3. PAST APPROACHES AND LESSONS FOR HUMAN CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

This section provides comment on historical approaches to capacity development, and on successes and failures in attempts to build capacity^[6]. Although our focus is on fisheries, we have not restricted our thinking to this sector, as much valuable experience can be gained from looking outside the sector.

3.1 Historic approaches

Given our previous categorization of capacity development needs into the three key pillars/groupings of capacity development as shown in Figure 2-1 on page 11, the following review also describes historical approaches based on this categorization. The review draws from an extensive literature review together with telephone interviews with key players, both within FAO and in other agencies. A full list of persons contacted is included in Appendix C (numbered to cross-reference personal communications noted below) and a summary of some of the main HCD initiatives reviewed is also provided in Appendix D (cross-referenced to the appropriate section in the Appendix).

Within fisheries

Fisheries science, research and development: a primary objective of FAO and donor-funded fisheries technical assistance (TA) projects, as well as of developing countries themselves, has been the development of a science-based approach to fisheries management (7, 18, 25). This has traditionally focused upon standard fisheries science such as stock assessment and population dynamics, as well as on technological development of catching and post-harvest methodologies. The needs were usually defined during project preparation by donor representatives, usually consultants, often with only limited or informal participation from the client institution (18, 20, 25). The clients themselves were usually Government research institutions (20), with training focusing on mid-ranking scientists (20, 25). The training itself was usually delivered by short or long-term specialists attached to the institution and was often reinforced by sending key host country individuals to post-graduate level courses overseas in developed countries (typically Master’s level) or to complete a doctorate (20). Training was therefore fairly long-term (i.e. one year plus) and related to technical capacity development. In addition a number of developing countries e.g. Indonesia, China, and countries in the South Pacific, have instigated university programmes aimed at developing marine science capabilities (Soegiarto and Stel 1998, South and Veitayaki 1998).

Fisheries sector management: as with fisheries science, the historical approach to HCD in the area of sector management has been very much project-based, with most larger fisheries projects over the 1980s and 1990s containing some element of "institutional strengthening". Again this has been largely donor-driven, focusing upon the institutional capacity of recipient Governments to develop and implement sectoral policy. In many cases management training has been provided as an "add-on" to more traditional technical assistance, to address management weaknesses that the donor considers might threaten the success of the main programme (18, 20). Traditional clients have sometimes resisted such assistance, possibly indicating insufficient donor-client engagement in agreeing the needs for the reform. Again, training has traditionally been conducted by international specialist assistance in planning, management and more rarely, administration (25). This locally-based assistance is sometimes supported by short overseas courses (generally 3 months) in general management, together with specialist subjects such as procurement or development planning (24, 25). A popular approach by donor-aided projects, especially in Asia, has been the use of regional study tours, where the benefits of proven management approaches can be demonstrated and participants can directly discuss the appropriateness of their application to their own situations and circumstances (18, 25). Problems have been encountered in selection of those being trained overseas - sometimes those approved by the project recipients are chosen for political reasons because overseas training is seen as a perk, and not because they are necessarily the most appropriate people to be trained.

Societal Skills and knowledge: as already mentioned, donor attention prior to the early 90s was very much focused on technical skills and knowledge and improving mid-level management in the public sector. However over the 1980s there tended to be a broadening in skill areas, especially into cross-cutting issues such as gender mainstreaming, environmental impact assessment (EIA) and environmental awareness (25). There was increasing awareness of the need for stakeholders to engage in fisheries management, both in terms of participating in decision-making as well as enabling their ability to respond to changing circumstances. The main capacity-building focus was on community mobilization and empowerment of fishing communities, largely through NGO intermediaries (27).

Outside fisheries

Integrated coastal area management: over the last decade, integrated coastal area management (ICAM) has become an important component of multi-sectoral planning and co-ordination in coastal areas, integrating coastal fisheries and aquaculture with other coastal users such as tourism, urban and industrial development, marine transportation and, increasingly, maritime biodiversity conservation. Although ICAM courses are often driven by the need for a multi-sectoral commitment to natural resource management, they also echo a need to respond to better physical planning in a potentially high conflict geographic zone. For instance in the UK, the Royal Institution for Chartered Surveyors (RICS) have been an important driver in formulating ICAM capacity-building needs (24). This discipline provides some interesting lessons for the ecosystems approach to fisheries, as both have been recently introduced and require a considerable widening of skills and knowledge and strengthening of capacity.

