A one-day workshop "Capacity building in irrigation, drainage and flood control" was held on 16 September 2003 alongside the congress of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) in Montpellier. It was organized by the ICID Working Group on Capacity Building, Training and Education and the FAO Land and Water Development Division, in association with Alterra-ILRI and other supporting agencies.
Its goal was to highlight the important role of capacity building in the irrigation and drainage sector, and to bring together agencies, institutions and individuals in order to review and address the following issues:
Why is capacity building important, and what are the specific issues and challenges that need to be addressed in a capacity building programme?
What is the present "state of the art" with respect to capacity building for the sector?
What approaches are currently being used, and what are the issues and challenges arising from them, including more effective tools to assess the needs and impact of capacity building?
What new approaches in capacity building are needed to address probable changes in the sector in the near future?
What facilitating and complementary roles can agencies such as ICID and FAO play in supporting and promoting effective capacity building within the sector?
This one-day event was in two parts:
Part 1 comprised two keynote presentations on the broader principles and key issues in capacity development.
Part 2 focused on capacity development experiences in several countries and regions including Albania, India, Indonesia, Peru, Tunisia, Zambia and West and Central Africa in order to demonstrate the challenges facing capacity development and practical ways of dealing with them.
Further presentations included:
A presentation by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) about the who, what and how for capacity building in water resources.
A synthesis of the outcomes on the topic of capacity building at the 9th International Drainage Workshop held earlier in September 2003 in Utrecht (the Netherlands).
A presentation of the new focus of the International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID) on capacity development.
From the outset of the workshop, it was clear that the term capacity development was a more appropriate term than capacity building. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, the former term is used throughout the rest of this synthesis. The meaning of this change is explained more fully later in this synthesis.
A significant part of Keynote Paper 1 is devoted to clarifying what capacity development means for irrigated agriculture. It first refers to the consensus among policy-makers in the developing world and aid agencies that a lack of capacity is constraining the development of irrigated agriculture as a means of reducing poverty, increasing food security and improving livelihoods among both rural and urban populations. Here, the term irrigated agriculture is used to define all the ways of controlling and managing water for agriculture in an environmentally responsible manner. It is about water control technologies and practices for the irrigation of crops, water harvesting, drainage to dispose of surplus and saline water, and flood mitigation to protect people and land against water damage.
Capacity development has been a leading issue in development for many years and comes from the widely acknowledged shortcomings in development assistance over the past 50 years. However, what is new is the attention it is now receiving in the irrigation and drainage world where it is becoming an issue in its own right rather than being embedded in water infrastructure investment projects.
Many developing countries now say they need more capacity, and aid agencies are keen to supply it or at least help to create it. To date it has remained a concept of enormous generality and vagueness wrapped up in a host of concepts such as participation, empowerment, technical assistance and organizational development. The calls for capacity development in irrigated agriculture suffer from these same vague generalities, with the focus remaining on water infrastructure development.
Keynote Paper 1 emphasizes the fact that many policy-makers and professionals have a simplistic interpretation of capacity development in terms of educating and training irrigators, technicians and professionals. Discussion comments suggest that in some instances this may be through ignorance but that in others it may be intentional for fear of the full consequences of implementing major policy and organizational changes that are an integral part of developing capacity.
Donors have tended to reinforce this thinking. Technical cooperation has been shaped by concentrating on new works and providing technical assistance to fill the skills gap and to pass on knowledge. This approach has yielded only limited benefits. Thus, beyond the general idea that more capacity is required, there is a need for greater clarity of thinking about the practicalities of planning, designing, implementing and monitoring capacity development.
One widely-accepted outcome of the general discussion was the need to capitalize on work undertaken by development organizations such as FAO, and to use this as a basis for: developing guiding principles for capacity development planning and implementation; building frameworks to help establish priorities; taking decisions; and determining criteria to evaluate the impacts and effectiveness of capacity development actions.
To help clarify what capacity development means, Keynote Paper 1 refers to the recent history of capacity development and its links with development aid. This began with the Marshall Plan that supported the rebuilding of Europe following the Second World War. Because it was successful, it generated an optimistic view of what worked, namely: transfer capital and knowledge to other countries for infrastructure development, and swift economic development would follow. However, the analysis of subsequent experience showed that this view underestimated the importance of local knowledge and institutions in the process of economic development, and this was compounded by aid driven by politics rather than results. Development based on this aid was then criticized for undermining local capacity rather than building it, ignoring local wishes and favouring high profile activities.
In the past decade there has been a change in emphasis towards seeing development generally and capacity development more specifically as "locally owned", so that cooperation does not seek to do things for developing countries but with them. Countries should build on the wealth of local knowledge to achieve whatever goals and aspirations they set themselves. Capacity has been described simply as: the ability to perform functions, solve problems, and set and achieve objectives. This raises the issue of national capacity being more than the sum of the capacity of individuals, which points to the importance of people working in organizations and networking. This has become known as social capital, and in simple terms it means: the more people trust each other, the better off their society.
