Capacity building – the value of own implementing capacity

The ultimate aim of many agencies involved in humanitarian assistance, rehabilitation

and development, is strengthening the capacity of local civil society and of government
departments at different levels and local authorities.

Especially during the last few years, much attention has been paid in rehabilitation to
capacity building by means of working through partners. In practice it seems that, at
least by certain international organizations in certain areas, in line with this strategy of
‘capacity building of partners’ all relief, rehabilitation or development activities of the
INGO are being executed by one ore more local NGOs (LNGOs). Often because of
administrative procedures the Community Based Organizations (CBOs) cannot be
selected as partner while they are too small or not fulfilling the criteria of the international
organisations.

Working through LNGOs can be too quickly valued as the only suitable approach of
capacity building, because working solely through partners has several risks. At the
same time, specific advantages of working through own implementing capacity are
missed.

‘Own implementing capacity’ in this article means: working directly with own staff on
grass root level with the beneficiaries and CBOs, working with local masons and
carpenters instead of contractors, using own purchasing and logistics capacity, etc.
Compared to organizations working solely through LNGOs, this requires a much
decentralized organization with some more staff using basic site offices and simple but
adequate administrative and transport facilities.

This article is inspired by the practical experience of the author living with his family for
more than three years in the North of Sri Lanka (2003 -2006) during his work for ZOA
Refugee Care (a Dutch INGO) and by hearing, but mostly reading about ‘capacity
building as a must’.

ZOA Refugee Care’s current strategy for rehabilitation is geared towards strengthening
local civil society in order to stabilize livelihoods, raise resilience and support
development processes of those groups in society who presently suffer from and are
marginalised as a result of violent conflict. This is done through enhancement of
capacities of communities, their organizations, local NGOs committed to the people and
trough support to local government structures. ZOA seeks partnership with local partners
where possible. If no suitable partner organizations are present that are committed to
strengthening the capacity of communities involved, ZOA works through own
implementing capacity. This article focuses on the value of own implementing capacity,
while later on another article will be published about experience with working through
local partners. Certain issues in this article might be more situation-specific, but it is
believed that at least partly the same applies in a more general sense, albeit that the
need for own implementing capacity might be less in development than in relief and
rehabilitation in (post) conflict areas.
Partners or commanders
Although there are indeed examples of LNGOs and CBOs that are of real support for
their people, it is obvious that not all of them are independent or that they are always
more connected and committed to the beneficiaries than the INGOs. Especially in post
conflict areas, where for a long time war and displacement have taken place, social
structures and cohesion have been damaged too, resulting in the absence or poor
functioning of CBOs and LNGOs. In fact, in such situations local authorities often want to
control society and will not promote or even allow independent private organizations at
the grass root level to develop, particularly as long as durable peace is not achieved or
in cases where they are afraid to lose control over the population, ‘the masses’.

In these circumstances, it may have serious consequences if INGOs have the strategy to
work solely through partners. Although one may say that by working through these
organizations these can be transformed, at the same time the monopoly of these
politically imposed or even military affiliated organizations continues and in case of
getting used to working in this manner these organizations get further strengthened.
When people are not given enough space to organize themselves and to be directly
involved in their own rehabilitation and development, the INGOs should stand together
as independent, neutral organizations to promote private initiatives to organize
themselves as an essential part of sustainable development and capacity building of the
civil society.

For partnering and participation mostly some sort of harmony on a village level is
assumed, however this is rarely the case in post conflict situations. So if CBOs get
access to resources, there will often be battles over power within the CBOs and between
the CBO and the village. Therefore one has to be careful with partnering even with real
CBOs especially if it concerns rehabilitation works with relatively large budgets, which
can deteriorate the relations within the community.

Organizations, whether local or international, should be really primarily focused on

beneficiaries and meant to transform the communities instead of to control them or to act
as income generating clubs for their own organization, staff or other (political) goals.