Dedicated ICAM courses, as apposed to technical courses with a multi-disciplinary leaning have only really appeared over the past decade (Balgos 1998). The skill sets involved are relatively novel, involving a combination of physical planning, institutional and conflict management, law and policy development. In additional, some technical skills are also required, such as geographical information system (GIS) development and use. Course designs have responded to perceived market needs, although real needs assessments against practical ICAM capability limitations are rarely conducted (24). Training recipients are mainly senior to middle-level management from Ministries, but also researchers from academic institutions involved in coastal management, municipal agricultural officers, development workers from NGOs and project staff from foreign funded projects (Balgos 1998). It has often been difficult to identify appropriate individuals for ICAM training due to the lack of permanent positions available (often ICAM is donor-driven with staff drawn from single sectors for only the project duration), although it is recognized that awareness-building amongst different coastal sectoral players is key to promoting a culture of integrated management. The majority of courses are at Masters level (1-2 years), although a regional capacity for training, especially in Asia, has given rise to increasing numbers of bespoke ICAM short courses and workshops (1-2 weeks). At present there are very few undergraduate courses in the ICAM disciplines (24).

Agriculture and forestry: historical experience of HCD in the agriculture and forestry sectors appears similar to fisheries (see previous section) in that it has been largely donor-driven, with training needs being identified quickly at the project formulation stage rather than through more detailed and formal training needs analysis during project preparation or implementation, or by studies of greater depth (17, 22). Because many of the primary needs were originally technical skills these were reasonably easily identified (17). However, as solutions to development limitations have become more management-based, specific skills weaknesses have became more difficult to identify. In addition project-specific priorities may not reflect national priorities (21). The main targets were originally mid-level managers (17), although this gradually extended to extension workers (17) and involved increasing levels of "training of trainers" (16). The primary training method used has been workshops varying for 3-5 day to two weeks in duration. Overseas training, especially in development policy and management, has also been provided to mid and senior level managers. Although the primary focus has been on public sector institutions there have also been efforts to develop private sector agri-business, especially in the areas of integrated pest management (IPM), processing and marketing.

3.2 Successes and failures in capacity development

3.2.1 What is success, and who defines it?

How successful have these previous approaches to capacity development been? This immediately raises three important questions. Firstly, what aspects of capacity development can be measured? Secondly, who defines success or failure? And thirdly, what is capacity development for?

Capacity development as a theme now pervades the work of most donors, yet it is difficult to find good examples of indicators that have been used to assess capacity development initiatives that extend beyond measures of inputs e.g. number of staff trained, or outputs e.g. number of smallholders visited made by extension staff (Morgan, 1997). In part this is because at one level capacity development may involve improvements to administrative procedures or organization skills of individuals. But, it may also involve changes in the pattern of societal politics, the growth of social capital, or improvements in the enabling environment as described in Figure 1-1. At this level, capacity development almost becomes synonymous with development itself. Some of the results of capacity development such as attitude change, organizational behaviour and the ability to develop and adopt new ideas are not easy to measure. Because capacity development must be considered in terms of systems and an overall development context, capacity constraints often stem not from a single cause but from a more profound pattern or structure in the enabling environment (Morgan, 1997). This means that while capacity in individuals may be enhanced and measured as having been so, the potential of these individuals to utilize such new capacity may be limited by other factors within the broader system. So input or output indicators may not be reliable as measures of overall success. Furthermore, the link between cause and effect are often unclear because of complex relationships operating in uncertain and rapidly changing environments, and it is frequently difficult to follow clear results "chains" or to have great certainty that indicators explain complex systems.

Morgan argues for a more integrated and balanced approach to capacity development and its measurement through indicators of "process" (i.e. the efforts to induce improved capacity), "product" (i.e. the actual new capacities or abilities produced), "performance" (i.e. the substantive development outcomes and impact that result), and "permanence" (i.e. its sustainability).

Historically the measurement of success in capacity development projects has largely been conducted by, and for, donors. This has resulted because of the need for donors to demonstrate value for money, and because officials in developing countries are often more concerned with conducting their day-to-day line functions under numerous constraints in their external environment, than with strengthening internal abilities. This has led to a focus on "performance" and "product" aspects of projects in both design and monitoring, with less attention on "process" issues such as effective ways to achieve development of staff skills and knowledge, levels of decentralization, aspects of the enabling environment and so on. In addition, while sustainability is often considered in some token form in project evaluation, the timing of evaluation missions on immediate completion of project activities, does not allow for adequate time to have elapsed so that a true level of sustainability can be assessed^[7]. Furthermore, even if a wide range of stakeholders are involved in an assessment of success, interpretation of success is likely to be very different based on the differing viewpoints of such stakeholders, and their objectives.

