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 Cares 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 percentage of the programme 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 Relief through own implementing capacity (and if possible through partners) 1 2 time in years (indicative) 3 4 Rehabilitation & Development through own implementing capacity Capacity building + Lobby & Advocacy Rehabilitation & Development through partners (such as CBOs, LNGOs, etc)

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
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 ,

References: