2. Strategic options for capacity assessment in agricultural water management design and management of the process

By
Wilfried Hundertmark, Senior Water Management Consultant at IPTRID

INTRODUCTION

In a paper presented by (Kay et al. 2004) an overview was given of the principal steps involved in capacity needs assessment from the viewpoint of the irrigation and drainage sector. Methodologies and tools available from the broader development community were examined in the context of the needs of agricultural water management. It became clear that needs assessment is a process that evolves in stages. Broadly the process can be described as a step-by-step exercise, which first involves the assessment of existing capacity, then future capacity needs, followed by mapping capacity gaps, identifying opportunities for capacity development and defining objectives and targets as the basis for the formulation of a strategic plan of action.

The proposed approach adopts a framework that is based on the principles of subsidiarity and participation. It analyses the capacity at three levels, of which the highest - the enabling environment - appears to be instrumental for a number of aspects including policy, legislation, socio-economic conditions and constraints to irrigation development. The middle layer addresses capacity needs of organizations involved in irrigation and the bottom layer aims to assess the needs of individuals.

Altogether, it is suggested that the three levels provide a preliminary structure for capacity assessment and as an entry point for donors and technical assistance. Unfortunately, the framework remains somewhat general and idealized with little solid country experience that could support it, or assist in the development of a more sector-specific approach suited to the needs of a variety of systems, such as smallholder-based systems in Africa and large-scale canal-based irrigation in Asia.

In this paper, an attempt is made to touch on issues related to the capacity assessment process and to provide strategic options to overcome them. This is to move away from an idealistic situation, in which stakeholders are collaborative and motivated and budgetary constraints do not exist, towards a world of restricted motivation and incentives on the part of individuals, as well as substantial resistance against institutional and organizational change at all levels of the society. Strategic options will be presented, which may help to make capacity assessment a useful exercise for the development of capacity development interventions.

Following this introduction, the paper is organized into six chapters. First, a brief overview is given of the context in which many smallholders, particularly in Africa and part of Asia, struggle with insufficient access to irrigation services. Second, there is the initiation phase of a capacity assessment initiative; third attention is drawn to the process design options, including identification of stakeholders and their involvement. Options for the identification of issues and their prioritization will be discussed and the concept of capacity gap analysis critically analysed. In the section on Managing the process (below) focus is placed on process management aspects that mainly relate to identified constraints and resistance to change. Finally, conclusions are drawn and strategic implications on the determination of effective capacity interventions highlighted.

THE SETTING IN AFRICA AND MUCH OF ASIA

Countries in sub-Saharan Africa and in Southeast Asia are probably among the most needy in terms of capacity assessment and development in agricultural water management. In sub-Saharan Africa, the irrigation sector is largely based on smallholdings of less than 1 ha, informally developed schemes, which are scattered over vast areas of land and around urban centres. Smallholders have no guaranteed access to water or to support services and training. Where still operational, official irrigation schemes are in need of rehabilitation and modernization with not much hope that the investment costs will pay off.

Official government irrigation services and extension units have largely fallen into a state of dysfunction with no access to sufficient funds for transport or any irrigation related training materials. Government employees are subject to frozen salaries and/or stiff public entrenchment schemes. There is only little incentive and motivation to perform, as expected, these ambitious human resource development plans date back to the days of structural adjustment. Because of tight budgetary restrictions, these plans are now obsolete. This situation has created a substantial gap in public service provision to the sector. Partly the capacity gaps have been filled by national and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and an emerging private sector. However, NGOs often find themselves operating in a void being largely ignored by official policy-makers. Moreover, ambitious development projects are found that operate successfully over the project cycle. However, their impact on the capacity of their beneficiaries to manage irrigation systems is doubtful since long-term support of the beneficiaries is not guaranteed.

In several African countries, donors have encouraged governments to shift from state controlled to farmer-controlled irrigation management. Progress has been slow so far: there are serious doubts that irrigation management transfer (IMT) in Africa and much of Asia will succeed. The International Water Management Institute (IWMI) believes that it would be surprising if, even with all necessary stress on ‘process’ and capacity building, IMT programmes will meet even moderate expectations of success. No amount of process and organizational savvy will get a group of rural poor - in Africa or Asia - to accept a deal that does not make any economic sense to them (IWMI 2003). Important questions, concerning the viability of irrigated agriculture, must be addressed in conjunction with a change of management in irrigation.