The answer to the question "what is success?" is strongly determined by what capacity is being developed for, and what the key objectives of such capacity development are. For example, an initiative to foster improved fisheries management may have a conservation or bio-ecological objective, a social objective or an economic objective. Ultimate "success" in terms of the conservation objective might be achieved if capacity development results in a "performance" whereby the stock is being fished at a sustainable level. However stock sustainability can only be achieved though a multiple of factors apart from the technical capability of management institutions so other more directly linked and measurable indicators are required.

Success in social terms may be realized if capacity is developed so that the cultural values are maintained, communities remain sustainable, social benefits are equitably distributed, and so on. In economic terms, success may be realized if the fishery is managed to maximize the economic benefits from the resource, and the levels of resource rent being generated. Finally, there may be a more general "developmental" objective, whereby fisheries are managed with the intention of maximising benefits to overall development levels in a country as a whole (Bennett, 2003). Fulfilling different objectives will require different aspects of capacity development, and if the objective of an initiative is to development capacity for better fisheries management, the view about its success will depend greatly on different perspectives of success generated by different objectives. But more than this, capacity development is valuable in its own right, over and above the changes in "performance" (whether economic, biological, social or developmental) that it may bring about. As Morgan points out, "policies, goods and services may change and become obsolete, but living capacity can mutate and survive" (Morgan, 1999). As such, capacity development is therefore both a means to an end, but also and end to itself and assessing success requires a balanced approach between these views (Lavergne and Saxby, 2001).

3.2.2 Evidence of successes and key lessons

As part of the preparation of this paper, we reviewed nine evaluation reports completed in the last ten years. The reports were provided by the FAO PBEE Service and covered projects in different sectors (e.g. forestry, horticulture/agriculture, eco-development, fisheries), in India, Bhutan, Gambia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Kenya, and Eritrea, but all focused specifically on strengthening of institutions or capacity for management. The review highlighted a mixture of success and that initiatives are rarely either judged as completely successful or unsuccessful, and that successful "capacity" in individuals, institutions or sectors involves some or all of the following:

• ability to adapt behaviour and attitudes based on learning;

• desire and ability to establish new relationships with other projects, groups or organizations;

• the ability of institutions to recruit and maintain staff to conduct necessary functions based on their core capabilities, and to have sufficient facilities to undertake functions;

• the ability to be taken seriously by other actors, and to have a degree of political clout which enables them to effect change within the overall societal context;

• the ability to plan and strategize, to set objectives, and implement solutions;

• the ability to disseminate knowledge, information, and capacity skills.

In the early 1990s the UNDP published the results of a review of the effectiveness of technical cooperation (Berg and UNDP, 1993). Most of the reviews from 30 countries in Africa reached similar conclusions: that technical cooperation had proven effective in getting the job done, but less effective at developing local institutions or strengthening local capacities; and that it was expensive, donor-driven and focused on high-profile activities to suit donor constituencies, often served to heighten dependence on foreign experts, and distorted national priorities. Concern was also increasingly expressed in the 1990s over insufficient "ownership" over development initiatives (Fukada-Parr et al., 2002), and a lack of "sustainability", both of which were reducing the impact of donor initiatives.

Some interesting lessons from capacity development initiatives, presented in tabular form, were also gained from country presentations made at the International Symposium on Capacity Development, held in the Philippines in January 2003 (UNDP, 2003), organized jointly by JICA, UNDP, the WBI, and CIDA. The symposium’s main objective was to facilitate the exchange of views among donors, recipient countries and other development practitioners on capacity development. There were more than 120 participants in the symposium.

Table 3-1: Lessons from capacity development initiatives

Source: Berg and UNDP, 2003

Based on the above, a number of key lessons have been distilled from the capacity development literature covering both fisheries and non-fisheries sectors. They suggest that the more of these lessons capacity development initiatives adopt, the more likely they are to be successful. These lessons were also discussed and further developed at the Working Party. The lessons are presented in a summary table overleaf, followed by greater explanation and comment on each one.

Table 3-2: Summary of key lessons learned from previous initiatives

Capacity assessment

Lesson 1: The process of human capacity development itself can add value to overall capability, as well as result in the improved performance of the individuals, groups and organizations. Given the centrality of capacity development to any type of performance improvement, capacity development can be considered an end in its own right (UNDP, 2003; Morgan, 1997).

Lesson 2: Initiatives should take account of, and be tailored to, existing levels of core capacities and involve a two-way process of knowledge transfer and acquisition. Increasingly it is realized that much knowledge already resides in developing countries, and that this knowledge needs to be utilized, adapted and built upon (UNDP, 2003; Jodice et al., 2003; Kullenberg, 1998; Crawford et al., 1993).

Lesson 3: Human capacity development initiatives need to identify the individuals and organizations that will champion the process and can adopt and lead human capacity development. Success of capacity development initiatives may depend to a large extent on the availability of just one or two key individuals who are sufficiently motivated. But it should also be noted that all the necessary skills and knowledge for successful capacity development can not exist in one person (UNDP, 2003; FAO, 1998; Nchinda, 2002; Jodice et al., 2003).

Lesson 4: There is a need for better integration of human capacity development initiatives with national planning processes, and especially between policy, management and research. This applies to integration of initiatives with overall governmental planning, with other initiatives and projects, and at the local, regional and international levels through the use of partnerships. Approaches relying solely on a project-based approach, without support for capacity development at the sector/planning level may have limited success. Support must also be provided for better links between a) research and policy makers in developing countries, b) between researchers in developed and developing countries, and c) peoples in developing countries. There has often been a failure of researchers to provide information in a form that is useful to policy makers, and an indifference to their work by staff in Ministries. Strengthening of research links between developed and developing countries can also be beneficial and favoured to both groups so that developing countries are better informed of recent international developments, and developed country researchers are provided with opportunities for conducting research in interesting settings from which they can publish. Greater cooperation between developing countries is also important with respect to sharing of tacit knowledge among peoples who have encountered similar development challenges and circumstances. (Nchinda, 2002; Jansky et al., 2003; Bolger, 2000; Chakalall et al., 1998; Okemwa, 1998; Snoussi and Awosika, 1998; UNDP, 2003; Montero, 2002; FAO, 2000; Morgan, 1997; UNDP, 1996; UNDP, 1995; Hondandale and Cooper, 1989; South and Veitayaki, 1998; Akiwumi and Melvasalo, 1998).

Needs analysis

Lesson 5: Capacity development initiatives should establish an adequate level of participation in their needs assessment, design, implementation and monitoring. One of the main lessons learned over the past decade is the benefit of a formal needs analysis process in setting training objectives and subsequent curriculum development. There is a need for a broad-spectrum, strategic approach to assessing capacity-building needs at relevant sectoral and geographical scales (20, 24). Making this participatory would ensure greater success in projects, and wider ownership of projects - itself considered a crucial factor in success. On a practical level, it would help for example to ensure that the length of a training course suits an individual’s needs and is acceptable to institutions that may have to release staff for such training. It would also help to ensure that sufficient staff are available for training, and that clients have the opportunity of providing input into the definition of course contents. However, greater participation by recipients in project design, itself often requires capacity development, and there is still an important role for widely-experienced specialists from both in-country and overseas in training needs analysis (TNA) to provide an external perspective (17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 27). PRSPs provide an opportunity to examine the extent to which capacity development principles, especially in terms of participation, are being implemented. Whilst PRSPs are intended to reflect national priorities and to be based on a participatory process of dialogue and consultation, the experience appears mixed (UNDP, 2003; Jodice et al., 2003; Allison, 2003; Bolger, 2000; FAO, 2000; Gladstone, 2000; Stel, 1998; FAO, 1998; Balgos, 1998; FAO, 1996; UNDP, 1995; Pido, 1995; Hanna, 1996; Snoussi and Awosika, 1998).

There is often little feed-back from trainees on the actual effectiveness of the capacity-building initiative. There is therefore need for more ex-post evaluation to ensure that courses address the real needs of participants. Frequently insufficient funding is the main barrier to this process.

Delivery

Lesson 6: Initiatives should provide adaptive, flexible and suitable learning pathways, taking into account the individual’s work environment, lifestyle and aspirations. There is an important need to fit initiatives with individuals’ work environments, lifestyles and aspirations, and to ensure that individuals can continually build on the capabilities (Jodice et al., 2003; Bolger, 2000).

Lesson 7: Incentives and mechanisms should be provided to support recipients of human capacity development. Formal training processes are frequently disruptive and may take recipients away from their livelihoods and families. It is important therefore to ensure that sufficient support is provided to ensure that capacity development opportunities are not hindered by prolonged income loss or reduction in quality of life.

