Making capacity development as an effective tool and catalyst for development and collaboration

Abstract

Capacity Development (CD) in disaster risk reduction has been recognized as a critical aspect of building resilience in individuals, communities, and organizations. CD has evolved and has been recognized in global development and risk reduction frameworks. Various organizations also highlight CD in their literature and current programs and agree on CD as a tool to achieve social, economic, and development goals. The paper emphasizes the importance of understanding how change happens in CD initiatives and introduces how the Theory of Change can be a valuable tool. Four fundamental principles for effective CD implementation are outlined, including leveraging on existing capacities, ensuring local ownership, adopting a holistic approach, and prioritizing sustainability through monitoring, evaluation, and learning processes. The paper also delves into the challenges in CD implementation, such as power imbalances and integration of new technologies, while recognizing opportunities for technology integration, inclusive approaches, and collaborations. Overall, the paper positions CD as a developmental tool and a catalyst for collaboration to achieve development and resilience goals.

Introduction

Capacity Development (CD) in disaster risk reduction has been recognized as a critical aspect of building resilience in individuals, communities, and organizations. Several global development and risk reduction frameworks have clearly emphasized the importance of CD as an essential approach to disaster risk reduction. In 2005, the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) recognized effective disaster risk reduction measures require the development of capacities at various levels, including individuals, communities, local authorities, and institutions in DRR. Subsequently, in 2015, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) reinforced this strategy to address common and transboundary disaster risks (UNDRR, p. 18).

Capacity development as a tool and process

On top of these global frameworks, several international organizations have defined CD in various ways. The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) (2009) defines CD as the process by which people, organizations, and society systematically stimulate their capacities over time to achieve social and economic goals. Meanwhile, the UN Development Programme (2009, p. 5) follows that CD is the process through which individuals, organizations, and societies obtain, strengthen, and maintain the capabilities to set and achieve their development objectives over time. The World Bank also recognizes CD as a locally-driven process of learning by leaders, coalitions, and other agents of change that brings about changes in socio-political, policy-related, and organizational factors to enhance local ownership for and the effectiveness and efficiency of efforts to achieve a development goal (Otoo et al., 2009, p. 3). The UNISDR, UNDP, and the World Bank all emphasize CD as an ongoing and iterative process and highlight the continuous process of change, learning, adaptation, and improvement. All definitions also converge on the idea of CD as a tool to achieve social, economic, and development goals. In addition, all noted that CD occurs at different levels involving individuals, organizations, and communities. This commonality acknowledges the need for a holistic understanding that effective CD must address and affect the needs of diverse stakeholders and partners.

Understanding how change happens

Inasmuch as defining CD is essential, understanding how change happens is also critical. Both Eyben et al. (2015, p. 203) and Hivos (2015, p. 7) recognized the necessity of understanding the complex social processes that influence change. According to Hivos (Ibid), social processes are complex and thus exhibit non-linear behaviors that trigger reactions that cannot be foreseen and make outcomes of changes and interventions unpredictable. The same was supported by Eyben et al. (2015, p. 203) by identifying "shock to the system" as one of the archetypes of change, which considers change as a result of unpredictability in the relationship of cause and effect. Given the unpredictable nature of change, it is thus imperative to employ tools that provide guidance and understanding of the whole process. Within this context, the Theory of Change (ToC) emerges as a valuable tool that guides understanding of how change can affect CD initiatives in DRR. ToC is a systematic approach that outlines how a given set of activities and strategies is expected to lead to specific outcomes. ToC serves as a roadmap to help individuals, organizations, and communities conceptualize changes they aim to achieve and the steps required to attain desired changes to build resilience (UNDRR, 2019, p. 23; Valter et al., p. 12).

Key principles in designing and implementing CD

Given the complex nature of risks, there is a need to continually enhance CD in DRR. The succeeding sections delve into key principles in CD to provide a comprehensive framework for designing and implementing CD initiatives that resonate with the dynamic nature of risks.