The conclusion is that capacity assessment, in the context of the African and Indian sub-continent, must be based on a broader conceptual framework, based on a deep appreciation of the prevailing irrigated farming systems. The conceptual framework must take into account the capacity for improved market integration, linkages with commercial institutions, access to credit, as well as improved on-farm water management practices.

INITIATING THE PROCESS

Before governments consider engaging in the process of capacity needs assessment there are a number of fundamental questions that need to be addressed and clarified. These include:

1. Is capacity a binding constraint to the development of the irrigation sector?
2. Does the sector have an irrigation strategy?
3. Who drives the process (external versus self-assessment)?
4. Is high-level commitment assured?

Is capacity a binding constraint to the development of the irrigation sector?

This first, and probably most important, question concerns capacity as a binding constraint to the development of the sector. Is it binding, or are there constraints, other than capacity, that are as important or even more important to be addressed? Examples include access to markets, credit or affordable irrigation technology, etc. It is assumed that capacity assessment will not begin unless the need for it has been identified and subsequently been expressed. Ideally, such an expression of the need to initiate a capacity assessment process should be articulated by the irrigated farming community - the ultimate stakeholders. It should be supported through the strongest political commitment possible, reaching from the highest central levels to regional and district levels (GTZ 2003).

Does the sector have an irrigation strategy?

The second question concerns the importance of irrigated agriculture in the context of the overall development of the country’s irrigated sector, particularly in rural areas. Has government established an irrigation sector strategy that outlines the sector’s long-term goals, defines clear objectives as to how the sector and its segments are to develop? Is the strategy well integrated into a country’s water and agricultural sector policy and strategy? Such questions are of particular importance as many countries are now moving forward with the reform of the water sector taking an integrated water resource management approach. Donor-funded water sector reform initiatives are underway, which attract substantial funds. The irrigated sector, as the principal water user, is clearly a stakeholder in such initiatives and capacity assessment in irrigation must be streamlined with the broader planning in the water and agricultural sectors.

Who drives the process (external versus self-assessment)?

Over many years, development agencies took the lead in the development of investment projects including capacity development components. Thereby critical steps such as the identification, formulation and design of projects were executed and driven by external experts, mostly consultants, assisted by national experts. The role and the involvement of developing countries were passive and largely reduced to that of recipients. Important opportunities for capacity development in project planning and management were wasted, since the process of preparing development projects or programme forms an important capacity development tool (Schacter 2000).

Increasingly donors move away from the concept of external capacity needs assessment towards the concept of self-assessment of capacity needs. The Global Environment Facility produced a guide for self-assessment of country capacity needs in global environmental management (GEF 2001a), in collaboration with multi-lateral donors including United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Bank and FAO. In this guide, the national self-assessment process is intended to be entirely country-driven, undertaken in accordance with country priorities and situations. Countries are given the option to use any approach they feel will enable them to accomplish the goals and objectives for undertaking their national self-assessment.

The National Global Environment Facility (GEF) Focal Point plays an important role in the initiation and facilitation of the self-assessment process. Focal points arrange meetings with high-level committees and with other national coordinating bodies to conduct preliminary discussions. Other actors may include high-ranking ministry policy decision-makers and representatives of key non-governmental organizations. The purpose of the initial self-assessment is to identify key capacity constraints, which can be used to determine interventions and activities to overcome these constraints (see Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1 Global Environment Facility (GEF) approach to identify key capacity constraints and interventions

Source: GEF (2001)

Assuming a government decides to give preference to a country-driven process, an important step would be to decide how the process can be successfully steered, effectively coordinated and efficiently administered, possibly with the assistance of an international facilitating body.

Usually, the options include the setting up of a steering committee of high-ranking ministry and stakeholder representatives, a coordinating (apex) body, which can be established inside the leading ministry and with a clear mandate to drive the process, maintain the flow of information and communication with stakeholders. In addition, there is a need for a facilitating stakeholder platform for stakeholders to express and articulate their interests and views precisely and without pressure. Preferably, such a platform would be established outside the ministerial structure in order to keep the balance of power between the disadvantaged and advantaged stakeholders. To drive the process successfully, a team of qualified individuals should be nominated, who are capable of organizing and coordinating the process effectively and efficiently.

Is high-level commitment assured?