This change in development has had a profound influence on irrigated agriculture. Farmers are being encouraged to take on more responsibility for water management, and they are increasingly being exposed to private sector market forces. To cope with these and other pressures, farmers are beginning to demand better support services, advice, access to new technologies, finance, equitable and fair water management regulations, and legal redress when things go wrong. However, the limited ability of farmers to manage water and a lack of these support services are seen collectively as a lack of "capacity", and the need is to build or develop it so that the water sector can function properly.
Keynote Paper 1 proposed acceptance of the UNDP definition of capacity development as: "...the sum of efforts needed to nurture, enhance and utilize the skills and capabilities of people and institutions at all levels - locally, nationally, regionally and internationally - so that they can better progress towards sustainable development...". It continues by saying: "...at the basic conceptual level, building capacity involves empowering people and organizations to solve their problems, rather than attempting to solve problems directly. When capacity development is successful, the result is more effective people and institutions better able to provide products and services on a sustainable basis." There was general acceptance of this definition. In particular, it encompasses approaches to development that are now well accepted in irrigation. It provides a sound basis on which to build, but much more detail needs to be added if its sentiments are to be applied in practice. The principal aim of this workshop was to do this.
The second part of the UNDP definition links capacity development with the process of development itself. Keynote Paper 1 emphasized this point as one of the keys to understanding what capacity development means. The top-down approach of government and aid agencies failed to produce the capacity needed. There is now a realization that it must come by working in response to local initiatives with local ownership and leadership and incorporating the ideas of participation and subsidiarity.
Therefore, how capacity is developed becomes an essential part of producing a useful end product. It is an approach to development, not something separate from it and not a discrete or prepackaged technical intervention intended to bring about a predefined outcome. It is the reason why many people now use the term capacity development rather than capacity building. It transfers the emphasis from the end product to the process of achieving it.
Capacity development is an approach to development, not something separate from it.
The UNDP definition is one step in the process of clarifying what capacity development means. However, it does little to describe the territory of capacity development in irrigation, how to assess the capacity gaps, and what practical steps should be taken to overcome them.
Both Keynote Papers 1 and 2 referred to the work of social scientists and the extensive conceptual thinking about capacity development that has taken place over the past decade on development generally. This produced a generic framework that has become widely accepted in development and is also gaining acceptance in the water sector. It comprises four levels of capacity that can be examined and analysed as well as providing possible entry points for support from a donor or technical cooperation (Figure 1). Interpreting this framework in terms of irrigated agriculture, the four levels are:
Individual level. This is the most "concrete" and familiar part of capacity development. It includes the education and training of the various stakeholders, farmers, local professionals, engineers and other disciplines involved in irrigation.
Organizational level. This refers to groups of people such as water user organizations, research groups, government extension agencies, private enterprises that share common objectives such as improved livelihoods at a farming level or improved water management or increased agricultural productivity at a national level. Institutions are the rules and agreements, formal and informal, and shared values that bind organizations. Thus, the capacity of an organization is embedded in the ability of its individuals to work together within established rules and values and to interact with other organizations.
Sector level. The sector level emphasizes the point that irrigation is part of the larger picture of integrated water resource management and reflects the increasing awareness of the need for policies that integrate and cover all aspects of the water sector and not just irrigation, water supplies and the environment in isolation.
|
FIGURE 1
|
Enabling environment. This represents the broad national and international context within which irrigated agriculture can develop. It has immense influence over what happens at the lower levels. It is concerned with policy at the highest levels in government, the socio-economic conditions that enable or discourage irrigation development, and the legal framework that provides farmers with security of tenure for land and water and the power to seek legal redress when contracts are broken.
The diagonal arrows in Figure 1 emphasize the links between the levels. For example, in irrigation the performance of a water users association (WUA) is shaped as much by society (laws and regulations) as it is by individuals (skills, leadership and relationships).
A matrix
Keynote Paper 1 applied this generic structure to irrigated agriculture by adding a second dimension that included the familiar activities that require capacity, namely: planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance (Figure 2). In order to complete the picture, research, education and training, and networking were added as important areas of capacity development in their own right. Research here refers to the capacity to develop new knowledge in a specialist institute or university, and education and training refers to the capacity to disseminate knowledge in colleges, universities, etc. Networking refers to the various formal and informal networks that are instrumental in disseminating knowledge and innovation and which can and should take place at all levels of capacity development.
Guiding principles of subsidiarity (decision-making at the lowest possible administrative level) and participation were added to demonstrate the move away from the traditional top-down approach to development. These are basic issues in integrated water resources management (IWRM) (see TAC4 of Global Water Partnership).
