1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

At its Fourth Session in December 2002, the FAO Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research (ACFR) identified human capacity as a high priority issue, especially with respect to meeting the targets set by the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in (i) the areas of global reporting and assessment of the state of the environment by 2004, (ii) elaborating National Plans of Action (NPOAs) for combating illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing by 2004 and for reduction of fishing capacity by 2005, (iii) applying the ecosystem approach by 2012 and (iv) maintaining or restoring fish stocks by 2015. The Committee felt that past models for delivering on these needs (i.e. formal training provided by experts from developed countries to developing countries) would also need to change to accommodate the newer approaches to fisheries management. It would need to be based on a more mutual learning process, so that information and knowledge could be shared more efficiently and effectively by all involved. Human capacity would need to be built not just for science but also for management and the needs of other stakeholders. The Terms of Reference for this paper can be found in Appendix A.

The methodology employed in preparing this paper has encompassed an extensive literature review coupled with interviews with development practitioners engaged in capacity development initiative. In particular we have sought to learn widely from activities and lessons outside the fisheries sector, as well as within it.

This paper has been updated as a result of the Working Party (herein after referred to as "the Working Party") to discuss both this report and a subsequent draft "Strategic Framework for Human Capacity Development in Fisheries" (ACFR/WP/HCB/I/3) held in FAO Headquarters in Rome from 19 to 22 April 2004.

1.2 Explanation of terms

While the development problems that "capacity development" tries to tackle are not new, the concept itself is a relatively recent one and was articulated in the 1980’s and early 1990s. While extensively used now by many development practitioners there is still considerable confusion over its definition. This is largely because it has subsumed a number of other concepts and initiatives. These include: institutional building and strengthening, organizational development, training, community strengthening, human resource development, and development management/administration.

If discussion about capacity development is to be meaningful and constructive, it is first important to define what we mean by human capacity development. While there are many different definitions of capacity development that have been proposed in the development literature (see Lusthaus et al. 1999), the Working Party adapted a UNDP (1997) definition to consider capacity development as "the process by which individuals, groups, organizations, institutions, and societies develop their abilities - both individually and collectively - to set and achieve objectives, perform functions, solve problems and to develop the means and conditions required to enable this process". The definition serves to highlight two important attributes of capacity development. Firstly that it requires a consideration of capacity development at four levels as shown in Figure 1-1 overleaf. Each level represents a level of analysis, and importantly, a possible entry point for initiatives aimed at capacity development. And secondly that it is a process and not a passive state and must build on existing core capacities.

Figure 1-1: The four levels of capacity development

Source: Adapted from Bolger, 2000

The "enabling environment" represents the societal context in which development processes take place. Capacity may be reflected in the form of good economic policies, high levels of commitment, a lack of conflict or methods to resolve it, etc., which support an enabling environment, whereas low accountability, high levels of corruption, etc may serve to minimize the enabling environment. Initiatives to develop capacity at this level tend to focus on issues of good governance (see Box 2 on page 21). The "sector/network" level represents the need for coherent sector policies and strategies, as well as co-ordination across sectors. Initiatives may focus on issues such as policy reform or service delivery as a way of increasing capacity at the sector level. The "organizational/institutional" level of capacity focuses on organizational structures, processes, resources and management issues, and has been a key concern of much donor assistance in the form of technical assistance, budgetary or infrastructure support, or support for institutional linkages. The "individual" level in the capacity framework refers to the individuals operating within the other three levels, or being affected by them. Overall capacity is therefore not just the sum of individual/institutional/sector capacities, but also the opportunities and incentives for people to use and extend their skills and knowledge within an enabling environment. Capacity development takes place not just within individuals, but also between them and in the institutions and networks they create. The four levels of capacity development help to emphasize that capacity may be developed in individuals, but that initiatives at any level must take a holistic/systemic view of the overall context in which such individuals operate, to enable individuals or institutions to implement and utilize newly acquired capacity (Montero, 2002; Bolger, 2000; Morgan, 1997).

In order to build capacity, a process must take place for individuals whether they are acting at and influencing just their own activities, or as part of institutions, sectors and/or the overall societal/enabling environment. This process is not linear/mechanistic and individual capacity development may require individuals to loop-back into the spiral shown in Figure 1-2 overleaf, constantly building on existing core skills and capacities. New learning and abilities of individuals eventually feed into, and become embedded in a collective unit i.e. they are more than the property of individuals and indicate some sort of systemic or structural improvement - an institutional, sectoral or societal change takes place that supports a new level of performance with collective behaviour forming new patterns. These new behaviours must then remain in some form even when particular individuals leave or certain organizations are disbanded i.e. a sense of permanence or sustainability is achieved.

The Working Party recognized that this is a not a simple linear process and that capacity cannot be solely developed from the outside but should be acquired over time, with external support facilitating the process. It was also recognized that this is a two-way process whereby an individual’s capacity-development needs, knowledge and experience will closely reflect the requirements of the institution - be it an organization or a household - in which they operate.

Figure 1-2: Capacity development as a process

The process nature of capacity development means that there are seldom quick-fix solutions to capacity development needs that can be delivered solely from the outside. Capacity must be acquired over time by those engaged in the development process, with external support assisting in facilitating such development and building on core capacities. This means that ownership and definition of capacity development requirements by those requiring/requesting assistance is of paramount importance. The fact that capacity development is a process may also mean that it produces relatively intangible and uncertain results that are not easily measurable, and that development cooperation must recognize this rather than seeking to provide support that generates quick, predictable and easily measurable results.