Capacity assessment is not a static exercise. It involves a continuous process, which requires commitment to and ‘ownership of change’ on the part of high-ranking government officials, decision-makers and stakeholders as well as staying power and patience on the part of the actors. Commitment and ownership among senior management are regarded as essential, which can only be achieved if they are deeply involved and convinced that change is the ultimate alternative to stagnation. Moreover, commitment to change is a political statement that relies on the awareness, the active participation and the motivation of all stakeholders concerned.

Designing the process

Once fundamental questions are clear, and the capacity assessment process is initiated, important strategic decisions relate to the design of the process. This involves a number of critical decisions concerning clarity over the principles of stakeholder participation and involvement, and agreement on the objectives, a timeframe, proposed activities and mechanisms and finally the allocated budget.

STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION

There is a practical reason for promoting stakeholder participation in the process: to make more effective and efficient use of available and often limited resources. If stakeholders from the public, private sector, NGOs and civil society are involved, and adequately coordinated, it is likely that complementary qualities and synergies in experiences can be captured that otherwise may be overlooked (Dietvorst 2001).

Despite considerable stress on the involvement of non-governmental and private organizations in the process of capacity assessment, there appears to be little evidence that this is actually practiced, at least not in agricultural sector reform efforts (Dietvorts 2001). Even where irrigation management responsibilities were transferred to water user organizations, government bodies appear to remain the principal beneficiary of capacity investments (OED 1999). However, NGOs do offer important services to both formal and informal smallholder water management systems. If strengthened and integrated into an overall strategy, their impact on systems performance and food security could probably be enhanced and expanded to other areas. In addition, capacity in participatory irrigation project development and support, used by NGOs, could possibly be adopted as a model for more formalized extension and support services. As a consequence, NGOs and the private sector must be given due attention for capacity assessment in order to exploit best practices and approaches and identify their capacity needs more clearly.

Table 2.1 Categories of stakeholders

Sources: adapted from Dietvorts (2001)

The list of possible stakeholder and partners for capacity assessment in irrigation may differ from country to country depending on sector organization and structure and on the administrative and institutional landscape. The overriding principle of participation implies that all stakeholders, who wish to be involved, get a fair chance to do so. However, too often a narrow sector view on irrigation results in little recognition of the fact that irrigation is part of a broader water resource management system. As many countries are now moving towards the concept of integrated water resource management, other water sector stakeholders must be included in the process.

In order to identify the stakeholders in irrigation it is useful to categorize stakeholders according to broad criteria and use these denominators to narrow the list of potential candidates involved in the process (see Annex 2.1). The assumption is either their interests and positions are affected by poor performance of an organization, e.g. irrigation services or that the organization, individual or institution itself are in need of improved capacity. It is important to understand how irrigation systems are managed in which domain decisions are taken that can affect, or be affected, by stakeholders. Within the framework of irrigation, three broad areas may be identified (see Figure 2.2):

1. Water resource management domain, which may include the basin, sub-basins, command areas, farms, fields and even crops;
2. Political administrative domain from the national to the local level;
3. International domain, which cuts across the previously mentioned domains.

Within each domain stakeholders can be identified and their interests in and needs for capacity assessed. The following examples may illustrate the significance of this categorization. At the national level, capacity is needed to prepare amendments for water laws, to establish policies on water tariffs and cost recovery mechanisms or to register water user associations. At the basin level, capacity is required to make water allocation decisions, or to impose restrictions on irrigation development within the basin. Similarly, the responsibility to administer irrigation schemes is usually vested at provincial levels and, therefore, officers need capacity to fulfil this function.

Within the domain of command areas, farmers need the capacity to make cropping and irrigation scheduling decisions, scheme operators need the capacity to provide water services and water user associations need management capacity in technical and financial matters. The distinction between administrative and water management domains is significant where boundaries of provinces or districts and command area do not match and an irrigation system falls under the responsibility of two or more administrative areas.

Almost all countries that share rivers with riparian neighbours are involved to some extent in regional cooperation and international initiatives on shared water resources. A country’s capacity in irrigation planning and management is likely to be affected by such cooperation through the formulation of standards and directives. Effective cooperation may require in-country capacity in order to fulfil such requirements. Because of its crosscutting nature, all levels of the administrative and water management domains may be affected.