This matrix was presented originally in Keynote Paper 1 as a framework for capacity development. However, from discussions it was generally agreed that this was more a matrix that sets out a picture or landscape of the territory in which capacity is needed. It provides a convenient starting-point for questions and discussion at both a local and national level. Furthermore, it can be helpful in talks with donors in establishing clarity of purpose on areas of constraint and what needs to be done: Where are the capacity gaps? Is it individuals and if so which? Are the constraints mainly in the operation and maintenance (O&M) of irrigation systems or in support organizations provided by government or the private sector? Does the socio-economic environment discourage irrigation or is the education and training provision unable to provide the basic human resources on which irrigation can grow?
The priority given to each box will vary considerably from one place to another depending on local issues such as the way irrigation is practised (e.g. privately-run smallholder irrigation, publicly-owned large irrigation and drainage networks and commercial farming) and the need to solve local problems (e.g. salinity and waterlogging, inadequate education facilities, and irrigation management transfer). However, the boxes are not simple watertight compartments. They are very much linked together in a variety of ways that depend on local circumstances. Thus, the simplicity of the matrix should not mask the complexity of the issues to be addressed.
As a consequence of the discussions, the framework presented in Keynote Paper 1 was modified to present a matrix (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2
A matrix for capacity development in irrigated
agriculture
|
Capacity levels |
Irrigated agriculture activities |
||||||
|
Research |
Education & training |
Planning |
Design |
Construction |
O&M |
Networks |
|
|
IV Enabling environment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
III Sector |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
II Organization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Individual |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Guiding principles: subsidarity and participation |
||||||
A framework
Keynote Paper 2 presented a framework for capacity development (Figure 3) that built on the matrix and the generic structure described above. Although primarily aimed at the performance of larger governmental organizations in Indonesia, it could equally apply to other public and private irrigation support institutions. It shows how the interconnections between the three principal levels of capacity development, namely: individuals, institutions and the enabling environment. For example, individuals must have knowledge, skills and an appropriate attitude, but the institution is crucial in setting the incentives for individuals to perform. Equally, the environment must be favourable in order for the institution to perform its functions properly. The good performance of individuals leads to appropriate behaviour in the workplace, and this together with an appropriate environment leads to good performance of service delivery.
|
FIGURE 3
|
A framework such as this can help in decision-making and lead to the next step, which is defining activities that are required at all the levels for effective capacity development (Figure 4). This is presented in a general way and requires much more refinement in order to apply it properly to irrigation and drainage. However, it is a good beginning on which to build.
Although the keynote papers emphasized that capacity development was not solely about individuals, it is people-centred. This was aptly described in an interesting pictorial way originated at the Utrecht workshop (Figure 5). A person is at the centre and the working environment forms the foundation on which the person stands. The two feet represent knowledge and skills and the organization within which the person works. The achievement is the weight that the person is lifting and this comprises aspects of IWRM and good job performance. Both represent the main objectives of capacity development.
Drawing on many experiences, the IWMI raises several generic points on capacity development and poses the questions: whose capacity needs developing, what capacities are required and how can they be developed? The IWMI points first to the big picture of the river basin and to the need for effective rules and regulations. The river basin is the most logical unit of management for land, water and other natural resources as the basis for increased integration of planning and greater devolution of decision-making to local communities and stakeholders. While many developed countries have evolved highly-advanced and resilient institutions over many decades of gradual change, many other countries are now faced with developing effective institutions in relatively short periods as the available resources become constraints on development. In some cases, these countries are having to rediscover local institutions and devolved decision-making after a period of more centralized resource management introduced as a consequence of often government-led irrigation and other water resources development efforts. As these governments now seek to reduce the burden on the national exchequer for the provision of irrigation and natural resource management, the transfer of successful experiences from the more developed basins to these countries has emerged as a growth industry. The IWMI refers to this as "institutional leapfrogging", but emphasizes the need for sagacity and critical analysis in assessing what will work and what will not, given the differences in the context.
|
FIGURE 4
|
The acts, rules and regulations governing the management of water resources present a major challenge to many countries. They can often be conflicting and contradictory, and result in a lack of consistency at policy level, leading to confusion and problems in integrating the demands of different sectors at the local level. This can lead to confused messages from policy-makers to the support agencies and undermine the capacity to undertake the sweeping changes to the existing institutional frameworks required to actually devolve decision-making to the most appropriate levels.
|
Figure 5
|
The IWMI points to there being no single formula for developing capacities to improve irrigation, drainage and water resources management. Solutions range from effective communication skills and the application of advanced technical techniques to the development of analytical skills for policy-makers and decision-makers. The target groups for these different skills range from poorly-educated farmers and water users through skilled service providers and technicians, technical service managers and researchers to political leaders and policy-makers. Added to this is the enormous range of conditions in which these different groups deploy their skills and capacities.
Several country case studies in involving IWMI support were highlighted. These included capacity development for research in West Africa, policy support in Cambodia, Indonesia and India, WUAs in Uzbekistan, and mobilizing women’s participation in Pakistan.
