Journal Pre-proof

Developing capacity for impactful use of Earth Observation data: Lessons from the
AfriCultuReS project

Rose Pritchard, Thomas Alexandridis, Mary Amponsah, Nabil Ben Khatra, Dan
Brockington, Tomás Chiconela, Jesús Ortuño Castillo, Issa Garba, Marta Gómez-
Giménez, Menghestab Haile, Clarisse Kagoyire, Mahlatse Kganyago, Dorothea
Kleine, Tesfaye Korme, Alemu A. Manni, Nosiseko Mashiyi, Jadwiga Massninga,
Foster Mensah, Maurice Mugabowindekwe, Vivianne Meta, Mark Noort, Patricia
Pérez Ramirez, Juan Suárez Beltrán, Evence Zoungrana
PII: S2211-4645(21)00105-6
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2021.100695
Reference: ENVDEV 100695

To appear in: Environmental Development

Received Date: 6 May 2021

Revised Date: 30 September 2021
Accepted Date: 25 December 2021

Please cite this article as: Pritchard, R., Alexandridis, T., Amponsah, M., Ben Khatra, N., Brockington,
D., Chiconela, Tomá., Castillo, Jesú.Ortuñ., Garba, I., Gómez-Giménez, M., Haile, M., Kagoyire,
C., Kganyago, M., Kleine, D., Korme, T., Manni, A.A., Mashiyi, N., Massninga, J., Mensah, F.,
Mugabowindekwe, M., Meta, V., Noort, M., Ramirez, Patricia.Pé., Beltrán, Juan.Suá., Zoungrana, E.,
Developing capacity for impactful use of Earth Observation data: Lessons from the AfriCultuReS project,
Environmental Development (2022), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2021.100695.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Rose Pritchard (rose.pritchard@manchester.ac.uk)
Global Development Institute, Arthur Lewis Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road,
Manchester, MP139PL, UK

Thomas Alexandridis
Laboratory of Remote Sensing, Spectroscopy and GIS, School of Agriculture, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 54124, Greece

Mary Amponsah
Centre for Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Services, PMB L17, Annie Jiagge St,
University of Ghana – Legon - Accra

Nabil Ben Khatra

Observatoire du Sahara et du Sahel, Tunis, Tunisia

Dan Brockington

f
Sheffield Institute for International Development, The University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield,

oo
S10 2TN, UK

Tomás Chiconela

r
Faculdade de Agronomia e Engenharia Florestal, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo,
Mozambique -p
re
Jesús Ortuño Castillo
GMV Aerospace and Defence S.A.U., Remote Sensing Services and Exploitation Platforms Division.
lP

Isaac Newton 11 (PTM), E-28760 Tres Cantos, Spain

Issa Garba
na

AGHRYMET Regional Centre, Niamey, Niger

Marta Gómez-Giménez
ur

GMV Aerospace and Defence S.A.U., Remote Sensing Services and Exploitation Platforms Division.
Isaac Newton 11 (PTM), E-28760 Tres Cantos, Spain
Jo

Menghestab Haile
World Food Programme, Egypt Country Office, 49 Road 105, Hadayek El Maadi, Cairo, Egypt

Clarisse Kagoyire
Centre for Geographic Information Systems and Remote Sensing, University of Rwanda, Kigali,
Rwanda

Mahlatse Kganyago
South African National Space Agency, The Enterprise Building, Mark Shuttleworth Street, Innovation
Hub, Pretoria South Africa

Dorothea Kleine
Sheffield Institute for International Development, The University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield,
S10 2TN, UK

Tesfaye Korme
GeoSAS Consulting, Ethio-China Friendship Avenue, Kirkos sub-city, Dire-Dawa Building, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia

Alemu A. Manni
GeoSAS Consulting, Ethio-China Friendship Avenue, Kirkos sub-city, Dire-Dawa Building, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia

Nosiseko Mashiyi
South African National Space Agency, The Enterprise Building, Mark Shuttleworth Street, Innovation
Hub, Pretoria South Africa

Jadwiga Massninga
Faculdade de Agronomia e Engenharia Florestal, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo,
Mozambique

Foster Mensah
Centre for Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Services, PMB L17, Annie Jiagge St,
University of Ghana – Legon - Accra

Maurice Mugabowindekwe

f
Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen,

oo
Copenhagen, Denmark
Work carried out while in the Centre for Geographic Information Systems and Remote Sensing,
University of Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda

r
Vivianne Meta -p
LocateIT, 5th Floor, Galana Plaza, Galana Road, Kilimani, Nairobi, P.O.Box 17227-00100, Nairobi,
re
Kenya
lP

Mark Noort
HCP International, Amsterdam, Netherlands
na

Patricia Pérez Ramirez

GMV Aerospace and Defence S.A.U., Remote Sensing Services and Exploitation Platforms Division.
Isaac Newton 11 (PTM), E-28760 Tres Cantos, Spain
ur

Juan Suárez Beltrán

GMV Aerospace and Defence S.A.U., Remote Sensing Services and Exploitation Platforms Division.
Jo

Isaac Newton 11 (PTM), E-28760 Tres Cantos, Spain

Evence Zoungrana
Observatoire du Sahara et du Sahel, Tunis, Tunisia
 1 Developing capacity for impactful use of Earth Observation data:
2 Lessons from the AfriCultuReS project
3