Other important stakeholders belonging to the international domain include unilateral and multi-lateral donors and international NGOs. Their interest in capacity development is justified through their desire to eliminate risks associated with the poor performance of irrigation projects. The analysis must further include the global environment that increasingly impinges on the capacity of a country from national to local level. An example is the way the Internet has created opportunities for information exchange; it also divides those with, from those without access (Brown 2002).

Figure 2.2 Domains in political administration and water management

Identification of stakeholders does not necessarily imply that all stakeholders are subject to rigorous assessment of current and future capacity needs. Probably, it will be necessary to limit the number involved to stakeholders from key domains including governmental, non-governmental organizations and the private sector. In a preliminary assessment, stakeholders may be categorized according to their possible future role in the process.

Figure 2.3 Preliminary stakeholder assessment grid

Source: adapted from GEF (2001)

A preliminary stakeholder assessment grid is given in Figure 2.3. Accordingly, group A includes all those stakeholders who wish to be fully involved in the process and who will determine the creditability of the exercise. Possible candidates would include ministerial departments for irrigation and water, water user associations, water districts, extension services, NGOs, public-private partnerships, etc. Group B could include those who are likely to play a more passive and limited role such as commercial farmers, private firms. Those who are interested but wish to be kept informed are captured in Group C. All who do not wish to be involved are listed in group C.

OPTIONS FOR EFFECTIVE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

An important design decision concerns the stakeholders’ future mode of involvement in the capacity assessment process. Options for stakeholder involvement can be categorized into three types (adapted from GEF 2001a):

1. Advisory bodies: Short-term body of national and international experts with a mandate to gather expert opinions on thematic issues. Such bodies may be composed of scientific boards and expert panels. The advantage of advisory bodies is the provision of informed views and recommendation on specific issues of mutual interest.
2. Stakeholder inquiries: Stakeholder inquiries intend to collect basic information on the institutional and organizational mandates, functions, performance and impact. Available tools include surveys, panel discussions and workshops. Stakeholder inquiries offer the opportunity to interact closely with the participants and address specific issues and concerns.
3. Stakeholder forums: This is a platform for a various group of stakeholders to engage in a facilitated consultation process, which permits open discussion and exchange of opinions, issues and concerns. The advantage of stakeholder consultation through such a forum is that it is arranged outside the usual ministerial bureaucracy. It may also offer a more conducive atmosphere for those stakeholders who are less confident and who feel intimidated by the presence of government representatives on the panel, even when the latter are in a minority. Nonetheless, the success of public consultation platforms certainly depends on the quality of the facilitator who must be independent, communicative and articulate.

IDENTIFYING PRIORITY ISSUES

An important step in the process of capacity needs assessment is to identify key capacity issues that need immediate attention and inclusion. Depending on the composition, structure and ability of stakeholders to articulate their perception of issues and problems, the list may be imprecisely formulated and long. However, being precise in the analysis of a problem is probably the most important step towards identifying priority issues.

The GEF guides for self-assessment of country capacity needs (GEF 2001) suggest a practical tool for the preliminary prioritization of issues. In an issue prioritization matrix, the identified and precisely formulated problems are listed and ranked against four criteria: the scale of the problem (local, provincial, national, international) its level of concern (low, medium high), the ability to adequately address the issue (low, medium and high) and finally priority ranking (one to five with one being most severe). For each priority issue, a focal problem needs to be identified and its root causes understood. Another step in the analysis is to clarify the effects and impact value systems have on the stakeholder.

IDENTIFYING CAPACITY GAPS

There seems to be some confusion concerning the assessment of existing and future capacity needs. The proposed approach takes the existing capacity at the level of individuals, organizations and the enabling environment as a reference (situation A) and compares it with future needs at the respective levels (situation B). The gap between the two situations A and B determines the capacity needs. However, the step from A to B poses a serious conceptual and methodological challenge and problem, especially in a multi-stakeholder and multi service-provider context.

The significance can best be described with an example: The identified issue shall be that smallholders in rural areas wish to adopt irrigation technology, but have no access to irrigation advisory and extension services. The causes of the problem may be identified as ‘absence of official field staff, their restricted mobility and funding’. Another cause may be the inability of NGOs to expand to remote areas and to involve farmers there in their development approach. By applying the proposed approach, we would begin by assessing the existing capacity of each stakeholder. They would first be separately assessed and thereby their current constraints and limitations identified.