From the keynote papers and the discussions, it was possible to develop a conceptual structure for capacity development in irrigated agriculture. This section examines capacity development in practice. The case studies presented at the workshop brought together a range of practical experiences and addressed the question - Are there experiences from which it is possible to develop "recipes" that others can use?
Where appropriate, the case studies are grouped using the matrix referred to earlier in this synthesis. Blocks in black represent the principal area of activity, and those in gray represent other areas influenced significantly by the project.
|
Environment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sector |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Organization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Individual |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research |
Education & training |
Planning |
Design |
Construction |
O&M |
Networks |
Case study 1 from Tunisia was concerned with strengthening the capacity of irrigation and drainage research to solve problems of overexploitation of shallow groundwater, soil degradation and environmental pollution in an arid climate in order to sustain farmers and guarantee the quantity and quality of food available while preserving the natural resources.
Developing capacity in research is important to providing long-term support for solving local and national irrigation problems. However, research organizations often have a reputation for working in their own world, where personal and institutional reputations are developed through publications rather than solving the real problems of development. There are many varied and complex reasons for this, not least of which are a lack of clear policy on the role of research, a lack of resources, and poorly trained and motivated staff.
In Tunisia, a major programme of research, "Water saving in irrigation", was initiated and the research capabilities were increased to cope with this. Partnerships were forged with national and foreign institutions. Training was provided to develop the capacities of researchers, engineers and technicians involved in the programme, and funding mechanisms were used to encourage high-quality research on the key issues. The linkage between research and extension was also considered as part of the research actions.
Keynote Paper 1 described another case study from Pakistan where agricultural drainage is the main research issue. A new research institute was established with international collaboration that is now developing an international reputation for its work. Although the initial focus was on drainage technology, it changed during the course of the project to capacity development. Experienced international professionals with both drainage research and communications skills encouraged local staff to think beyond the immediate technical issues and to put them into the context of drainage development and the real problems facing farmers. Salaries were also reviewed along with staff recruitment in order to attract high-quality well-motivated people.
|
Environment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sector |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Organization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Individual |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research |
Education & training |
Planning |
Design |
Construction |
O&M |
Networks |
Case study 2 examined the institutional strengthening of water user organizations, known as user boards, in Peru. Irrigation in Peru was traditionally top-down, but in recent years the government has been pursed a policy of management transfer. The case study describes a programme of participatory training for 64 user boards to encourage them take on the full responsibility for local water management including the collection of fees from farmers and to encourage private funding in irrigation. Evaluations showed significant increases in the number of user boards setting up plans for water distribution and prioritizing maintenance as well as increases in the collection of funds from farmers.
Particular lessons learned from the experience included:
Encourage the active participation of direct beneficiaries in course planning and implementation.
Bear in mind that participants may not have a formal education and may not be able to read.
Training methods should not be imposed, but proposed.
The organizations themselves should identify and prioritize the subjects to be discussed.
Periodic evaluations should be considered in order to control the programme development as well as the level of training application provided. The results should be reported to the beneficiaries.
Budget in the training for items such as computers and measurement and control tools and hand them over to the user boards at the end of the training.
Case study 3 examined capacity development of WUAs in Albania. This paper presents a detailed history of the development of water user groups as part of a major investment in irrigation following Albania’s transition from a command to a market economy. It describes the steps taken at farm level to introduce the concept of WUAs to farmers, who were more accustomed to being directed by others. At a national level, changes were made to the legal structure in order to establish the rights and responsibilities of associations. It is still too early to evaluate the success of these significant changes and time is needed for people to change "after 46 years of repressive communism". However, the author is optimistic about the eventual outcome.
Case study 4 is from India. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, the "big bang" approach was used to constitute more than 10 000 associations in one campaign in 1997 in a move introduce participatory irrigation management. The paper sets out the process of development and emphasizes the challenges facing reformers not just in terms of dealing with large numbers of illiterate water user chairpersons but also answering the question "who wants the changes to take place?" The paper stresses the need for a communications strategy that not only caters for the immediate process of change but also provides for a long, sustained effort that needs to be progressive and adaptive in order for changes to succeed. It also highlights the benefits of farmer networks as an effective means of communication between farmers and also between farmers and policy-makers.
Another case of capacity development at an operational level is from Zambia, and this is discussed in Keynote Paper 1 Appendix I. This study was more concerned with developing farmer skills in water management rather than developing associations. The project was externally funded and low-cost irrigation technologies were used as an entry point for training. Zambia does not have strong private organizations that can support farmers, so the existing government organization was strengthened rather than build something new. This was an unusual move at a time when many governments are running down services and transferring responsibility for irrigation to farmers’ organizations. Participatory approaches and facilitation methods formed an important part of the training in addition to the more technical subjects. Training was done in a very structured way and based on methods used in Nepal, Cambodia, Bangladesh and Indonesia. This has led to the production by FAO of guidelines on participatory training and extension in farm water management and a farmers’ training manual. However, the question of cost recovery from those who benefit has yet to be resolved, and thus the process may not continue once the external support has stopped.