Leveraging on existing capacities

Several scholars and organizations underscore the importance of capacity assessment as the foundation for enhancing existing capacities. The UNDRR (2019, p. 42) and Department for International Development (DFID) (2010, p. 8) emphasize evaluating existing capacities and competencies to identify strengths and weaknesses at individual, organizational, and institutional levels and inform effective development intervention. Hagelsteen et al. (2021, p. 7-8) underscored the significance of capacity assessment for external partners to understand the local context and existing capacities. They suggest that mutual engagement between the external partners and local beneficiaries at the onset of CD is essential to build trust. Schulz (2005, pp. 15-16), meanwhile, recognizes the role of capacity assessment in determining the feasibility of interventions proposed. This acknowledges the necessity of adapting CD interventions to existing conditions and facilitating gradual, context-specific changes. In summary, while DFID (2010, p. 8) focuses on recognizing capacity assessment as a tool to identify strengths and weaknesses, Hagelsteen et al. (2021, p. 7-8) see it as a tool for mutual engagement to strengthen trust among the stakeholders. Meanwhile, Schulz (2005, pp. 15-16) considers capacity assessment as a tool to ensure adaptive and context-specific initiatives in CD.

As mentioned above, understanding how change happens and assessing readiness to change is also important in CD. Becker (2014, pp. 218-219), Hagelsteen and Burke (2016, p. 49), and the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) (2018, p. 40) all recognize the important process of assessing readiness to change. MSB (Ibid) emphasizes understanding the mandate of local beneficiaries and how organizational goals can assist the implementation of change. Hagelsteen and Burke (2014, p. 49), meanwhile, argue that local culture, context capacities, and stakeholder relations affect change readiness. Both Hagelsteen and Burke (Ibid) and Becker (2014, pp. 218-219) highlight the close relationship between capacity assessment and local context or situation analysis. While Becker (Ibid) refers to situation analysis, Hagelsteen & Burke (2016, p. 49) relate local context analysis, and both recognize the need to understand the environment in which CD efforts will take place. While each author brings different perspective, they all contribute to the collective understanding of the role of capacity assessment in the broader context of CD.

Ensuring local ownership

Local ownership is another critical aspect of CD and emphasized that such cannot be effectively imposed from external sources; instead, initiatives should be driven by local beneficiaries (UNDRR, 2019, pp. 14, 90; Hagelsteen and Becker, 2019, p. 3). However, challenges arise in a global development context where external partners dictate priorities and conditionalities that hinder local ownership's realization (Hagelsteen et al. 2021, p. 8). This can be observed in the overbearing influence of external partners in critical aspects of CD such as design, method selection, identification of targets and pre-defined timelines (Ibid; UNDRR, 2019, p. 90). As Schulz et al. (2005, p. 218) and Becker (2014, p. 215) argued, in development cooperation, international actors often consider that they have an accurate picture of how development should take place. Through this discourse, local beneficiaries of CD are seen as underdeveloped and treated as passive partners.

How then roles can be defined and delineated to empower local communities and ensure their meaningful participation? Champion et al. (2010, pp. 59-61) and Hagelsteen et al. (2021, pp. 7-8) provide a comprehensive framework for defining responsibilities and identified key roles for external partners. Each role entails different levels of involvement in implementing activities and supporting the growth of the internal partner. Both Champion et al. (2010, pp. 59-61) and Hagelsteen et al. (2021, pp. 7-8) agreed that a hands-on expert role places external partners in direct control of the task, thus limiting the growth of local beneficiaries. In contrast, roles like partner balance external partners' responsibility and local beneficiaries' development through collaboration. Meanwhile, the coach role involves indirect task involvement but focuses on providing feedback and support, while a teacher and trainer role emphasizes general performance improvement (Champion et al., 2010, pp. 59-61). By strategically selecting and defining these roles in partnerships, CD serves as a tool for external partners to empower local beneficiaries, ensuring meaningful participation and fostering a sense of ownership in the CD process. Empowering local beneficiaries also contributes to their ability to assume leading role to sustain CD efforts (Schulz, 2005, p. 15). This was supported by both Champion et al. (2010, pp. 59-61) and Hagelsteen (2021, pp. 7-8), who agreed that the choice of roles should align with the specific needs and context of the local beneficiary to promote sustainability and continuity. As such, CD must provide a platform for local communities to set their own agenda and priorities and encourage external partners to act as partners rather than imposing agendas.