This would involve a number of questions concerning the organization’s mandate and its current performance in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. The next step would then involve the assessment of the future situation of each organization. We would ask what the future mandate and vision shall be and what capacity is required to meet the future challenge. The comparison between the existing and future situation would then determine the capacity gaps in terms of resources and skills needed. Eventually, we would probably realize that no attention has been given to the needs of the farming community, the ultimate beneficiary or client.

However, the clients’ needs determine the spectrum of services required to make smallholders’ irrigation a viable enterprise. Equally important, it is assumed that service providers can offer the same range of services at comparable quality, which may not be the case. As a result, we may risk overestimating the capacity needs of each service provider and overlook synergies and comparative advantages.

Common sense suggests a different approach: To identify the needs of the clients, i.e. the irrigation farming community or the scheme operators first. Then assess the capacity of the identified service providers and their ability to meet the needs based on their assessed comparative advantages and capacity constraints. Once the services, rules and regulations needed are clarified, from the clients’ perspective, the assessment of the service providers becomes more focused. Taking a multi-stakeholder perspective, it is no more the difference between an organization and individual’s existing and future circumstances. Rather, a capacity gap is defined as the difference between the existing and future demand for a variety of services of multiple irrigation clients and the difference between the existing and future supply capacity of all service providers. The difference between existing capacity and futures capacity needs is referred to as the ‘incremental capacity’ and ‘incremental service needs’ respectively. Both are related to each other and determine the capacity gap (see Figure 2.4).

In the context of a multi-cultural society, it is appropriate to begin the capacity assessment with the local and indigenous knowledge of an organization and its members and enhance its understanding and appreciation. The concept of developing existing capacity rather than importing it is conventionally known as ‘organic capacity development’. It is based on sharing knowledge and coaching (Lopes and Theisohn 2003).

Figure 2.4 Capacity gap analysis taking a service oriented approach of incremental service and capacity needs of clients and service providers

CAPACITY OPPORTUNITIES INFLUENCE NEEDS

Assessment of the future situation becomes more complicated when considering that the future performance of an organization and/or individual is partly influenced by the external environment (see Figure 2.6). Exposure to the outside world can create opportunities for the organization to enhance its capacity to take an opportunity onboard. For example, it is now well established that with the arrival of the Internet, organizations involved in irrigation research and extension have the opportunity to access relevant information and to communicate more easily with networks of experts and colleagues.

Makin et al. (2003) rightly point out that developing advanced tools, such as remote sensing data and tools and geographic information systems (GIS), and the capability to apply them in the management of water resources will offer new opportunities to resource managers. Thus, they become more responsive to the needs and aspirations of the user communities they service. The adoption of the information tools is challenging conventional notions of how government and non-governmental agencies should work and relate to each other.

UNDERSTANDING CAPACITY NEEDS OF COMPLEX WATER SERVICE SYSTEMS

Larger irrigation and drainage systems are complex socio-technical water service systems with a full array of different stakeholders, institutions and players. Ideally, the purpose of service provision is to meet the water service needs of the irrigated crop production system and keep the farmers - the ultimate clients - happy. To do so, service providers need to have the capacity to provide the services as demanded and to the client’s satisfaction.

Huppert et al. (2003) suggest that key services, roles or functions directly involved in irrigation management service provision could be categorized into primary, secondary and other services.

1. Primary services include the provision of the hydraulic infrastructure, the water delivery service (water capture, water conveyance, water distribution, water allocation etc.).
2. Secondary services comprise those that are integral to the primary services such as operation and maintenance), supporting services (information provision, coordination, representation, etc.).
3. Other services include the arrangement for primary, secondary and supporting services (i.e. to select providers, to define terms of reference, conclude agreements or contracts, monitor provisions etc.).

Relations between service providers and clients are not always clear. Many players and actors are involved who make transactions without formal recognition of their importance in the overall performance of the irrigation system. Huppert et al. (2001) provide a comprehensive set of tools for analysing the service relations in the provision of maintenance services in irrigation and drainage. An example for a visualized analysis of the institutional arrangements for service provision is given in Figure 2.5.

According to their conceptual framework, the provision of any irrigation service involves interactions between service providers, service recipients, service payers, government policy-makers and regulators. Typical irrigation services include adjusting gates, measuring and distributing water, or maintaining canals and hydraulic facilities. In return, water users (clients) make compensations in the form of cash payments and in-kind transfers. The capacity of the service provider to fulfil the client’s needs depends on their ability to interact with the client effectively and to respond to the needs in a professional, flexible and reliable manner.

