology does not address individual capacity assessments in detail, but focuses on the enabling environment and organizational levels. It should be noted that “these layers of capacity are interdependent. If one or the other is pursued on its own, development becomes skewed and inefficient.” This means that any assessment will be inadequate if it does not take into account conditions and dynamics that reside across all levels of capacity. It is therefore prudent, regardless of the point of entry, to expand the assessment to the other levels by “zooming in” and “zooming out.” For example, an initial assessment that looks at a particular ministry may be expanded or zoomed out to look at the broader financial policies and links to national planning and expenditure management and to the functions of other ministries. On the other hand, it may also look into the finer details or zoom in on human resources and capacity dimensions of individuals within the ministry. * Dimension Two: CORE ISSUES There are four core development issues that UNDP is most often called upon to address, and it is not necessary to analyze all these issues in any given assignment. - Institutional Development. Well functioning national and local institutions are key to ongoing societal, economic and human development. By developing capacities on this scale, countries create a strong foundation for achieving key goals, such as reducing poverty, promoting effective and democratic governance, and fostering inclusive growth. It is this domestic capacity that is a precursor to sustainable growth. The scope of institutional development, in the context of a capacity assessment, focuses on four key elements: 1) mission and strategy; 2) business processes; 3) human resource management; and 4) information and communications technology. This scope applies to the enabling environment (with a focus on policy and regulatory frameworks, multi-institutional mandates and strategies, and coordination and partnering processes) as well as the organizational level (with a focus on discrete entities). - Leadership. The relationship between capacity development and leadership is a fundamental one: fostering good leadership maximizes and protects investments in capacities within the enabling environment, as well as at the organizational and individual levels. Poor leaders can set efforts back by decades, and twist ownership to suit their own agendas, gearing it toward a culture of entitlement or excessive nationalism that is detrimental to capacity development. Successful leadership results in enhanced understanding, improved relationships, and greater collective effectiveness among working teams and their partners. Since people with overlapping goals have a better sense of how parts of the system fit together, good leaders build upon relationships and trust, mobilizing energy in a way that is sustainable, fosters ownership and generates commitment. Leadership development is thus an important response to capacity challenges. Among capacities assessed in this category are the abilities to foster ownership; manage relationships with key external stakeholders, including the ability to negotiate; develop, communicate and give direction on vision, mission and values; develop and implement a system for overall management; and create an environment that motivates and supports individuals. - Knowledge. Capacity development is underpinned by knowledge, or literally, what people know. Knowledge can be developed at a variety of levels (national vs. local, secondary vs. tertiary) and through a variety of means (traditional vs. formal, vocational vs secondary). Traditionally, knowledge has been fostered at the level of the individual through training. However, the dissemination of knowledge can also occur at the level of the organization (through professional training and education, for example) and at the level of the enabling environment (through the development of education systems and educational policy reform). - Mutual Accountability. An efficient, responsive, transparent and accountable public administration is not only of paramount importance for the proper functioning of a nation; it is also the basic means through which government strategies to achieve the MDGs can be implemented. Public administration is also the main vehicle through which the relationship between the state and civil society and the private sector is realized. Assessing capacities to manage and support an accountable public administration and ensure the reforms required, often on a long-term and sustained basis, is essential to effective governance and to providing a sound basis for equitable development. This category pertains to the capacity to ensure accountability through prevention and enforcement; strengthen national integrity institutions; increase public participation and build coalitions; increase mobilization, access to and use of information; and work with the international community. * Dimension Three: FUNCTIONAL CAPACITIES Within any capacity level (enabling environment, organization, or individual) and across all core issues are functional capacities that are necessary for successful creation and management of policies, legislations, strategies and programmes. These five cross-cutting, functional capacities are: - Capacity to engage with stakeholders - Capacity to assess a situation and define vision and mandate - Capacity to formulate policies and strategies - Capacity to budget, manage and implement; and - Capacity to monitor and evaluate. Integrating all three dimensions then will guide the capacity assessment. In summary: One, articulate well the objectives for the capacity assessment Two, identify the most appropriate entry point (enabling environment, organizational, individual) Three, identify core issues that needs to be addressed initially within the identified entry point to support the objective. Four, identify the functional capacities that need to be enhanced to address the core issues, which will include defining capacity indicators to determine current capacity assets and project desired future capacity levels. Capacity Development Support UNDP offers CD support services in the areas of norms and standards; advocacy and advisory services; programme support; and knowledge exchange. * Norms and Standards: • Providing a “default” methodology for capacity assessment based on review of good practice methodologies • Analysis and application of capacity indicators and measures, based on international norms and standards and ground evidence * Advocacy and Advisory Services: • Capacity development policy positioning at global, regional and country levels for capacity development approaches * Programme Support: • Facilitation of capacity assessment exercises • Costing of CD investments and activities • Formulation of capacity development strategies • Facilitation of partnerships for investments in, and implementation of, CD strategies • Monitoring and evaluation measures for progress on CD * Knowledge Exchange (Know Who - Experts) : • Facilitation of capacity development learning, knowledge management and networking • Global and local partnering and exchange, through CD information and learning networks • Conducting training and learning sessions (regional workshops, Virtual Development Academy, UN staff college) for staff and clients Capacity Development Programme - Asia Over the last decade, the Asian region has dramatically emerged as a dynamic and economically vibrant region. Rebounding from the financial crises of the 1990s, the region posted an aggregate growth rate of 8% in 2005, buoyed mostly by the remarkable growth and performance of China, India and the Republic of Korea. Countries like Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam -- after years at the bottom of the economic ladder in Southeast Asia - have posted increased rates of growth in recent years. The impact of these developments in the region has been equally dramatic. However, despite recent progress, poverty remains pervasive in most of the least developed countries in the region; the eradication of poverty remains the region’s most important challenge (UNESCAP 2006). Due to the employment inelastic nature of the growth, underemployment and unemployment are on the rise. While many countries (and within those, urban areas) have been able to prepare well and institutionalize policies and measures to respond to emerging market forces and thus reap the benefits of global trade, others, and pervasively, rural areas, have languished for lack of capacities, know-how, information, and mechanisms to achieve the big push towards the MDGs. Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Lao PDR, and Mongolia, for instance, are not on track to achieve the poverty targets that Asia as whole may well achieve (UN 2005). Reflecting this diversity in its development outcomes, the underlying capacity challenges for Asia continue to be equally diverse. There remain large capacity assets and at the same time capacity needs, that drive very different rates of progress towards achieving the MDGs. The gaps remain not only in the realm of individual skills but also in larger institutional capacity differentials and in the lack of enabling systems. However, infusing new capacity to achieve the MDGs is simply not a technical exercise. It is an exercise in political will; it is an exercise in creating the right incentives and it involves system level change in intangible or soft capacities. Halfway into the period that the global community set itself to achieve the MDGs, a few significant challenges have emerged in the making of the MDGs the primary benchmark of development. Firstly, national governments are grappling with the so called divide between allocation of investments in MDGs and other, equally important investments such as those in infrastructure and scientific R&D. Secondly, where national MDGs or MDG equivalents have been determined, the trickle down of the ideas from national to local governments in a manner that puts them high on the latter’s development agenda has been slow or non-existent. This is either for lack of resources or political commitment, or both. A third set of issues has to do with capacity challenges in the public sector. The public sector remains the primary duty bearer for delivering on the MDGs in the region. However, the sector demonstrates consistent and across the board capacity challenges. Public sector institutions suffer from the lack of a systematic approach to capacity development including the lack of reliable assessments of base capacities and of tailored strategies to address capacity constraints. Much of public sector capacity development is instinctive, ad hoc, and relies on trainings as the primary response to capacity challenges. Training is often focused on individual skills-needs with minimal attention paid to attendant