Addressing intersectional concerns through a holistic approach

Designing a holistic CD initiative can be overwhelming, given the interplay of various levels and diverse types involved. CD can occur at different levels – individuals, organizations, and enabling environment (DFID, 2010, pp. 9-10; CADRI, 2011, pp. 9-10; UNDRR, 2019, p. 21). Both UNDRR (2019, p. 21) and CADRI (2011, p. 9-10) recognize that CD operates at three levels – enabling environment, organizations, and individuals. Enabling environment encompasses the broad social system of rules, laws, policies, and power relations governing interactions between and among the communities (UNDRR, 2019, p. 21). CADRI (2011, pp. 9-10), meanwhile, sees enabling environment as the rules of the game governing how society operates. Nonetheless, both CADRI (Ibid) and DFID (2010, p. 9-10) agree on the organizational level, which focuses on internal structures, policies, budget, and other factors influencing an organization’s capacity to achieve mandate and goals; and individual levels, which center on a personal capacity, skills, knowledge, and experiences.

Various authors and organizations also recognize different types of CD – functional and technical. UNDRR (2019, p. 20) defines functional capacities as cross-cutting organizational concerns, such as leadership, resource management, and policy development. Technical capacities, on the other hand, are associated with specific subject matters and expertise in a particular field. CADRI (2011, p. 11) and MSB (2018, p. 19) concur with this categorization, emphasizing functional capacities as management-related and cross-cutting, while technical capacities are tied to specific areas or sectors and themes. Hagelsteen et. al (2021, p. 5) and Schulz (2005, p. 32), meanwhile, expanded the categorization to include contextual capacities to emphasize how open systems are influenced by conditions of their environment and existing capacities which defines opportunities and obstacles in operations.

Despite these categorizations, designing CD initiatives tends to focus on one level and/or developing technical capacities (CADRI, 2011, pp. 20-21). The same was recognized by Hagelsteen and Burke (2016, p. 48), who argued that in case studies conducted, there is observed strength “in terms of the implementation of technical capacities but weaker at strengthening the more organizational aspects which are often necessary for having a capacity sit in the organization.” It must be emphasized that technical capacities should be complemented by other forms of CD, including the promotion of leadership and management skills for organizations and communities (CADRI, 2011, pp. 20-21).

Another key principle for an effective CD is to address intersectional concerns in CD that are often overlooked, particularly on the part of the local beneficiaries. Local economic constraints, for instance, may directly affect the continuity of CD initiatives. The IFRC (2015, pp. 46-47) highlights the case involving poor communities in the Philippines to participate in CD initiatives despite livelihood constraints. Local beneficiaries are reluctant to join because it will affect their livelihood and daily sustenance. As such, offering incentives can form part of CD programming. Incentives are critical to CD as they enable individuals and organizations to perform their functions effectively and motivate beneficiaries to participate in training programs and acquire new skills (MSB, 2018, p. 81). However, IFRC (2015, p. 47) negated this saying the provision of incentives for attendance undermines ownership, starting an unsustainable practice, or attracting people to attend purely to get the ‘payment’. Nonetheless, both IFRC (Ibid) and MSB (2018, p. 81) advise that there is then a need to assess and discuss existing incentives through consultations with local beneficiaries. With this, ToC can also help by outlining and making explicit assumptions and expectations from both partners in relation to the change process (Valters, 2015, p. 5).

Sustaining impact and implementation

There are two issues the paper would like to address when it comes to sustainability in CD – first, sustaining impact, and second, sustaining implementation. When it comes to sustaining impact, Hagelsteen et al. (2021) contend that one significant challenge in CD is the overemphasis on short-term technical training activities. Despite being widely implemented, research indicates that these short-term training have limited and unsustainable impacts due to their ad hoc nature. The same was emphasized by Vallejo and Wehn (2016, p. 4) and Becker (2014, p. 242), stating CD should involve more than just short-term training and technical assistance; it requires the strengthening of community and individual capacities to identify and mitigate risks locally.