Briefly, the assessment of capacity needs of service organizations in irrigation must devote special attention to both the ‘provider system’ as a conglomerate of many players and to the ‘client system’, which is heterogeneous and divers. The capacity to communicate effectively plays an important role in order to make irrigation service provision a success.

Figure 2.5 Institutional arrangements for service provision

Source: Huppert et al. (2001)

CLARITY OF PURPOSE AND IMPACT (LOGICAL FRAMEWORK CONDITION)

A critical design condition for the design of capacity needs assessment in agricultural water management is the need for a logical framework. Only if an identified lack of capacity can be clearly linked to a well-defined purpose such as a strategic sector goal, an objective or a development target, can the full support of stakeholders and donors be assumed. For example, if the capacity development objective for a comprehensive capacity assessment of the official irrigation service system is to improve the quality of service provision, the purpose should be improved client satisfaction and eventually improved productivity of water use. A positive impact of improved capacity in irrigation service provision on client satisfaction and increased water productivity must be supported by a logical framework approach in which needs are linked to a possible increase in suitable performance indicators.

Clarity of impact is a concept that requires the anticipation of possible changes that the improved capacity would have on the performance of individuals, organizations and on society. This is to be linked to the economic, social and environmental changes of individuals and organizations. Indicators are required at all levels to be able to quantify and demonstrate that the identified capacity gap is the root cause for the poor performance at the level of the ultimate beneficiaries (target group level). They are the ones who are intended to benefit from the improved performance, resources and framework conditions (GTZ 2003).

A worked example of a logical framework is given by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) in which specific needs of capacity development are taken into account. It is explained that capacity intervention require a different set of performance questions, target indicators and monitoring mechanisms as compared to infrastructure development projects (see www.IFAD.org).

MANAGING THE PROCESS

Coping with the geographical magnitude?

When looking at the geographical map of many countries in Africa and elsewhere, it becomes apparent that actually irrigated and potentially irrigable areas are scattered over vast land areas, with long distances between and insufficient infrastructure in place. Obviously, not all areas can be included in capacity assessment and development programmes. A full coverage of remote areas would simply reach beyond the scope and resources available for capacity assessment initiatives. It is therefore obligatory to match the scope of the assessment with available time, qualified staff and funds. A restriction of areas implies that to establish and agree on criteria that exclude certain areas and domains from the exercise, the following options may be taken into consideration: high potential versus low potential areas, isolated versus well connected areas.

By restricting the area covered by the capacity assessment there is a substantial risk that the important role of irrigation and agricultural extension field staff in the development of rural areas may be overlooked. Capacity assessment of field staff may be crucial where mobilizing and facilitation of communities is crucial for the successful adoption of grassroots programmes such as farmer field schools.

DEALING WITH INSUFFICIENT MOTIVATION AND INCENTIVES

It is now widely recognized that insufficient payment of civil servants and insufficient funding for operations and service provision are the most significant constraints to high performance and job satisfaction. Very often highly skilled and educated individuals in the public sector find themselves trapped in a system that barely pays for subsistence needs. Funds for operations and day-to-day works have dried up and there is often little hope for a change for the better. As a result, the time at work is used for non-professional business, or it is used unproductively.

Donors tend to offer incentives in the form of salary supplements and travel allowances, which may result in a drain of the qualified ministry personnel, create inequity in pay, jealousy and may further reduce the motivation of those who are left behind.

Figure 2.6 Relationship between an organization’s environment, motivation, capacity and performance

Source: Horton (2002)

The implication of a loss of motivation has a direct influence on the performance of an organization. The latter is determined by its internal capacity in conjunction with its internal motivation. Performance is also determined by external factors such as the legal, social and economic context. According to Horton (2002), organizational capacity refers to the staff complement or human resource capital, as well as to its structure, management system and linkages with other organizations. Organizational motivation refers to the organizational cultures and incentives that influence the use of capacities in pursuit of the organization’s goals. The principal relations between performance, internal capacity and motivation and external effects of and on the environment are given in Figure 2.6, above.