institutional and societal capacity issues. This has contributed to the aggravation of another constraining factor -- difficult and unyielding institutional structures that hinder effective follow-through from training and capacity development activities undertaken by staff members. Trained civil servants usually return to jobs with little opportunity or resources to practice their acquired skills and knowledge. Absent or inadequate incentive systems and merit-based professional advancement opportunities similarly militate against innovation in policy and practice and ultimately, have an impact on governance effectiveness. Capacity development is chronically under-funded and most organisations/institutions get by with small budgetary allocations for training. This leads to a rash of short-term, quick impact activities that are politically expedient but are often costly and, in the absence of a long-term vision and commitment, are ultimately unsustainable. Effective partnerships between government and its allies for good governance - civil society organizations, academia, and the private sector - have yet to seed, mature and show results and are often posited as relationships of adversity or control particularly at the local level. Finally, the region also has states in transition or emerging from conflict. These states have a range of capacity challenges and deserve special and intensive attention. The CAPACITY Development Asia Team assists countries in the region to developing their capacities, including the capacity of their professionals, civil society, the youth, institutions, and systems, to formulate and implement strategies for sustainable development (SD) to achieve local, national and international development goals. It works with developing and transitional countries to build and develop their capacity for sustainable development based on proven successes. The CD Team Asia provides a regional platform for partnering and sharing experience in addressing cross-cutting aspects around capacity development and sustainability that are critical for goal realization. As a programme CD Team Asia supports the region and countries in identifying operational strategies and making interventions for meeting the MDGs, at national, local government, and community levels. Mr. Niloy Banerjee, Capacity Development Advisor and Regional Coordinator - Niloy supports Country Offices on mainstreaming capacity development into programming. Niloy offers advice and technical backstopping on capacity diagnostics, designing capacity development strategies, and monitoring at the local and national levels. He assists Country Offices by developing guidelines and toolkits. Niloy has undertaken numerous assignments and conducted studies for UNDP, donors, and international organizations on capacity development, leadership and transformative approaches, technical cooperation reform, donor coordination and harmonization, and strategic planning. Prior to joining UNDP, Niloy consulted with the Capacity Development Group, the HIV/AIDS Group of UNDP, and the European Centre for Development Policy Management. Previously, Niloy served as Director of South-South Solidarity, and Deputy Director of the National Foundation for India. Mr. Robert G. Bernardo, Programme Specialist - Bob has a background in environmental management, coastal zone management and socio-economic policy/institutional assessment. Prior to joining UNDP, Bob was the Programme Manager for the South East Asia Technical Advisory Committee for the Global Water Partnership in Bangok. He has undertaken a number of assignments and published reports in the areas of integrated water resources management, coastal resources management, socio-economic and policy/Institutional assessments in the region. Ms. Seonghye (Heidi) Han, CD Policy Analyst - Heidi conducts comparative research and related policy analysis for the programme, supports programme formulation, and backstops policy advisory services and related advocacy activities. She also provides support to the design and rollout of training initiatives for country teams and regional offices of other UN agencies. Heidi has a background in international cooperation and human rights. Prior to joining UNDP, Heidi was a human rights officer at the National Human Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea and at the United Nations Crime Congress for the Institute of Criminology in Korea international cooperation division to curb cyber crime. Ms. Pranee Threekul, Programme Assistant - Pranee obtained her B.S. and Masters Degree on Public Administration from Thammasat University, and has been with UNDP since 1997. She provides programmatic support to the Capacity Development Programme Asia and assists as well the Asia Advisors from the Public-Private Partnerships for the Urban Environment (PPPUE) and the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR). She has previously worked with the Governance and Poverty Alleviation Programme of UNDP Thailand. Ms. Ashley Palmer, Research Analyst - Prior to joining UNDP in October 2007, she spent several years at The American Society of International Law in Washington, DC . She was also awarded a Fulbright fellowship to conduct independent research in rural Japan in 1999-2000. Internal and See Also
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Main Menu
| Home |
| Articles |
| Search |
| Submit Article |
| Contact Us |
| Donate to Wikibin |