Case study 5 also came from Zambia and it focused on the empowerment of women in irrigation and water resources management for improved household food security, health and nutrition and the experiences on a small irrigation scheme involving some 40 households in 8 villages. The participation of women in decision-making on schemes was promoted and this was achieved through community action planning, participatory constraints analysis and workshops. Monitoring frameworks were implemented for evaluating activities. The success of this intervention was measured by women being elected to positions of leadership after more than 20 years of male dominance. There were also technical improvements resulting in an increase in agricultural production and in the diversity of cropping. Improvements were also reported in nutrition and public health.
|
Environment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sector |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Organization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Individual |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research |
Education & training |
Planning |
Design |
Construction |
O&M |
Networks |
Although none of the case study papers addressed the issue of the enabling environment, Keynote Paper 1 Appendix 1 refers to several examples.
In Bhutan, an agreement was reached at the very highest levels to introduce an irrigation management transfer programme. The outcome of this was a successful and well-structured programme of irrigation management transfer over a ten-year period. It was initiated by government at the highest level through the development of a new national irrigation policy. It involved a process of reviewing existing management practices, experimentation with new methods, consultation with stakeholders and agreement on the structure of the new policy, the production of good-quality training materials, and a gradual and well-guided introduction of the policy using participatory training methods. An evaluation of the programme demonstrated the benefits of a slow but steady developmental process of change.
In Egypt, a panel of Netherlands and Egyptian drainage specialists and managers was set up to examine ways of dealing with the drainage of large tracts of the Nile Valley, to develop and transfer drainage technology from the Netherlands to Egypt, and to administer Netherlands donor funding for a series of drainage projects. Over the past 27 years, this panel has grown in importance from a convenient administrative arrangement for a wide range of drainage projects, both in the field and in drainage research, and has become the basis of a partnership with Egyptian steering, that has now widened its scope by mutual agreement to include the wider technical and institutional issues of water management. This partnership is regarded as a success by both countries and has led to significant technology developments and policy changes in Egypt. One of the factors that have influenced this has been the panel membership, which has evolved and now includes some of the most senior government officials from both countries, including representatives from all the ministries that are stakeholders in the water sector. The panel is currently chaired by the Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources. This ensures ownership of panel decisions at the highest levels in government. Other elements cited include: the commitment of members; the inclusion of several women members who head ministerial departments; and the respect, natural empathy and personal relationships that have also developed over the years between panel members that has led to trust. This enables frank discussions to take place at an intimate and informal level as well as officially, which is the essence of a good partnership.
In the United Republic of Tanzania, a 12-year donor-funded research and communications programme in harvesting rainwater to improve productivity and smallholder livelihoods has transformed thinking at the highest levels of government. Work began initially as a research project into the technologies of rainwater harvesting but gradually the importance of communicating ideas and involving all the various stakeholders was realized if significant changes were to be made in the way in which farmers worked.
Rainwater harvesting is now seen as a resource and has been incorporated in the development plans of certain district councils and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), especially following the statement by the Tanzanian Prime Minister that: "the Government will strengthen and promote the use of rainwater harvesting technology, in both urban and rural areas."
All these examples demonstrate the importance of the social and economic environment in developing capacity and the long time frame needed for change to take place. The United Republic of Tanzania demonstrates that changes at lower levels can also influence change at the top, and that young people are a factor in change as they have more to lose and to gain. Egypt shows how true and lasting partnerships can and do play a crucial role in developing capacity.
|
Environment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sector |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Organization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Individual |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research |
Education & training |
Planning |
Design |
Construction |
O&M |
Networks |
The final case study (case study 6) concerned the most traditional interpretation of capacity development education and training. Following the discussions about institutions and socio-economic environments, this is a timely reminder that individuals are a central plank of capacity development.
The case study examines a long-term initiative by the Ecole Inter-Etats d’Ingénieurs de l’Equipement Rural (EIER) and the Ecole Inter-Etats des Techniciens Supérieurs de l’Hydraulique et de l’Equipement Rural (ETSHER) to support the socio-economic development of 14 countries of West and Central Africa. Created in 1968 and 1972, respectively, they have trained nearly 2 500 higher technicians, engineers and graduates in irrigation skills, and 4 500 trainees have followed various extension courses, including 280 in irrigation and drainage extension programmes.
Courses are evaluated every 2-5 years by the countries served and externally by donors and member governments. These have led to changes in the programmes in recent years in order to accommodate not just the technical aspects of irrigation but also the socio-economic, environmental and communication aspects. The aim of the changes is to stay very close to the needs of the labour market. A measure of the effectiveness of the programmes is that most graduates find employment immediately or very soon after graduation in the irrigation sector in their own countries.
The EIER-ETSHER Group is also a useful example of integrated interregional cooperation between French-speaking countries of West and Central Africa.
The keynote papers, the case studies and the subsequent discussions raised a number of broader issues that need consideration as integral to the success of capacity development.