The implication for capacity assessment is that it must not overlook the importance of the organization’s motivation and incentive system for effective and efficient job fulfilment of its members. In a comprehensive assessment, the human development system must be made subject to a rigorous review and reform. Otherwise, it cannot be assumed that identified capacity needs are the root cause of bad performance. Lopes and Theisohn (2003) suggest there is need for a locally led, harmonized reform of the way public incentives are structured and integrated into the national budget.

An example for identified incentive deficiencies in irrigation and drainage maintenance service provision adopted from Huppert et al. (2003) shows they play an important role in the way irrigation and drainage system maintenance is performed (see Annex 2.2). The deficiencies cut across the entire spectrum of stakeholder from senior irrigation officials, who regard benefits of maintenance as too little, to water users who see maintenance as a responsibility of the owner of the property, which, in this case, is the government.

MANAGING RESISTANCE AGAINST CHANGE

Resistance to change is widely recognized as a sector-crosscutting problem in the domain of development and, in particular, in capacity development. Within complex organizations such as ministries and irrigation agencies, individuals and lobby groups can always be found that actively oppose change and pursue a hidden agenda. Such behaviour is human and as such recognized as intangible.

Vested interest and power differentials may have the greatest influence on the progress made in capacity development. Lopes and Theisohn (2003) note that the mindset and the personalities, informed by language and culture; dictate the course of communication and collaboration. They create virtual realities that influence how people, institutions and societies behave. In addition, they indicate that any intervention involving a transfer of resources is potentially subject to numerous influences and corruption. The strategies to manage resistance proposed by DFID (2003) entail a number of measures at different levels. Grouped into three categories, each requires different activities: ‘unwilling’ (activities will include negotiation, persuasion, introduction of positive and negative sanctions); ‘unable’ (this will require training, skills transfer, support and coaching); and ‘unknowing’ (activities will focus on communication and involvement).

Moreover, probably one of the most important strategies in capacity needs assessment is attaining transparency of the process and accountability of the actors involved. Transparency implies clarity of the process at each step taken, close communication with all stakeholders and effective facilitation of the process. The DFID resource book Tools for Development (DFID 2002) defines effective facilitation as a broad range of knowledge, attitudes and skills in working with diverse groups in development settings. These skills provide the basis for more effective interventions to strengthen each stage of the activity cycle. Good facilitation work builds ownership and commitment to results and increases the likelihood that activities will respond to participants’ actual needs. A good communications plan should consider the audience, message, media, frequency, goals, responsibility, feedback mechanisms and measures of communication effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Right from the beginning, a lack of capacity must be identified as a binding constraint to the development of productive and viable irrigated systems in a country. Capacity assessment must be linked to the overall goal of the sector and serve the purpose of the ultimate beneficiaries - the irrigation community.

The initiation of capacity assessment initiatives is the responsibility of a country’s high-ranking political representatives and decision-makers. A clear direction is required whether the process should be externally or fully country-driven and executed. Self-assessment, as recommended by the Global Environment Facility, is a promising option for the irrigation sector as it can add a sense of ownership, confidence and planning capacity to a country. The self-assessment process must, however, be facilitated by experienced and independent international and national bodies. This is where IPTRID can play an important role. Key to the success of a capacity needs assessment is an effective mode of stakeholder identification categorized by level, domain, status, location and function. Administrative, water management and international domains are of particular importance in order to take account of the complexity and diversity of stakeholders and their needs.

A preliminary assessment of the stakeholders’ positions, their possible inclusion and role in the process should lead to a down-sized and well-balanced shortlist of key stakeholders from governmental, non-government and private organizations. Key issues should be clearly identified and their impact understood and formulated as precisely as possible, before the future role of each key stakeholder is determined. In order to identify meaningful capacity gaps in a multi-stakeholder context, the concept of capacity gap analysis needs to be expanded taking a service-oriented perspective and linking it to the specific needs of the irrigated farming community as the ultimate beneficiary of capacity development. The incremental capacity needs of multiple service providers are to be assessed against the incremental service needs of the clients.

The concept of ‘organic’ capacity development implies that the assessment of existing capacity must include traditional and existing knowledge in irrigation and water management. Future capacity needs of irrigation organizations are to be viewed in the light of their comparative advantage, effectiveness and efficiency in service provision. Opportunities for capacity such as modern information technology and networking should be taken into account. Altogether, capacity needs must be balanced against the long-term sustainability and tangible short-term results.