Meanwhile, monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) are crucial to sustain the implementation of CD initiatives. By integrating MEL into the process, external partners and local beneficiaries can track progress, assess the effectiveness of interventions, and adapt good practices and lessons learned. This process ensures that CD efforts remain relevant and responsive to the changing nature of disaster risks. This is where ToC can also help to facilitate adaptability to new challenges and emerging risks by encouraging continuous learning process (McEvoy, 2015, p. 539). Both Ramalingan et al. (2019, p. 4) and OECD (2020) provide different perspectives and considerations in designing the MEL process. Ramalingan et al. (2019, p. 4) strongly emphasize usefulness relative to the extent to which MEL data will be used for learning process and to justify decisions. In contrast, the OECD (2020) does not explicitly discuss usefulness; instead, it focuses more on relevance and effectiveness to which the intervention’s objectives and design respond to beneficiaries’ needs and priorities. In addition, Ramalingan et al. (2019, p. 6) also emphasize timeliness when decisions need to be made and how MEL components contribute to timely decision-making. While the OECD (2020) does not explicitly address timeliness, it focuses on the long-term sustainability of the interventions. Even so, both OECD (2020) Ramalingan et al. (2019, p. 2) recognize the importance of adaptive management for sustainability. Adaptive management involves the need to tailor approaches, methods tools to facilitate more effective intervention (Ramalingan et al., 2019, p. 2-3). There is a need then for timely collection of relevant data and acting upon changes or adjustments based on data gathered. In this way, MEL can allow adaptive management and enable all stakeholders to identify issues and tailor necessary adjustments (Ibid). This proactive approach to addressing challenges contributes to the sustainability of CD by making timely decisions and adapting strategies in response to information gathered.

Challenges and opportunities in CD

The CD has also faced numerous issues and dilemmas in implementation. First, CD may reinforce power imbalance between external partners and local beneficiaries (MSB, 2018, p. 80; Eade, 2007, p. 630). Power imbalances may occur when external partners dominate the decision-making process marginalizing local expertise and stakeholders (IFRC, 2015, p. 111). Related to this, Anderson (2015, p. 53) summarized three key areas where external partners seem to dominate the CD process – allocation of funds, alignment with local priorities, and control and changes in priorities. This can be further observed in how external partners identify entry points for CD. While national development strategies are identified as one entry point, CD most often relies on prioritized sectors identified by external partners, and themes in international agenda like DRR and climate change, gender equality, and among others (Vallejo and Wehn, 2016, p. 7). However, external partners consider these policies and prioritization processes as instruments for ensuring the effectiveness of CD and establishing justification for programming and funding. They serve as avenues to advance interests and values supported by the external partner (Anderson, 2015, p. 53). Nonetheless, it must also be recognized that local beneficiaries may have different values and interests not aligned with the external partners’ priorities. For instance, while external partners may focus on interests to advance international agenda on development goals; local beneficiaries tend to be more practical and often concentrates on immediate concerns such as livelihood opportunities (Ibid). To address this, CD requires the involvement of local beneficiaries in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of initiatives. Excluding them in these critical processes can lead to issues of lack of ownership and may affect the continuity and sustainability of the initiative.

Second, as risks evolve, technologies also evolve and may bring new dimensions to CD. New technologies have fueled the emergence and possibility of unknown risks that communities may face, such as cyberattacks or cyberterrorism (ADB & OECD, 2020, p. 20). Nonetheless, CD has also evolved and used new technologies to offer new opportunities and tools to enhance the efficiency of DRR efforts (Ibid). An example is the digitalization efforts for post-disaster needs assessment (PDNA) in the Philippines through the Resilience and Preparedness toward Inclusive Development (RAPID) program of the UNDP. An electronic-based PDNA tool was developed to facilitate and automate data collection, making it easier to deploy and complete a PDNA report compared to paper-based surveys (UNDP, 2019, p. 26). These technologies help improve the timeliness and efficiency of preparing PDNA reports to aid a more responsive rehabilitation process.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper on CD emphasizes it as a tool to advance development agenda and collaboration. Understanding the desired change in CD initiatives provides clarity and adaptability in emerging risks. This can be further advanced by considering fundamental principles such as leveraging existing capacities, ensuring local ownership through clearly defined roles, adopting a holistic approach by addressing intersectional concerns, and prioritizing sustainability through impactful interventions and considering an effective MEL process. Designing CD also requires addressing challenges, including power dynamics and integration of new technologies, underscoring the need for adaptive management. This comprehensive understanding can help us position CD not only as a developmental tool but also as a catalyst to forward collaboration in the field of resilience-building. Nonetheless, there is still a need for further knowledge on the continual improvement of CD initiatives through the integration of technologies. It should involve not only adapting existing initiatives but also innovating new approaches that maximizes both indigenous knowledge and technology. This is important to ensure CD remains relevant and responsive to the needs of individuals, communities and organizations.