4 Abstract
5
6 An increasing number of products and services based on satellite Earth Observation (EO)
7 data are being developed for use by decision-makers in African agricultural contexts,
8 providing information such as weather and climate forecasts, crop yields and water
9 availability. Capacity development to support impactful use of EO data is a key component
10 of many EO-for-development initiatives, but there is little consensus over where or how
11 capacity should be developed. Our goal in this piece is to provide a critical perspective on
12 the capacity development required to support the creation of more impactful EO data
13 services. Drawing on a capacity needs assessment carried out as part of the AfriCultuReS

f
14 project (a major EO-for-development initiative), we identify proximate factors which inhibit the

oo
15 success of EO data services such as flawed communication strategies, low relevance in
16 African agricultural contexts, duplication of existing products, and lack of financial

r
17 sustainability. We link these proximate challenges to deeper issues such as unequal access
18
19
-p
to funding and resources, fragmentation in the EO field, and relational asymmetries of power,
all of which combine to exclude important forms of knowledge from decision-making. Based
re
20 on this needs assessment, we argue that capacity development requires broader systems-
21 based approaches which develop the capacities of all actors (including those in the Global
lP

22 North) to respect different forms of knowledge, use and participate in co-design approaches,
23 and recognise and challenge the asymmetries of power which currently limit the involvement
24 of certain groups in processes of EO data service design.
na

25
26 1. Introduction
ur

27
28 Decision-support tools drawing on satellite Earth Observation (EO) data have increased
29 rapidly in number in recent years. Many such tools are being targeted at stakeholders in
Jo

30 African food and agricultural systems, with examples ranging from large-scale famine early
31 warning systems to weather and crop management advice for individual farmers. While a
32 substantial number of EO data service initiatives are being led entirely within African
33 countries, many others involve partnerships or consortia comprising both organisations from
34 African countries and from countries in the Global North.
35
36 Decision-makers in many African agricultural contexts must contend with limitations in the
37 availability and quality of large-scale data (Jerven, 2013). EO data services are intended to
38 fill these gaps, facilitating ‘better’ decisions which lead to achievement of sustainable
39 development objectives such as greater food security (Anderson et al., 2017; Espey, 2019).
40 The literature on weather and climate services in African countries indicates that such
41 information services can result in positive impacts on agricultural incomes and yields at local
42 scales (see review by Nkiaka et al., 2019). But while many success stories can be found in
43 the grey literature, there is less rigorous, peer-reviewed evidence for larger-scale impacts on
44 sustainable development indicators in African agricultural contexts (Tall et al., 2018; Vaughan
45 et al., 2019).
46
47 This limited documented impact is likely attributable in part to there being so few post-hoc
48 assessments of EO data service initiatives (Msangi et al., 2006; Tall et al., 2018). But, despite
49 recent rapid growth in the geospatial sectors of many African countries, it is also still often
50 argued that there is not sufficient capacity in these countries to access, analyse or use EO
51 data effectively. This is why capacity development is viewed as an essential component in
52 many EO-for-development initiatives, such as the global efforts of the Group on Earth
53 Observations (GEO; Anderson et al., 2017).
54
55 This apparently simple claim is, however, much more problematic than it might first appear.
56 Capacity development is a contested idea, and one with no single common interpretation.
57 The term has been criticised as a ‘buzzword’, used by diverse actors to advance differing
58 agendas (Eade, 2007). The academic literature on capacity development is surprisingly
59 sparse given the ubiquity of the term and there is little critical evaluation of what effective
60 capacity development looks like (where such critical evaluations exist, they often find little
61 evidence of sustained capacity development impacts; Ubels et al., 2010; Hewitson, 2015). A
62 similar lack of clarity is evident in capacity development for information services incorporating
63 EO data. In a survey of researchers and practitioners working on weather and climate

f
64 services, for example, Vaughan et al. (2016) found that ‘while 30% of respondents prioritised

oo
65 case studies to establish good practice with respect to capacity development…there is no
66 consensus regarding how to advance capacity building for climate services.’

r
67
68
69
-p
The goal of this paper is to provide a critical reflection on capacity development needs in EO-
for-development, based on our experiences in the first two years of the AfriCultuReS project.
re
70 We draw on a capacity needs assessment carried out in user workshops, and on what we
71 have learned about capacity development through being part of this project – both in terms
lP

72 of what has worked well and less well. These experiences lead us to argue for capacity
73 development approaches involving multidimensional learning across geographies,
74 disciplines and worldviews, and which equip EO-for-development practitioners to recognise
na

75 and challenge asymmetries of power.