The Secretariat of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) defines strategic planning as: "a process by which an organization develops the most desirable vision of its future, taking into account the constraints the organization is likely to work within, and shows how the organization can realize that vision." To date most capacity development "strategies" have tended to be a "bolt-on" to infrastructure development. They are often limited in scope, poorly defined and developed with minimal stakeholder consultation. Therefore, applying strategic planning to capacity development as the primary issue has little precedence. This approach has served other sectors well and so it is suggested that it is a viable approach for irrigation. It is now being advocated strongly by the IPTRID and its partner organizations whose main thrust is to support strategic planning, design and implementation of capacity development programmes and projects in developing countries. It is unlikely that such a strategy can be divorced from infrastructure, but it is a question of emphasis. If capacity development is the key issue, the question then becomes - what infrastructure is needed to support it?
A process of strategic planning would include:
diagnosis: identification of the gaps;
definition of the goals;
means;
monitoring of performance.
The IPTRID proposes an initial needs assessment at regional, national and subnational levels to look at the present situation and to answer the question where do we stand? The aim is to identify the priority technical issues in terms of water conservation, water productivity, land degradation, salinity, etc. and the existing institutional capacity and weaknesses at strategic and operational levels. Roundtable conferences and workshops are proposed to ensure full participation of all stakeholders and ensure that their views are taken into account for the next step, which is to answer the question where do we want to go? A strategy can then be developed to reach the desired goals how do we get there?
The keynote papers and the case studies provide some useful points to consider when developing a capacity development strategy.
Policy environment
A favourable policy environment and political will for development are crucial to successful irrigation development and to developing capacity. Policies are determined largely by the quality and commitment of the leadership and senior management. Within the policy, capacity development must be guided by clear strategies that address development needs and are nationally owned.
A period of review and experimentation with new approaches is essential before including them in any new policy.
Capacity development should be at the heart of development and be pursued on a permanent basis. It is not a temporary fix for correcting investment failures. The approach to capacity development needs to be improved both in terms of concepts and the methods and tools used. It should have the features of a "corps of engineering" accruing knowledge from experience on capacity to diagnose, design, implement, and post-evaluate.
Identification and assessment of capacity needs is one of the most difficult tasks. It is a question of who does it and how. It implies strategic planning capacity in a country, and this too may require developing.
Experts are needed with interdisciplinary skills, with experience of working at high levels in government or the private sector, and who are able to facilitate and not dictate discussion and decision-making. Many countries do not possess such expertise and it may not always be readily available from other countries.
Full participation of all the stakeholders in the public and private sectors, namely, farmers, engineers, agriculturalists, researchers, educators, politicians and civil servants is essential. Although this is time consuming, it is considered essential to the eventual ownership of any actions taken.
The lack of expertise and the extensive nature of consultation are unlikely to lead to a rapid conclusive or state-of-the-art solution. However, it is essential that there is a locally-owned consensus and that it is acted upon.
Capacity development is a complex process, but complexity must not paralyse it. A framework such as the one proposed in this paper can provide a useful basis for discussions among stakeholders and for pinpointing constraints and priorities.
The challenge is to find ways through the complexity and make useful contributions. As with irrigation engineering, it is important to appreciate the complex nature of irrigated agriculture, but at some point the engineer must be able to interpret this complexity in terms of design, construction and operation of a working irrigation scheme.
Organizations
It is at the organizational level that most countries suffer weaknesses. Most of the organizations supporting irrigated agriculture are government run, but there is a growing input from the private sector. It is not a question of either one or the other, but of the balance between them. The appropriate strengthening of both must be a priority in any strategy.
Keynote Paper 2 lists the criteria for good organizational performance:
An enabling external environment is needed to deliver expected services.
Governments and society at large must facilitate the creation of the necessary national and local policies, legislation and organizational frameworks.
Organizations need a clear mission, clear responsibilities and external accountability procedures.
Tasks and responsibilities must be translated into a clear organizational structure, tasks and internal procedures.
Adequate resources and infrastructure must be available.
Human resources within the organization must have the required knowledge, skills and attitude.
Organizations must provide the right internal (positive and negative) incentives to obtain the desired behaviour of individuals.
A good cadre of capable senior managers that can lead the processes of change is needed if organizations are to develop a good reputation and encourage the best people to join. Salaries are important but remuneration is not the only criteria.
There are many advantages in working with existing organizations rather than inventing new ones. This may not always be attractive, but new organizations can be a large drain on already limited management and administrative resources.
Individuals
Individuals are the heart of any organization, and their education and training must reflect the needs of irrigated agriculture and the roles they will play.
Partnerships develop between people. While working together, more and better results will be possible over time, as mutual trust develops social capital.
Human resources planning offers a tool for predicting the demand from human resources and a logical process for providing it through education and training. It focuses attention on the numbers of individuals needed, their skills and the education and training infrastructure needed to provide them.