Figure 1: Capacity building at grass root level – women groups, Fishermen Organizations, Farmers Organizations, etc

Capacity building and / or progress

Enhancement of capacities is a time and energy consuming process. Often it goes
beyond strengthening capacities as it also includes adjustment to new situations, e.g.
after a period of war and being involved in relief becoming more oriented towards
rehabilitation and development in the post conflict period. The beneficiaries need as
soon as possible a variety of basic facilities rehabilitated or developed which they often
can define themselves for a large part. However the LNGOs and CBOs do not
immediately have the capacity to fulfill these needs, naturally leading to delays or the
missing of opportunities. In situations where INGOs are only allowed to work with certain
LNGOs and if these are defined for a geographical area, it is very difficult to work in an
area and to improve the progress if that specific LNGO is already occupied. A similar
problem arises with having limited partners available but more INGOs that want to work
through these partners. This becomes even worse if some INGOs are paying well for
overhead costs, so that they are only interested to work for those which are most
advantageous for them.

If communities are able to realize that they are not offered the chances for rehabilitation
and development they could potentially get (i.e. available resources are not used), some
pressure could arise to increase activities and progress. However, in (post) conflict
situations, people are often not in a position to understand the chances available or are
not even able to stand up for themselves if they are dependent on the same
organizations and authorities.

Figure 2: Capacity building at grass root level – involving beneficiaries and quickly restoring basic living conditions

In certain situations it is advisable to have fast progress and quick impact within a limited
period, say 1 – 2 years, to ensure proper semi permanent shelter and water and
sanitation for all families as part of a post conflict rehabilitation effort. Such a quick
impact not only improves the basic living conditions, but also contributes to psycho social
well being, including the support of peace and reconciliation while people get motivated
to move on to develop their own lives and to leave the past behind.
Slow progress or lack of certain type of activities can be politically motivated by
authorities, to keep beneficiaries dependent. In case there is enough space and options
to work for INGOs, slow progress can also be caused by the international community
itself if they are afraid to increase the activities quickly or in the worst case it creates an
excuse of INGOs to continue their presence.

The following figure visualizes schematically working methods in a post conflict situation
against time. Initially, proper partners have not yet been defined, but activities are
needed. In this period it is very important that the INGO is very sensitive in doing its
needs assessments and implementation in close contact with the local government and
civil society. Later on, more work should take place through partners, while partnerships
and capacity have improved. Purely capacity building and lobby and advocacy are
almost impossible if just started, but can increase after being more accepted and trusted.

100
Capacity building
90 + Lobby & Advocacy
percentage of the programme

80
Rehabilitation & Development
70 through partners (such as CBOs, LNGOs, etc)
60
50
40 Rehabilitation & Development
through own implementing capacity
30
20
10 Relief through own implementing
capacity (and if possible through partners)
0
0 1 2 3 4
time in years (indicative)

Figure 3: Working method in a post conflict situation against time (schematically)

While working in these situations is often complex with many actors involved which takes
time to understand and while capacity building is a process in which relationships play
an important role, it is advisable to have key (expat) staff at least for 2 or 3 years at a
location but preferably longer and new programmes should be started with staff who are
familiar with the context and know the situation as much as possible.
Working solely through partners with lack of capacity, can easily result in situations that
people are not benefiting enough of the presence of INGOs and possible assistance.
The other risk is that relationships with these LNGOs or CBOs become no real
partnerships anymore, no mutual capacity strengthening is taking place anymore, while
the INGO tries to influence too strongly to get these organizations adjusted or they even
get spoiled because of being in a luxury position caused by their monopoly.

Capacity building through own implementing capacity

When the INGO operates through own implementing capacity, it can recruit a higher
number of staff from the area than INGOs that work solely through partners. Staff from
the area has often gone through the same experiences as the people and therefore they
can quite easily identify the needs and activities can be carried out almost immediately
by them, provided that funding is available. For example exchange visits as part of
education or peace building, which might be not in the scope of the LNGOs can easily
be organized by the INGO by just paying for transport charges to a principal or so. By
acting in such a way, the INGO can give examples of activities that were lacking and can
create some competition instead of supporting the monopoly of the LNGOs. By working
closely with the beneficiaries, the people can much easier be activated and made
understood that the more they organize themselves and contribute, the more assistance
they can expect to develop further. In this way capacity building at the grass root level
will take place more or less automatically.
Own implementing capacity and using human resources from the area (project staff,
administrative staff, drivers, etc.) also contributes to the capacity building of civil society,
while working in an INGO can open up ‘their world’ and even that of the family members
and neighbors around them. Besides that, even if staff from the area might have some
less skills or specific knowledge, it is a must to have them in the organization while
persons from the capital or other big cities are often almost as far removed socially and
culturally from the (often rural and generally poor) beneficiaries as expatriate staff.