76
77 2. Capacity Development: Definitions and Critiques
ur

78
79 The concepts of capacity building and capacity development have been part of the
Jo

80 international development mainstream since the early 1990s, arising from recognition that
81 ‘technical assistance’ approaches often failed to produce lasting impacts (Wubneh, 2003;
82 Craig, 2007). Some early practitioners of capacity development adopted a narrow approach
83 focused on solving human resource problems in particular institutions (Cohen, 1993). But the
84 concept has since evolved to place greater emphasis on empowerment and self-
85 determination. This is exemplified in the definition adopted by the United Nations
86 Development Program (UNDP), who define capacity development as ‘the process through
87 which individuals, organisations and societies obtain, strengthen and maintain the
88 capabilities to set and achieve their own development objectives over time’ (Wignaraja,
89 2009).
90
91 The language associated with this understanding of capacity development echoes that of the
92 capabilities approach first proposed by Sen (1999), who argued that the goal of development
93 should be that people have greater freedom to achieve the lives they have reason to value
94 (Sen, 1999). Within this school of thought, ‘empowerment’ has been conceptualised as
95 describing the extent to which people are able to make effective choices; firstly, whether they
96 are able to choose a goal, and secondly, whether they are able to translate their choice into
97 the achievement of that goal (Alsop & Heinsohn, 2005; Kleine, 2011). The extent to which
98 people can make choices and then realise those choices depends both on individual agency
 99 (the capacity of an actor to visualise different options and make a choice) and the opportunity
100 structure within which the actor operates (which includes factors such as policy and legal
101 frameworks and formal and informal institutions; Alsop & Heinsohn, 2005; Kleine, 2011).
102 Viewed through the lens of the capabilities approach, the goal of capacity development to
103 empower entails developing capacities which enable members of a particular population to
104 choose and realise their own goals – returning to the UNDP definition, ‘to set and achieve
105 their own development objectives over time.’ It is this understanding of capacity development
106 as a process of empowerment which must consider both agency and opportunity structure
107 which informs this paper.
108
109 Many authors still favour the term ‘capacity building’ as opposed to capacity development or
110 strengthening. But the idea of ‘building’ capacity has been criticised as ‘conceptually
111 paternalistic’ (Mugisha, 2015), potentially implying a vacuum of capacity which can only be
112 addressed with input from outsiders. This is particularly misleading given the depth of work
113 on EO data services already occurring in African countries (Woldai, 2020). To avoid risking

f
114 this association, we use the terms ‘capacity development’ or ‘capacity strengthening’ except

oo
115 when directly quoting authors who use other terminology.
116

r
117 One critique of capacity development is particularly relevant in the context of EO data
118
119
-p
services designed for African agricultural contexts. This is that the need for capacity
development is expected of usually countries and people in the Global South, particularly
re
120 when capacity development is carried out as part of initiatives involving North-South
121 collaborations. This is rather unfortunately illustrated by Target 9 of Sustainable Development
lP

122 Goal 17 ‘Partnership for the Goals’ (emphasis added):

123
124 ‘Enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity building in
na

125 developing countries to support national plants to implement all the sustainable
126 development goals, including through North-South, South-South and triangular co-
127 operation.’
ur

128
129 This is highly problematic. The SDGs are meant to be global goals. They apply to all nations
Jo

130 and are a response to universal deficiencies. As we shall see below, there are obvious ways
131 in which capacity within wealthier countries could be substantially improved.
132
133 This critique reflects a broader tension in capacity development work, which is that capacity
134 development as currently practiced often privileges particular groups and particular kinds of
135 knowledge. Capacity development efforts, however well-intended, often result in information
136 flowing only one way, from those with greater to those with less power over project decision-
137 making (Bockstael, 2017). This means, for example, that capacity development approaches
138 are more likely to be defined in the Global North for roll-out in the Global South (leading some
139 authors to characterise capacity development as a form of coloniality; Adriansen & Madsen,
140 2019) and are more likely to be perceived to involve transfers of information from those with
141 more technical scientific knowledge to those with less.
142
143 As we will show in this paper, such one-way knowledge transfer approaches are poorly
144 equipped to solve the societal challenges targeted by EO data services, an argument also
145 made by Tedmanson (2012) when reflecting more broadly on capacity development work.
146 To illustrate this, we reflect on our recent work as part of the AfriCultuReS project.
147
148 3. The AfriCultuReS Project
149
150 AfriCultuReS (‘Enhancing food security in African agriCultural systems with the support of
151 Remote Sensing’; www.africultures.eu) is a major international collaboration funded as part
152 of the European Union Horizon 2020 program (European Commission, 2014). The project is
153 carried out by a consortium of eight African and nine European partner organisations, with
154 African partners located in Tunisia, Ghana, Niger, Kenya, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Mozambique
155 and South Africa. The consortium includes both private sector organisations and research
156 and academic institutions.
157
158 The project goal is to make high quality data available to agriculture sector stakeholders in
159 eight African countries via an online platform which combines satellite EO data with climate
160 and crop modelling. The platform will support a range of EO-based products bundled into
161 seven services (Crop, Climate, Land, Livestock, Weather, Water, Drought), increasing the
162 access of decision-makers to short-term early warning, longer-term agricultural forecasts,

f
oo
163 yield data and land use/land cover map. Full details of all products can be found in
164 Alexandridis et al. (2020). The ultimate hope is that enhanced data provision will support
165 decision-making which increases crop and livestock yields and reduces yield variability, so

r
166 contributing to improved food security in the eight African focus countries.
167
168
-p
Capacity development is a key component of the AfriCultuReS work program. To improve
re
169 our understanding of capacity development needs, we convened a series of one-day
170 workshops between September and November 2019 in seven of the eight AfriCultuReS
lP