Any strategy must address the young people as they are: less influenced by rigid organizations; more flexible in their thinking; willing to take risks; and ambitious to build their careers and make a worthwhile contribution.
Education and research
The capacity to educate future generations in the ways of irrigated agriculture and to undertake research to solve problems are fundamental to the sustainability of irrigated agriculture. It is essential that both receive a high priority in strategy development.
Education is essential to develop the future cadres of professionals who will become the managers and leaders of organizations and capacity builders. To achieve this, the development of capacity within colleges and universities and to some extent in schools will need to be considered.
Research to solve the problems of irrigation and drainage and to encourage the take up of new ideas may require developing.
Research can be most successful, when linked to investment projects, where it can show its value directly.
Sustainability
Ensuring sustainability is one of main challenges facing capacity development, particularly where it is supported by an external agency.
Sustainability is also a concept that requires careful thought, e.g. when considering whether a training facility should be sustained beyond its usefulness or be closed. Capacity development is not a fixed issue, and any strategy must be flexible enough to meet changes in capacity needs.
One important question about ways of approaching capacity development is whether it is possible to have capacity development projects. Projects are a logical step in any strategic process but they do create a dilemma as to whether it is possible to have capacity building projects designed to support what is essentially a process. Projects are usually end-product oriented. They have specific targets to be met in a given time frame with strict budgets and control on what and how money is spent. This would seem to be at odds with current thinking on capacity development.
So can a project, with all its tools for project management and meeting deadlines and objectives, be applied to capacity development? If projects continue to be the way in which donors insist they support development, then some imaginative thinking will be needed in order to ensure a good marriage between them. This also has implications for aid funding, which is usually tied to projects, although some donors are experimenting with alternative and more flexible aid packages that can take account of the flexible nature or processes as well as focusing on the end product.
It is difficult to separate the internal nature of capacity development from external aid and technical cooperation. Any discussion about capacity development leads inevitably to how it will be financed and what specialist help will be needed that is not available in-country.
The current external/internal balance is weighted heavily towards internal actions but there is an acceptance that outside help can support and accelerate the process. An outsider can often help to focus attention on the big issues. Moreover, the stimulation that external technical cooperation encourages can help to speed up processes and broaden thinking. They can provide a useful role in helping to identify capacity constraints and support both government and the private sector to take action. The key is to establish how much assistance is needed and can be provided to support the internal process without upsetting it and jeopardizing its sustainability.
Long-term partnerships are now seen as the essence of good collaboration between donors and recipients, and not the more traditional North-South dialogue. Such relationships can influence the process positively as trust and effective work relationships develop over time. However, striking the right balance is the greatest challenge where one party is seen to be giving and one is receiving. However, some still view any external support as evidence of a lack of sustainability.
Some donors may prefer not to become involved in lengthy processes and prefer a project approach. The implications of this in terms of budgets, timing and outputs can be at odds with the process of capacity development. However, there may be specific actions at the lower levels of organizations and individuals that lend themselves more to the project approach - capacity development projects.
Donors need entry points into capacity development. Typically, the organization is the level at which donors wish to contribute technical assistance, budgetary and infrastructure support.
External specialists are often chosen for their technical skills. However, in order for them to be effective in developing capacity, they need to be capable of working in a participatory manner in the wider context of development and be able to convey such ideas to those who are being trained. This should be reflected in their selection.
Keynote Paper 1 referred to the importance of networks and the positive influence they can have at all the levels of the framework by providing a means of communication for individuals and organizations.
|
FIGURE 6
|
It was suggested that the network function of capacity development is two-dimensional (Figure 6). The vertical dimension integrates the levels mentioned in the framework such as the network of people and institutions belonging to a specific project, ranging from farmers to external donors, via local governmental officers and/or training institutes. This line of capacity development was traditionally the one pursued using the top-down approach to projects. It remains active today although with a much more participatory approach and more balance in the decision-making among the different actors.
The horizontal dimension refers to the networks linking actors or organizations of the same nature and level. There is strong evidence that those responsible for development have previously neglected this networking aspect. Social science in agriculture has shown that the adoption of new techniques and the diffusion of progress is often more the result of discussion and comparison among peers than the result of knowledge brought in by other actors.
The support from aid agencies for this type of networking is growing although it is still on a very small scale. However, the impact usually extends beyond those immediately involved via other networks. There are many examples of this kind of cooperation in the Mediterranean region. This networking is also called professional cooperation. For example, FAO has developed many field programmes based on technical expertise from the "South", known as "South-South" cooperation.
The success in the long term of designing and implementing capacity development strategies relies to some extent on monitoring the process and the outcomes, and equally important is having the capacity to do this. Processes and inputs are always the easiest parts to monitor. Outcomes and results are usually more difficult to define and assess. However, pre- and post-diagnosis should be central to capacity development.