References

ADB and OECD (2020). Leveraging Technology and Innovation for Disaster Risk Management and Financing. Manila/Paris.

Anderson, M., Brown, D., & Jean, I. (2012). Time to listen - Hearing people on the receiving end of international aid. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Becker, P. (2014). Sustainability Science. Managing Risk and Resilience for Sustainable Development. Elsevier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/C2012-0-06785-3

CADRI. (2011). Basics of capacity development for disaster risk reduction. Geneva: Capacity for disaster reduction initiative.

Champion, D., Kiel, D., McLendon, J. (2010). Advisers’ Roles. Choosing a Consulting Role: Principles and Dynamics of Matching Role to Situation. In: Ubels et al: (2010) Capacity Development in Practice, Earthscan, London (pp. 57-64)

DFID. (2010). How to note - Capacity building in research. London: DFID.

Eade, D. (2007). Capacity building: who builds whose capacity? Development in Practice, 17(4–5), 630–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520701469807

Eyben, R., Kidder, T., Rowlands, J., & Bronstein, A. (2008). Thinking about change for development practice: a case study from Oxfam GB. Development in Practice, 18(2). https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614520801898996

Hagelsteen, M., & Becker, P. (2019). Systemic problems of capacity development for disaster risk reduction in a complex, uncertain, dynamic, and ambiguous world. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 36. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101102

Hagelsteen, M., Becker, P., & Abrahamsson, M. (2021). Troubling partnerships: Perspectives from the receiving end of capacity development. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 59. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102231

Hagelsteen, M., & Burke, J. (2016). Practical aspects of capacity development in the context of disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 16. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.01.010

Hivos. (2015). Theory of change thinking in practice, a stepwise approach. Hague: Hivos

IFRC. (2015). What works and what doesn’t: Capacity development for better disaster risk management. In World disaster report 2015: Focus on local actors, the key to humanitarian effectiveness. Geneva: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

McEvoy, P., Brady, M., & Munck, R. (2016). Capacity development through international projects: a complex adaptive systems perspective. International Journal of Managing, 9(3), 528-545

MSB. (2018). Capacity development guide. Karlstad: Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB)

OECD/DAC (2020). Evaluation Criteria. https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm

Otoo, S., Agapitova, N., & Behrens, J. (2009). The Capacity Development Results Framework: A Strategic and Results-Oriented Approach to Learning for Capacity Development. World Bank, Washington, DC. https://hdl.handle.net/10986/23037

Ramalingan, B., Wild L. & Buffardi, A.L. (2019). Making adaptive rigour work: Principles and practices for strengthening monitoring, evaluation and learning for adaptive management. ODI

Schulz, K., Gustafsson, I., & Illes, E. (2005). Manual for capacity development. Stockholm: Sida.

UNDRR. (2019). Strategic Approach to Capacity Development for Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: A Vision of Risk-Informed Sustainable Development by 2030. Concise Guide. Geneva: UNDRR

United Nations Development Programme. (2019). Project Climate Twin Phoenix - Resilience and Preparedness toward Inclusive Development (PCTP-RAPID) Project Terminal Evaluation. In United Nations Development Programme.

Vallejo, B., & Wehn, U. (2016). Capacity Development Evaluation: The Challenge of the Results Agenda and Measuring Return on Investment in the Global South. World Development, 79, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.044

Valters, C. (2015). Theories of change: Time for radical approach to learning in development. London, United Kingdom: Overseas Development Institute (ODI)