171 countries (omitting only Niger). The primary goal of these workshops was user engagement
172 and to shape project direction. However, we believe workshop outcomes will be of much
173 wider interest to researcher and practitioners in EO-for-Development, particularly given the
na

174 paucity of academic writing focused specifically on capacity development in the EO-for-
175 Development context (with notable exceptions such as Shukla et al., 2021).
ur

176
177 Workshops involved between 15 and 35 participants, invited by in-country AfriCultuReS
178 partners because they belonged to organisations perceived as potential users of
Jo

179 AfriCultuReS products or with substantial EO-for-development expertise. The majority of

180 workshop participants were therefore from government departments and other public sector
181 organisations relevant to agriculture and environmental management, and from research
182 institutions. A smaller number of attendees represented farmers’ associations, non-
183 governmental or intergovernmental organisations, or small-to-medium enterprises
184 specialising in geospatial applications. Participants received per diems and/or reimbursement
185 for travel and accommodation expenses depending on the norms of the country in which the
186 workshop was being held.
187
188 While precise workshop structure varied over the series (as we learned from and improved
189 on previous workshops), all workshops included broadly the same themes: (i) a discussion
190 of the proposed AfriCultuReS product portfolio and the extent to which this met the needs of
191 potential users in each country; (ii) an interactive demonstration of a prototype of the
192 AfriCultuReS web platform; (iii) a capacity needs assessment exercise. For the capacity
193 needs assessment, workshop participants were split into groups of four to seven people and
194 asked to fill out a table listing barriers to the success of EO data services and the strategies
195 which could be used to address them.
196
197 Data derived from these workshops included the tables of capacity development needs and
198 strategies, along with notes on and recordings of participant feedback on all three of the
199 workshop topics mentioned above. For six of the workshops, these were compiled by the
200 lead author after each workshop and used to produce a summary report, drawing out core
201 themes from workshop discussions. This summary report was shared with representatives of
202 the relevant in-country AfriCultuReS partner organisation and any other workshop attendees
203 from the AfriCultuReS consortium, to try and ensure as accurate as possible a representation
204 of workshop content. The exception was the workshop in Mozambique, for which we worked
205 from the raw workshop data. In this paper, we draw on materials from all seven of the
206 workshops to map out the barriers to success of EO data services highlighted by participants,
207 recognising that these discussions have relevance beyond our specific project and in the
208 wider EO-for-development space.
209
210 We note three caveats before discussing workshop findings. First, we recognise that any one
211 project can only provide a partial perspective, particularly given our dependence on

f
212 workshops. Workshops have well-documented issues in terms of accessibility and ours were

oo
213 no exception; the majority of workshop participants were from organisations based in the
214 capital cities in which workshops were held, and already had a degree of existing interest in

r
215 EO data services. For this reason, we do not depend on workshop outcomes alone, but
216
217
-p
triangulate these findings with published literature. In particular, we refer to literature from the
parallel field of Information and Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D).
re
218
219 Second, while we talk about capacity development needs to support impactful use of EO data
lP

220 ‘in African countries’, we recognise that there will be huge variation both within and between
221 African countries. Our workshop findings highlight important issues; but we acknowledge that
222 they are broad-brush and that there is huge potential for more detailed evaluations of capacity
na

223 needs focused at smaller scales.

224
225 Third, we frame our argument from a particular perspective on the objectives of capacity
ur

226 development for EO data services. As discussed above, we see the aim of capacity
227 development as being to address the barriers which currently prevent people from choosing
Jo

228 and achieving their goals. But we recognise that those working on EO data services often
229 have other motivations which may not be easily compatible with this vision of capacity-
230 development-as-empowerment, such as the profit motive of private sector organisations and
231 the publication and promotion motives of many academic actors. We consider the additional
232 challenges arising from these conflicting motivations later in this piece.
233

234 4. Workshop Outcomes

235
236 Based on the discussions in the seven AfriCultuReS workshops, we propose a ‘theory of
237 stasis’ (Figure 1) summarising the reasons given by workshop participants that products
238 drawing upon EO data may fail to achieve lasting impacts. We split these factors into: (i)
239 proximate causes of failure, which are the immediate and more easily observable reasons
240 why EO data services may not have sustained impacts; and (ii) ultimate causes, which are
241 the more profound issues suggested to lead to these observable issues. We also map some
242 of the pathways between these proximate and ultimate causes. We now address proximate
243 and ultimate barriers in turn.
 f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

Figure 1 A theory of stasis for EO-for-Development products in African countries. This figure summarises barriers to impact for EO-for-
development projects and proposed connections between them, based on discussions in seven user workshops held as part of the
AfriCultuReS project between September and November 2019.
244 4.1 Proximate Factors
245
246 A first proximate challenge identified by workshop participants was communicating EO-
247 derived information to target decision-makers, which is particularly complex is cases where
248 the key decision-makers are smallholder farmers. A project output like an online platform was
249 perceived as useful for a GIS-competent user with a reliable internet connection and a
250 smartphone or computer, but this would exclude many of those living in rural African contexts.
251 Participants stressed the importance of working with existing, trusted networks, such as
252 community radio stations, which disseminate information in locally appropriate languages,
253 and which are still effective in contexts of low literacy. Participants also stressed the
254 importance of understanding and working with existing in-person knowledge exchange
255 networks, such as traditional leadership and agricultural extension systems.
256
257 A second proximate explanation for why EO data services might not produce sustained
258 positive impacts is that the service does not meet an unmet need within the focus context. In