Lesson 8: Human capacity development is a long-term process that requires continued support through national initiatives and partnerships. It therefore requires long-term support and linking of short-term and long-term strategies (UNDP, 2003; FAO, 2000; Bolger, 2000; Stel, 1998; UNDP, 1996; Nchinda, 2002; Crawford et al., 1993).

Lesson 9: Efforts should be made to retain capacity investment within the fisheries sector. Whilst it is appreciated that the impacts of capacity development should not necessarily be contained within the fisheries sector, where possible efforts should be made to retain a sufficient skills and knowledge base within the sector.

Lesson 10: Those delivering human capacity development initiatives should themselves have the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities to provide human capacity development. This requires donors, NGOs, and government departments assisting others to develop, to themselves undergo change, acquire new skills and knowledge, and adopt new approaches. This will ensure that capacity development is not stuck at the conceptual level, and can be successfully delivered to those in need.

Enabling environment

Lesson 11: Approaches to capacity development should take greater cognizance of the overall societal context and the political influence of supported institutions and sectors. Initiatives must recognize that capacity constraints are likely to stem from more than a single cause and will possibly/probably be strongly influenced by factors outside the realm of project activities. High-level political support for capacity development is likely to be essential if efforts are to prove successful (UNDP, 2003; Allison, 2003; IDDRA, 2003; UNDP, 1996; Morgan, 1997; FAO, 1996; Bossert, 1990; Soegiarto and Stel, 1998; Snoussi and Awosika, 1998).

Lesson 12: Approaches should ensure an adequate focus on the social, economic and environmental context in which technical solutions are being implemented. i.e. are more systems-based approach, as these factors may have at least as much importance as technical issues themselves in project success (Young, 1998; UNDP, 1996; UNDP, 1995; UNDP, 1996).

Lesson 13: Initiatives should capture and enable attitudinal changes and skills that are likely to result in a collective sense of purpose and progress. Certain initiatives can put forward new ideas and values which create of a new flow of legitimacy, information and expectations that in turn result in a collective sense of purpose and progress (Morgan, 1997; FAO, 1996).

Lesson 14: Initiatives should recognize the need for an enabling environment that provides the incentive to promote the use and further development of the enhanced capacity. Capacity being developed in individuals must be rewarded in some way, whether it is through increases in salary/income, job responsibility, career progression or promotion. This requires good management and administration skills and knowledge to increase retention levels. Importantly, it also requires those trained to be able to put their new skills into practice - there is nothing more dis-empowering than providing individuals with new skills and expectations, but no outlet in which to exercize them. At the organizational and societal level, transparency, accountability, the rule of law, and security all constitute important incentives. The market place to, in the form of competition, can provide incentives and effective stimulus to improving performance and attracting good capacity, as can motivation and peer pressure (UNDP, 2003; Bolger, 2000; Chakalall et al., 1998; Morgan, 1997; FAO, 1996; Nchinda, 2002; Crawford et al., 1993; Jodice et al., 2003).

Lesson 15: One size does not fit all - planning of human capacity development should take into account the realities of the overall environment under which capacity enhancement will take place. While seeking conceptual clarity and indeed consensus around notions of capacity development, there is a need to recognize the virtues of applying diverse approaches when operationalizing the concept (UNDP, 2003).

Finally, Bianchi (FAO/FIRM, pers. comm.) argues that whilst there have been many examples of successful capacity development programmes that have brought both individuals and institutions forward, a key important issue is that of sustainability of capacity development efforts. Experiences show that capacity can be developed at the individual/institutional level, but often this is not sustainable because:

• Individuals use their new capacity to move away from institutions to higher or more lucrative positions (and not always within the same sector).

• There is often no mechanism (e.g. local university courses or on-the-job training initiatives) for replenishing trained personnel that move out (particularly in the case the development project that provided training means).

• The "enabling environment" is basically the societal situation that does not depend on capacity development only, but on the overall socio-economic situation in the country. Well functioning institutions can only develop in well functioning societies. However appropriate and efficient the capacity development is, sustainability will only take place in an appropriate societal context. Unfortunately such context does not exist in many developing countries.

• Institutions in developing countries have often been the target of capacity development projects by various bilateral and multilateral agencies, both in fishery science and management. The lack of a coherent framework for priority issues and solutions often creates confusion.