1.3 Why revisit capacity development objectives now?

Capacity development has featured in many FAO and donor initiatives for some time now. However a special focus on human capacity development is important now, partly because of an increasing number of new approaches to fisheries management, and partly because of changes in the international development context driven by the only partial success of many previous development initiatives and the realization of the key role that capacity development must play in supporting sustainable development. This means that attempts to discuss more appropriate methods, and develop models of approaches, must consider both a) what are the new requirements that are so particular to recent developments, and b) why have previous human capacity development initiatives not been more successful, and what needs to be changed to make them more so.

Some key aspects of the changing emphasis of donor assistance and the development context in response to these problems, have been:

• global trends in approaches to public management towards decentralization, strengthening relationships between government and civil society, privatization, deregulation, etc.;

• increasing emphasis on good governance - e.g. participation, accountability, transparency, etc.;

• greater emphasis on the cost-effectiveness of donor initiatives, and the introduction of results-based management;

• wider recognition of the need for donor initiatives to be demand driven, with more emphasis on "partnership";

• the information and communications revolution, with the internet transforming the way

• increasing creativity and innovation from the "south";

• people and organizations can communicate, learn, lobby, etc.;

• greater awareness of the need for integration at all levels of development;

• greater emphasis on sustainability and the environment^[1], as reflected in the targets set by the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

All these factors have implications in terms of which aspects of human capacity i.e. who should be assisted, in what, and how.

Many of the changes in the general development context are increasingly being reflected in the fisheries sector. This follows the failure of much fisheries management based purely on fish stock assessment science, often with insufficient consultation with fishing communities or analysis of the social, economic and political forces that interact to affect levels of compliance. "Fisheries managers" are defined more broadly now with greater recognition of the importance of participation by fishing communities and resource users themselves in management, through co-management approaches (Dyer and McGoodwin, 1994). This requires fishing communities to acquire new levels of capacity to meaningfully participate in this management process and to define objectives of management and how these objectives might be achieved (Brown and Pomeroy, 1999; Mulekom, 1999). Indeed the capabilities and aspirations of users itself plays a part in determining the type of co-management regime (Sen and Nielsen, 1996).

The new interdisciplinary and participatory approach to management implies reformulation of both models and management structures in fisheries and other natural resource areas (Allison and McBride, 2003). Traditional management structures based around annual stock assessments, allocation of quotas and enforcement must now be broadened so that fisheries systems include analysis of property rights, the structure of formal and informal management institutions, possible conflict resolution mechanisms, and the social and economic impact of different management options (Charles, 2001). Importantly, fisheries management (especially in the developing world) is increasingly focusing not just on production issues, but also on aspects relating to poverty. This requires capacity development to better define and understand poverty processes and solutions.

Likewise, the increasing emphasis on sustainability and the environment has resulted in increasing recognition of the importance of implementing the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) and of adopting an ecosystems approach to fisheries (EAF). While the CCRF was developed almost ten years ago and adoption of the EAF is more recent^[2], the two have much in common. Indeed, the Executive Summary to the recently published CCRF Technical Guidelines on the ecosystems approach to fisheries (FAO, 2003) starts by saying that "the broad principles and approach for effective and responsible fisheries management are contained in the FAO CCRF, many of which relate to an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF)." Both the CCRF and the EAF include a strong emphasis on sustainability and a precautionary approach. Adoption of the CCRF, and especially of an EAF, requires some special attention to human capacity needs associated with the extra dimensions they demand compared to forms of traditional fisheries management focussing purely on stock levels. These extra dimensions include taking a more systemic approach to fisheries management so that fisheries do not alter the structure, biodiversity and productivity of marine ecosystems. An EAF also requires a wider consideration of the multiple needs and desires of societies, rather than just of fishers themselves, and of setting economic and social objectives. It requires capacity development in certain technical areas that require more emphasis on understanding of ecosystem structures, habitat restoration, MPAs, and bycatch reduction devices. It requires different and greater information needs. It necessitates greater participation and improved institutional linkages of fisheries management with coastal/ocean planning and integrated coastal zone management. In order to operationalize an EAF, capacity must be developed to translate its underlying principles into policy goals, and then into operational objectives that can be achieved by applying management measures.

The development of aquaculture over the last 30 years has been driven by research developments related to production efficiencies and an emphasis on production increases, through issues such as disease control, feed conversion, fish nutrition, optimal growing conditions etc. As with capture fisheries, recent years have seen an increasing concern over issues of social and environmental sustainability. New levels of capacity are therefore required to address solutions to such concerns.

Greater international co-ordination is also a result of a number of important International Plans of Action (IPOAs) and a requirement for their successful implementation - these are briefly reviewed in Table 2-1 with an outline assessment of their related capacity-building needs and implications. A review on their implementation has already indicated concerns over institutional limitations citing "inadequate institutional and technical capacity, inadequate funding, lack of information and inadequate access to information, including public education programmes, under-utilization of the media, as well as inadequate participation of all stakeholders, inappropriate legislative framework, the socio-economic implications of reducing fishing effort and the difficulties of implementing such concepts as the precautionary approach in the context of reduced human and financial resources in developing countries, as major preoccupations and the principal constraints in most developing countries^[3]".

The suggested solutions included the need for more educational outreach, the active involvement of stakeholders through the adoption of participatory approaches in fisheries management, an emphasis on training and capacity development at all levels, improvement in the legislative framework by incorporating provisions of the Code, the translation of the Code into more local languages, and the increased use of audiovisual aids.

All these changes of emphasis and understanding therefore represent the background against which a special focus on capacity development is required.