f
oo
259 some cases, this may be because target decision-makers lack the resources needed to act
260 on the information provided. In others, it may be because a product already exists which
261 delivers the same service. The problem of duplication was identified by participants in six of

r
262 the seven AfriCultuReS workshops. Participants in Kenya, Tunisia, South Africa, Rwanda,
263
264
-p
Ghana and Ethiopia all referred to the increasingly crowded nature of the EO data service
field in their respective countries, with a growing number of initiatives aiming to provide similar
re
265 services and targeting similar sets of decision-makers.
266
lP

267 A third proximate explanation for why EO data services fail to produce long-term impacts is
268 that they lack a viable long-term funding model. The question of ‘who can pay’ and ‘who will
269 pay’ recurred frequently in workshops, with many participants having witnessed previous
na

270 promising projects that collapsed when funds ran out. Such questions often arose in tandem
271 with questions around ownership, with willingness to fund linked to sense of ownership and
272 level of involvement in product design.
ur

273
274 The final proximate reason given for lack of impact from previous EO data service initiatives
Jo

275 is that products may not be accurate in the target contexts, reducing their value to potential
276 users. In part this can reflect the relatively coarse resolution of many remote sensing products
277 which does not capture well the fragmented nature of land use on the ground. Participants in
278 Ethiopia, Rwanda and Mozambique discussed how many EO data services are not equipped
279 to cope with highly fragmented smallholder farming landscapes. A similar problem is that
280 single units of land may contain multiple crops. Participants in Mozambique pointed out that
281 appropriate models have not been developed to provide the information required by the many
282 smallholder farmers practicing intercropping.
283
284 4.2 Underlying Factors
285
286 These four proximate factors derive from deeper issues shaping the outcomes of EO data
287 services initiatives. The first such issue is that of who is involved in project decision-making
288 processes. This is reflected in the fact that the solutions proposed by workshop participants
289 for all the proximate problems described above focused on building collaborations and
290 partnerships with in-country stakeholders who have different kinds of expertise, including
291 potential product users.
292
293 The networks of people who create, disseminate and use EO data are structured by
294 continuing inequalities. Gender inequalities were particularly noticeable in the AfriCultuReS
295 workshop series. In one of the workshops, for example, only three women were in attendance
296 in comparison to more than twenty men (reflecting wider gender disparities in EO research),
297 and the role of the facilitator became to make sure that these women’s perspectives were
298 heard. This involved speaking directly to female participants during small group discussions,
299 rather than assuming that female participants would necessarily be confident to speak during
300 plenary sessions.
301
302 Gender inequalities were, however, just one among a number of axes of inequality and power
303 discussed or observed during the workshops. Other examples included the inequalities
304 arising from differences in ease of access to funding or data, levels of privileged technical
305 knowledge, or confidence sharing ideas in the main workshop language (English, French or
306 Portuguese, depending on location). The interactions between all of these factors shaped
307 both who contributed most to conversations in these specific workshops, and who was

f
308 perceived as having the greatest influence over decision-making in EO data service

oo
309 initiatives. The consequence of these continuing inequalities is that certain important kinds of
310 knowledge (such as those of the potential product users) are less likely to be represented in

r
311 decision-making processes.
312
313
-p
The duplication of effort which concerned workshop participants appears to arise both from
re
314 breaks in communication in the networks of actors involved in producing and using EO data
315 services, and from the fact that the current structure of the EO-for-development scene
lP

316 incentivises competition over collaboration. Participants in Ethiopia, Kenya and Ghana all
317 discussed how EO-for-development initiatives are silo-ed rather than networked. They also
318 pointed out that data has value in commercialised environments, whether monetary or
na

319 through the competitive advantage exclusive access to that data bestows, and this means
320 that many organisations will be willing to share data only if there is a convincing value
321 proposition for the advantages of data sharing. The potential for duplications and wasted
ur

322 energies is compounded by the rapid pace of change in the EO-for-development scene;
323 participants in Kenya and Tunisia, both countries with well-established geospatial sectors,
Jo

324 discussed the difficulties of keeping skills and products up to date in a rapidly changing
325 landscape.
326
327 An additional barrier identified by participants in multiple workshops was lack of recognition
328 of the potential values and uses of EO data among key decision-makers. This resulted in lack
329 of demand for and uptake of EO data services, and also made it more challenging to run
330 training initiatives (both because of a shortage of qualified trainers, and also because of lack
331 of buy-in at management level in both public and private sector organisations). The final
332 underlying causes identified were the short-term nature of many initiatives, leaving insufficient
333 time for adaptive learning, and the limited availability of ground data to evaluate the accuracy
334 of EO data products in African rural contexts.
335
336
337
338
339
340
341 5. Discussion
342
343 The four proximate barriers to impact we identify here are supported by the literature on
344 climate services. Previous studies have highlighted issues with communicating information
345 in appropriate formats (Nkiaka et al., 2019; Hansen et al., 2019), providing information which
346 potential users cannot act upon because they lack the necessary resources (Ingram et al.,
347 2002; Roudier et al., 2016; Jew et al., 2020), duplication of effort (Carr et al., 2020) and lack
348 of models for long-term financial sustainability (Brasseur & Gallardo, 2016). There have also
349 been calls to address this issue through stronger partnerships and co-design approaches
350 which make space for diverse forms of knowledge (Kristjanson et al., 2020; Makate, 2019;
351 Vincent et al., 2018; Vogel et al., 2019). And yet, it still seems that remote sensing data are
352 often poorly integrated with other forms of knowledge (Cord et al., 2017; Findlater et al.,
353 2021).
354
355 These are longstanding and well-recognised issues in the wider field of ICT4D. Their