Keynote Paper 2 suggests that one of the main elements of capacity development is the introduction and acceptance of accountability mechanisms and tools. It identifies three domains of accountability:
operational accountability, which involves the mechanisms for monitoring, evaluating, controlling and enforcing the implementation of the service agreement;
strategic accountability, which relates to the mechanism that allows users to control the formulation of the services and its costs by, for example, the right to approve or reject working plans and budget proposals;
constitutional accountability which relates to the mechanism that allows users to influence the strategic decision-making process by, for example, establishment of assemblies, adoption of statutes and by-laws, and election of representatives in governing and coordinating bodies.
However, there are very few examples of monitoring and evaluating capacity development initiatives. The attempts that have been made have tended to be very time consuming, expensive and often show unexpected benefits sometimes occurring long after project completion. Baselines studies are also needed if sensible measurements of progress are to be made. However, it seems clear that measuring or assessing capacity is not so straightforward.
The cost of capacity development is one of the first issues that prospective donors raise. For rural water supplies, the IPTRID mentioned a figure of US$100/person. Although this raises many questions about what it means in terms of people, skills and quality of provision, it does provide a starting-point for discussion with donors. There is as yet no such yardstick available for irrigation and drainage.
However, it was considered that current investment in capacity development was far too low, about 1 percent of total infrastructure investment. As countries only borrow money for infrastructure, capacity development can only be funded from bilateral aid. This constrains thinking about capacity development. If a more strategic planning approach were taken to capacity development, then its role alongside infrastructure would be more obvious and this might bring with it more imaginative ways of funding what is needed.
A clearer picture of capacity development for irrigated agriculture emerged from the workshop. It is centred on the individual, which is why education and training tends to be the main focus of attention when the issue of capacity development is discussed. However, it goes well beyond this to encompass the wider issues of organizations (which includes institutions the rules, regulations and values of organizations) within which the individuals work and the social and economic environment within which organizations and individuals function. This must be enabling if capacity development at the lower levels is to succeed.
To understand capacity development is to understand that it is as much a process as an end product. It is an approach to development, not something separate from it and not a discrete or prepackaged technical intervention intended to bring about a predefined outcome. It is the reason why most people have adopted the term capacity development rather than capacity building. It transfers the emphasis from the end product to the process of achieving it.
The UNDP has produced a definition of capacity development that emphasizes the need for local ownership and the empowerment of people to solve their own problems. It provides a sound basis on which to build, but much more detail needs to be added if its sentiments are to be applied in practice.
A matrix is suggested that maps out the territory or landscape for capacity development for irrigated agriculture. It is a convenient starting-point for questions and discussion, both at a local and national level. In addition, the matrix can be helpful in talks with donors, ensuring clarity of purpose on areas of constraint and priorities.
A framework is proposed that demonstrates how individuals, organizations and the socioeconomic environment are linked and is a platform for the activities that need to be engaged in to meet the desired performance of individuals and organizations.
The case studies provide many valuable insights into capacity development. First, they show how unique each case study is in terms of the technical and socio-economic circumstances. However, they all have issues in common that provide experiences from which others might benefit.
Many of the cases provided useful descriptive information but lacked critical analysis and synthesis in terms of drawing out the lessons for others to use. This highlights the lack of useful information available about capacity development, how it is planned and implemented, and in particular how it is evaluated. This is an issue that needs addressing if others are to benefit from the case study approach.
In many cases, capacity development was not in fact the main issue of development. Projects set out with a focus on infrastructure construction but this changed in the course of project. Examples of this were Egypt, Pakistan and the United Republic of Tanzania. More thought is needed to define the real priorities at the outset, rather than relying on a change in direction at some later stage.
Most case studies emphasized the long lead time needed for change (ten years and more), the unpredictability of the outcome over such a long period, and the importance of serendipity in that outcome. This is at odds with the current highly-structured nature of the short-term project approach that many agencies favour.
The workshop confirmed the growing consensus that a lack of capacity is constraining irrigation development in many developing countries. Capacity development should no longer be a "bolton" to infrastructure development. Rather, capacity development should be the central focus of future irrigation development strategies infrastructure is one component of capacity, it should not lead the development debate but follow as a consequence of a much wider capacity development strategy.
Many countries are beginning to recognize the importance of capacity development in its wider context. However, there is currently no documentation available on how to achieve this, and thus guidelines are needed to illustrate current good practice on planning a capacity development strategy.
In order to support the development of guidelines, the irrigation community should organize and support a series of workshops on capacity development similar to this one. The annual ICID international meeting provides an ideal opportunity for such events. Workshops could focus on specific topics such as:
approaches to capacity development - the "big bang" approach or the "step by step" approach;
assessing capacity needs;
the relationship between capacity development and formal education and training and projects - the sustainability issue;
developing effective organizations;
monitoring and evaluating capacity development;
the relationships between costs of capacity development realized. It may prove to be good value for money.
Case studies can be an important source of information and experience for capacity development. However, there is a need for sagacity and critical review in their development if they are to be useful for others. They could form part of a "toolbox" for capacity development to accompany guidelines.