Managing the assessment process involves being able to cope with a number of risks, constraints and resistance to change at all levels. It requires transparency and actors who are accountable to their clients. Managing resistance requires a number of important qualities and strengths on the part of actors, which include good insight into the cultural and social context of organizations and individuals, coupled with the ability to anticipate the ‘unwilling’, ‘unable’ and ‘unknowing’. The required qualities of actors in capacity assessment include a strong profile in facilitation, excellent communication skills and finesse in order to assure and sustain the full support of all involved.

REFERENCES

Bandaragoda, D.J. 2001. A framework for institutional analysis for water resources management in a river basin context. Working paper No. 5. International Water Management Institute, Colombo.

Brown, S. (Editor). 2002. Developing capacity through technical cooperation: Country experiences. Executive summary. United Nations Development Programme. New York, USA.

DFID. 2002. Tools for Development: A handbook for those engaged in development activity. Performance and Effectiveness Department, Department for International Development, London,UK.

DFID. 2003. Promoting institutional and organizational development. A source book for tools and techniques. Department for International Development, London, UK.

Dietvorst, D. 2001. Participation in Sector Reform Tentative guidelines based on field experience from sub-Saharan Africa. Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Eschborn, Germany.

FAO. 2001. Irrigation sector guide. Socio and Economic and Gender Analysis Programme, Rome.

GEF. 2001a. A guide for self-assessment of country capacity needs for global environmental management. Global Environment Facility (GEF), Washington DC.

GEF. 2001b. Proposed Elements for Strategic Collaboration and a Framework for GEF Action on Capacity Building for the Global Environment - A Briefing Document. Global Environment Facility (GEF), Washington DC.

GTZ. 2003a. Guidelines: Capacity building needs assessment (CBNA) in the regions. Module A: The concept of capacity building and the process of assessing capacity building needs, Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).

GTZ. 2003b. Capacity development. Policy paper No. 1. Strategic Corporate Development Unit Policy and Strategy Section, Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Eschborn, Germany.

Horton, D. 2002. Planning, implementing and evaluating capacity development. Briefing paper No. 50, International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), The Hague, The Netherlands.

Horton, D., Alexaki, A., Bennett-Lartey, S., Brice, K.N., Campilan, D., Carden, F., de Souza Silva, J., Duong, L.T., Khadar, I., Maestrey Boza, A., Kayes Muniruzzaman, I., Perez, J., Somarriba Chang, M., Vernooy, R. & Watts, J. 2003. Evaluating capacity development: experiences from research and development organizations around the world. The Netherlands: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR); Canada: International Development Research Centre (IDRC), The Netherlands: ACP-EU Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA).

Huppert, W., Svendsen, M. & Vermillion, D.L. 2001. Governing Maintenance Provision in Irrigation - A Guide to Institutionally Viable Maintenance Strategies. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Eschborn, Germany.

Huppert, W., Svendsen, M. & Vermillion, D.L. 2003. Maintenance in Irrigation: multiple actors, multiple contexts, multiple strategies. Irrigation and Drainage Systems. May 22. Vol. 17. Issue 1-2. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

IWMI. 2003. Irrigation management transfer: How to make it work for Africa’s smallholders? Water Policy Briefing. Issue 11, International Water Management Institute.

Kay. M., Franks, T. & Tato, S. 2004. Capacity needs assessment in agricultural water management: Methodology and processes. ICID Workshop on Capacity Needs Assessment, Moscow.

Lopes, C. & Theisohn, T. 2003. Ownership, leadership and transformation: Can we do better for capacity development? United Nations Development Programme, New York.

Makin, I., Shah T., Vermillion D. & Ul Hassan, M. 2003. Who will do what and how? Achieving effective capacity building in water resources. Workshop on Capacity Development in Irrigation and Drainage, FAO/ICID, Montpellier, France.

OED. 1999. Capacity building in the agricultural sector in Africa. Precis No. 190, World Bank Operations Evaluation Department, Washington.

Schacter, M. 2000. Capacity building: A new way of doing business for development assistance organizations. Policy Brief No. 6, Institute on Governance Ottawa, Canada.

Annex 2.1

List of possible stakeholders involved in capacity assessment in agricultural water management

Annex 2.2

Incentive deficiencies in irrigation and drainage maintenance service provision

Source: Huppert et al. 2003
* Operation and maintenance