f
oo
356 persistence emphasises the fact that they derive from deep-seated structural inequalities and
357 differences that have been fostered for decades. This raises further questions with regards
358 to the scope of capacity development. Should the objective be to develop the capacities

r
359 needed for people to understand the tools created by a specific project? To what extent can
360
361
-p
it take on the larger-scale structural issues which make it harder for ICT4D initiatives to
succeed?
re
362
363 The empowerment-focused UNDP capacity development definition framing this paper would
lP

364 suggest the need for a structural approach. So too would the work by Alsop and Heinsohn
365 (2005) and Kleine (2011), both of which emphasise the importance of the ‘opportunity
366 structure’ in which individuals operate. Taking a broader structural or systems-wide
na

367 perspective on capacity development means broadening the scope of capacity development
368 activities, to include those with high technical knowledge and partners based in the global
ur

369 north. In particular, this means developing the capacity needed to recognise and challenge
370 asymmetries of power. As Vincent et al. (2020) and Daly and Dilling (2019) argue, any effort
371 at co-design without attention to power is likely to perpetuate an unjust status quo.
Jo

372
373 This recalls Ziervogel et al.’s (2016) argument for ‘transformative capacity’, defined as ‘the
374 capacity of individuals and organisations to be able to transform themselves in a deliberate,
375 conscious way.’ In some cases, underrepresented groups can build capacity to challenge
376 power asymmetries by organising in physical or virtual space. A good example is online
377 networks of female EO experts, such as Ladies of Landsat and Women in Geospatial. But
378 the onus is also on those who currently have power to know when to step back and make
379 space. This may involve larger-scale events, such as the recent Group on Earth Observation
380 Indigenous Hackathon, or smaller-scale interactions ensuring that less powerful voices are
381 heard in project design. All of these approaches require first that the individuals involved
382 recognise capacity to be lacking. Many countries are seeing an increase in data science
383 training programmes and in the number of students enrolled in those programmes as part of
384 a wider push towards ‘digital transformation’. But these programmes often emphasise
385 technical aspects and have a very cursory engagement with data science ethics (Oliver &
386 McNeil, 2021). Our argument is that reflexivity and a degree of critical social science should
387 be seen as an essential component of any applied data science training.
388
389 The idea that everyone can be both teacher and learner in EO-for-development is reinforced
390 by our own experiences in the first two years of the AfriCultuReS project. The project
391 consortium is formed of strong partnerships between African and European partner
392 organisations, and learning from each other over the course of the project has been a
393 privilege. But the nature of the funding scheme meant that the consortium does not include
394 anticipated end-users of AfriCultuReS products. In the original project design, in-person
395 engagements with users were also scheduled for later in the project schedule. While we
396 recognised this as an issue early in the project lifespan and sought to shift closer to a co-
397 design model, a complete change in approach was impossible, particularly within the time
398 and resource constraints of a four-year project. As Findlater et al. (2021) point out, the
399 success of climate and other EO data services is all about relationships; and equitable,
400 meaningful relationships take time to build and a different, often under-valued set of skills.
401
402 The approach to capacity development we propose here would be one of continuous
403 reflexivity and learning, but we recognise that this does not necessarily integrate neatly with
404 the project-based nature of much EO-for-development work. However, there are pragmatic
405 steps which can be taken within projects such as AfriCultuReS as part of this collective

f
406 learning process. At the project design stage, EO-for-development can learn from established

oo
407 best practice in parallel disciplines, using resources such as the Principles for Digital
408 Development (https://digitalprinciples.org) or the Ethical Standards in ICT4D (Dearden &

r
409 Kleine, 2018). Capacity development activities can be designed to reach across different
410
411
-p
disciplinary boundaries, such as by publishing reflexive pieces in traditionally natural science
journals (Vincent et al., 2019 in Nature Climate Change is a good example). Projects can
re
412 ensure that in-country partners are project leads or co-leads – including partners who are not
413 from technical EO backgrounds. And projects can aim to broker connections and support
lP

414 existing EO-for-development activities occurring in-country, to avoid competing with and
415 undermining locally-led programmes. In all cases, funding organisations have a powerful role
416 to play, given their power to shape who is represented in project leadership and whether is
na

417 sufficient time to build meaningful and equitable relationships.