Probably the most important reason for own implementing capacity is that it is essential
for understanding the ground realities, which helps immensely to define needs for
capacity building and in the process of capacity building of partners at all levels (CBOs,
LNGOs, government officials, departments, etc.). It can be seen as an ongoing
simultaneous need assessment, implementation and monitoring & evaluation. By
missing own implementing capacity this process becomes often much more fragmented
and does therefore not give that much information and insight.

Own implementing capacity: more than just implementing

Working through own implementing capacity means, compared to working trough
partners, more information from and more presence on the grass root level while more
staff from that area are working for the organization. On top of this, these are also staff
representing a cross section of that specific society, instead of only the more educated
and often upper part of the society who generally work in an organization that operates
solely through partners.

Being present on the ground with these staff does not only provide a good insight in
human rights issues, domestic violence and psycho social problems, but also gives a
chance to work in these sectors as well and being very practically involved in protection.
Being operational and involved in many activities gives the possibility for lobby and
advocacy, for which in (post) conflict situation the presence of (preferably long staying)
expatriate staff is essential.

Non independent, politically imposed and driven partners may easily pursue certain
policies that do not ensure the fulfillment of actual needs of the people. For example, if
partners are saying that there is no need for semi-permanent shelter but only for
permanent houses although people continue to suffer because of inadequate shelter,
this will not be accepted by staff originating from the area in an INGO with proper
implementing capacity.

To have at least some own implementing capacity is also very useful to understand the
working conditions of partners. In fact like in any other business it is not possible to just
assist or train others if someone does not really know how to do the job himself. Another
advantage, especially in (post) conflict areas, is the ability to assist the people in case of
a deteriorating situation or a disaster occurs. For example when the Tsunami struck the
North Eastern coastline of Sri Lanka in the end of 2004 or when violence increased in
2006 causing many newly displaced people, organizations with own implementing
capacity and a track record of experience in the country could act much faster and more
effectively than those without.

Last but not least, working through own implementing capacity can be very cost efficient
so that with the same budgets more people can be reached, while no profit needs to be
made on purchasing, transport, etc. This is even more valid in areas with monopolies of
LNGOs or in case rates are controlled, read increased, through taxes by local
authorities.

Working through partners is often meant to be a cost cutting exercise, as LNGO offices
and staff cost less and can often be calculated as direct costs, where office costs and
(expatriate) staff of the own organization are seen as indirect costs. However with further
analysis and taking into account the other advantages, this should be reconsidered.

Capacity building – not without own implementing capacity

Working through partners is one way of capacity building and can be done very well if, in
a context like northern Sri Lanka, simultaneously also own implementing capacity is
used. INGOs and LNGOs will be able to have a much better cross-fertilization in this
way. However, especially in (post) conflict situations and in areas where civil society is
strictly controlled, caution should be exercised in the selection of local partners in order
to prevent that the ‘wrong’ organizations are strengthened.

Let it not be a disqualification to be efficient, to have fast progress and to be able to

reach many people through own implementing capacity. With time passing and trust and
relationships improving, more capacity strengthening processes can take place and work
through partners may increase. In addition, there are many other advantages of being
present in the area at grass root level related to understanding the often complex reality,
human rights issues, etc.

Of course, enhancement of capacities is an urgent need, but this should not lead to
working uniquely through LNGOs. Next, instead of presenting capacities strengthening
as an immediate urgency (an urgency according to donor or organization policy or an
urgency according to the political situation), it should be acknowledged as a gradual
process.

Capacity building needs to take place at all levels, especially at grass root level.
Sustainable development and improvement of the whole society cannot be achieved
without sufficient involvement of communities and their organizations. INGOs with proper
own implementing capacity and with sufficient staff from the area will definitely contribute
to the strengthening of local civil society.

H.A. Vervoorn, Programme Manager ZOA Refugee Care (2003-2006)

3 October 2007
h.vervoorn@hotmail.com

References:
Approaches to Equity in Post-Tsunami Assistance, Sri Lanka: A Case Study
Mandeep Kaur Grewal, November 2006, Office of the UN Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery (OSE)
`Signs of Hope`, ZOA Refugee Care Strategic Framework 2007-2010, 12-02-2007