418
419 Thus far we have framed our argument in terms of the capacity development needed if EO
ur

420 data services are to improve the wellbeing of poorer and marginalised peoples – the stated
421 goal of most EO-for-development initiatives. But here, we return to the challenge of conflicting
Jo

422 motivations mentioned earlier. Those most able to drive transformative change are often
423 those who also benefit most from the status quo. It is easy to talk about building the capacity
424 of ‘the poor’ in African countries. It is much harder for those involved in the development of
425 EO data services to reflect critically on their own actions and positionality, acknowledge that
426 meaningful societal change may require personal or organisational sacrifices, and then
427 continue to prioritise the pursuit of meaningful change over all other competing motivations.
428

429 6. Conclusions
430
431 The objective of this piece was to outline some of the barriers reducing the impacts of EO
432 data service initiatives and the capacity development required to address these barriers.
433 Approaches which are already commonly included in capacity development toolkits, such as
434 technical training programs and development of open data resources, are addressing some
435 important capacity gaps. But we argue that a transformative capacity development approach
436 would need to go further, beyond unidirectional knowledge transfer approaches to systems-
437 based approaches which also include people and organisations with high technical
438 knowledge and in Global North as well as Global South. This would develop the capacities
439 required to engage in meaningful and equitable co-design processes for EO data services,
440 and to challenge the relational dynamics of power which currently exclude certain groups
441 from using EO data.
442

443 7. References
444
445 1. Adriansen, H.K. and Madsen, L.M. (2019) Capacity-building projects in African higher education: Issues of
446 coloniality in international academic collaboration. Learning and Teaching 12: 1-23.
447
448 2. Alexandridis, T.K., Ovakoglou, G., Cherif, I., Gómez-Giménez, M., Laneve, G., Kasampalis, D., Moshou,
449 D., Kartsios, S., Karypidou, M.C., Katragkou, E., Herrera García, S., Kganyago, M., Mashiyi, N., Pattnayak,
450 K., Challinor, A., Pritchard, R., Brockington, D., Kagoyire, C. & Suarex Beltrán, J. (2020) Designing
451 AfriCultuReS services to support food security in Africa.
452
453 3. Alsop, R. & Heinsohn, N. (2005) Measuring empowerment in practice: structuring analysis and framing
454 indicators. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3510
455

f
oo
456 4. Anderson, K., Ryan, B., Sonntag, W., Kavvada, A. and Friedl, L. (2017) Earth observation in service of the
457 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Geo-spatial Information Science 20: 77-96.
458
459

r
5. Bockstael, E. (2017) Critical capacity development: An action research approach in coastal Brazil. World
460 Development 94: 336-345 -p
461
462 6. Brasseur, G.P. and Gallardo, L. (2016) Climate services: Lessons learned and future prospects. Earth's
re
463 Future 4: 79-89
464
465
lP

7. Carr, E.R., Goble, R., Rosko, H.M., Vaughan, C. and Hansen, J. (2020) Identifying climate information
466 services users and their needs in Sub-Saharan Africa: a review and learning agenda. Climate and
467 Development 12: 23-41
468
na

469 8. Cohen, J.M. (1993) Building sustainable public sector managerial, professional and technical capacity: a
470 framework for analysis. Development Discussion Paper no. 473. Cambridge MA: Harvard Institute for
471 International Development.
ur

472
473 9. Cord, A.F., Brauman, K.A., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Huth, A., Ziv, G. and Seppelt, R. (2017) Priorities to
474 advance monitoring of ecosystem services using earth observation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 32: 416-
Jo

475 428.
476
477 10. Craig, G. (2007) Community capacity-building: Something old, something new...?. Critical Social Policy 27:
478 335-359.
479
480 11. Daly, M. and Dilling, L. (2019) The politics of “usable” knowledge: examining the development of climate
481 services in Tanzania. Climatic Change 157: 61-80.
482
483 12. Dearden, A. & Kleine, D. (2019) Ethical standards for the ICTD/ICT4D community: a participatory process
484 and co-created document. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on information and
485 communication technologies and development. New York, ACM Press.
486
487 13. Eade, D. (2007) Capacity building: who builds whose capacity?. Development in Practice 17: 630-639
488
489 14. Espey, J. (2019) Sustainable development will falter without data. Nature 571: 299-300
490
491 15. European Commission (2014) Horizon 2020 in brief - The EU Framework Programme for Research &
492 Innovation. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Directorate A – Policy Development &
493 Coordination, Unit A.1 – Internal & External communication, Brussels
494
495 16. Findlater, K., Webber, S., Kandlikar, M. and Donner, S., 2021. Climate services promise better decisions
496 but mainly focus on better data. Nature Climate Change, pp.1-7.
497
498 17. Hansen, J.W., Vaughan, C., Kagabo, D.M., Dinku, T., Carr, E.R., Körner, J. and Zougmoré, R.B. (2019)
499 Climate services can support African farmers' context-specific adaptation needs at scale. Frontiers in
500 Sustainable Food Systems 3: 21
501
502 18. Hewitson, B. (2015) To build capacity, build confidence. Nature Geoscience 8: 497-499
503
504 19. Ingram, K.T., Roncoli, M.C. and Kirshen, P.H. (2002) Opportunities and constraints for farmers of West
505 Africa to use seasonal precipitation forecasts with Burkina Faso as a case study. Agricultural Systems 74:
506 331-349
507
508 20. Jerven, M. (2013) Poor numbers: how we are misled by African development statistics and what to do about
509 it. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
510
511 21. Jew, E.K., Whitfield, S., Dougill, A.J., Mkwambisi, D.D. and Steward, P. (2020) Farming systems and
512 Conservation Agriculture: Technology, structures and agency in Malawi. Land Use Policy 95: 104612
513
514 22. Kleine, D. (2011) The capability approach and the ‘medium of choice’: steps towards conceptualising

f
515

oo
information and communication technologies for development. Ethics and Information Technology 13: 119-
516 130.
517
518 23. Kristjanson, P., Reid, R.S., Dickson, N., Clark, W.C., Romney, D., Puskur, R., MacMillan, S. and Grace, D.

r
519 (2009) Linking international agricultural research knowledge with action for sustainable
520
521
-p
development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 5047-5052
re
522 24. Makate, C. (2019) Local institutions and indigenous knowledge in adoption and scaling of climate-smart
523 agricultural innovations among sub-Saharan smallholder farmers. International Journal of Climate Change
524 Strategies and Management 12: 270-287
lP

525
526 25. Msangi, S., Rosegrant, M.W. and You, L. (2006) Ex post assessment methods of climate forecast
527 impacts. Climate Research 33: 67-79
na

528
529 26. Mugisha, V.M. (2015) Toward purposeful individual capacity strengthening: alternative considerations for
530 Western NGOs. Development in Practice 25: 247-258
ur

531
532 27. Nkiaka, E., Taylor, A., Dougill, A.J., Antwi-Agyei, P., Fournier, N., Bosire, E.N., Konte, O., Lawal, K.A.,
533 Mutai, B., Mwangi, E. and Ticehurst, H. (2019) Identifying user needs for weather and climate services to
Jo

534 enhance resilience to climate shocks in sub-Saharan Africa. Environmental Research Letters 14: 123003
535
536 28. Oliver, J.C. and McNeil, T. (2021) Undergraduate data science degrees emphasize computer science and
537 statistics but fall short in ethics training and domain-specific context. PeerJ Computer Science, 7, p.e441.
538
539 29. Principles for Digital Development. www.digitalprinciples.org; last accessed 25 September 2021
540
541 30. Roudier, P., Alhassane, A., Baron, C., Louvet, S. and Sultan, B. (2016) Assessing the benefits of weather
542 and seasonal forecasts to millet growers in Niger. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 223: 168-180
543
544 31. Shukla, S., Macharia, D., Husak, G.J., Landsfeld, M., Nakalembe, C.L., Blakeley, S.L., Adams, E.C. and
545 Way-Henthorne, J., 2021. Enhancing access and usage of earth observations in environmental decision-
546 making in Eastern and Southern Africa through capacity building. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5: 504063. doi:
547 10.3389/fsufs.
548
549 32. Tall, A., Coulibaly, J.Y. and Diop, M. (2018) Do climate services make a difference? A review of evaluation
550 methodologies and practices to assess the value of climate information services for farmers: Implications
551 for Africa. Climate Services 11: 1-12
552
553 33. Tedmanson, D. (2012) Whose capacity needs building? In: A. Prasad (ed) Against the grain: advances in
554 postcolonial organisational studies. Copenhagen Business School Press, Denmark. pp. 249-275
555
556 34. Ubels, J., Acquaye-Baddoo, N., Fowler, A. (2010) Capacity development in practice. Earthscan Press,
557 Washington DC
558
559 35. Vaughan, C., Buja, L., Kruczkiewicz, A. and Goddard, L. (2016) Identifying research priorities to advance
560 climate services. Climate Services 4: 65-74
561
562 36. Vaughan, C., Hansen, J., Roudier, P., Watkiss, P. and Carr, E. (2019) Evaluating agricultural weather and
563 climate services in Africa: Evidence, methods, and a learning agenda. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
564 Climate Change 10: e586.
565
566 37. Vincent, K., Carter, S., Steynor, A., Visman, E. and Wågsæther, K.L. (2020) Addressing power imbalances
567 in co-production. Nature Climate Change 10(: 877-878.
568
569 38. Vincent, K., Daly, M., Scannell, C. and Leathes, B. (2018) What can climate services learn from theory and
570 practice of co-production? Climate Services 12: 48-58.
571
572 39. Vogel, C., Steynor, A. and Manyuchi, A. (2019) Climate services in Africa: Re-imagining an inclusive, robust
573 and sustainable service. Climate Services 15: 100107.

f
574

oo
575 40. Wignaraja, K. (2009) Capacity development: a UNDP primer. UNDP, USA
576
577 41. Woldai, T. (2020) The status of Earth Observation (EO) & Geo-Information Sciences in Africa–trends and

r
578 challenges. Geo-spatial Information Science 23: 107-123
579
580
-p
42. Wubneh, M. (2003) Building capacity in Africa: The impact of institutional, policy and resource
581
re
factors. African Development Review 15: 165-198
582
583 43. Ziervogel, G., Cowen, A. and Ziniades, J. (2016) Moving from adaptive to transformative capacity: Building
lP

584 foundations for inclusive, thriving, and regenerative urban settlements. Sustainability 8: 955
585
586
na

587
ur
Jo
Declaration of interests

☒The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo