Overall objectives of the Capacity Building
The overall objective of the programme is to increase awareness and operationalized IGAD capacity building initiatives by supporting Member States to achieve closer regional economic integration through the implementation of the agreed agenda, provide technical assistance to IGAD Secretariat, Directorate to ensure the proper and timely implementation of the programme and the efficient use of resources in capacity development.
The specific objectives of the capacity development with development partners are
Provide a forum for information exchange, coordination and complementarities among partners in the planning, implementation and monitoring of activities;
- Ensure effective links with different capacity building programs funded by development partners
- Establish effective links with other programs and ensure integration of cross cutting issues as appropriate;
- Ensure that development partners are aware of relevant policy guidelines and technical standards and that response is coherent to the greatest extent possible.
- Advocate for donors to fund priority activities while concurrently encourage synergies in mobilizes resources for their activities through their usual channels and complement the ongoing programs.
Addressing Challenges Facing IGAD and Member States
Capacity building interventions to strengthen overall IGAD policy initiatives is important to the building of regional integration and ownership among member states.
In this context, integrating the objectives of policy development capacity building would be well served, if, among other issues, it simplifies the complex overwhelming IGAD agenda. There are dire needs in these areas, just as much as there are ongoing efforts to address some of them.
The central pillars of the capacity building program activities aim at
- Establishing foundational competencies and community of practice for better understanding and implementation of initiatives within the framework of drought resilience and regional integration;
- Strengthening skills and enhancing knowledge in across IGAD Divisions
- Skills building in cross cutting areas such as data management, monitoring and evaluation, best procurement practices, and communications
- Creation of a cadre of who could become the core of “IGAD policy management professionals” over the longer term.
For this reason, the capacity building program propose in this conceptual framework is thus an attmept intended to serve as a platform for exchange of knowledge, experiences and information on regional matters as well as on the coordination of in-country proposals to enhance dialogue and policy impact of IGAD-member states relations. The program will utilize the already available documents and align those documents with the vision, mission and best practices in this endeavor.
The rationale of the concept note is to support the issues related to capacity outlined in ISAP and Drought Resilience Strategy and response to the emerging new development and institution setup and changing needs to deliver efficient quality of technical work required. In order to achieve the above goals the following three areas need to be address as prerequisites:
- The Capacity Expansion Objective
- Quality Improvement Objective, and
- Efficiency Improvement.
The major focus on this institutional capacity building program is to do deliver activities that meet the expectation of member states rather than the normal way of doing usual business in delivering simple activities, innovating new methods of delivery the program and new policy focus agenda.
The Conceptual Framework of the Capacity Building Program
The underlying objective of the capacity building program is to enhance human and institutional capabilities for good economic governance and address the emerging regional issues including the drought resilience. A common understanding of what is meant by capacity, governance and institution is a sine qua non for the success of this program. The program will be based on IGAD- ISAP document and recent IDDRSI Strategy.
The Paris declaration for Aid Effectiveness urges developing countries to make capacity development a key goal of their national development strategies. Donors understand that capacity cannot be imported as a turnkey operation. Instead, it must be developed from within, with donors and their experts acting as catalysts, facilitators, and brokers of knowledge and technique. Despite widespread agreement on these general principles, the results of efforts to develop capacity have persistently fallen short of expectations (OECD 2005; OECD 2006; World Bank 2007). Why?
The problem begins with a lack of consensus about the operational definition of capacity development and the results that can be expected from capacity development efforts. Most official definitions of capacity and capacity development are very broad.
This lack of clarity makes it extremely difficult to evaluate the outcome of such work and to understand its impact (see, for example, World Bank 2005).
Most critical reviews of capacity development practice also find that many programs are poorly grounded in theory and lack consistent conceptual frameworks (see, for example, Taylor and Clarke 2008). The approaches to capacity development are many, and most are characterized by vague and inconsistent concepts and lack of a common terminology. The processes by which change occurs are not well understood, the importance of strategy is often overlooked, and the links between outcomes of capacity development efforts and development goals are poorly articulated (World Bank 2006).
The World Bank Institute (2006) has summed up the problem in practical terms:
“Most efforts at capacity development remain fragmented, making it difficult to capture cross-sectoral influences and to draw general conclusions. Many capacity development activities are not founded on rigorous needs assessments and do not include appropriate sequencing of measures aimed at institutional or organizational change and individual skill building. What is needed is a more comprehensive and sustained approach, one that builds a permanent capacity to manage sectors and deliver services. Finally, better tools are needed to track, monitor, and evaluate capacity development efforts”.
UNDP defines capacity as “the ability of individuals and organizations or organizational units to perform functions effectively, efficiently and sustainably” (UNDP, 1997:11). An alternative definition provided by the World Bank, defines capacity as “the ability to access and use knowledge to perform a task” (World Bank, 2002). Deng and Kategile (2004) use a combination of the above two definitions in defining capacity as “the ability of individuals or organizations to acquire knowledge and skills and to use them to perform a specific task effectively, efficiently and sustainably.”
For instance, “Capacity’ is understood as the ability of people, organizations and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully. … ‘Capacity development’ is understood as the process whereby people, organizations and society as a whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt and maintain capacity over time” (OECD, 2006).
Ability and performance are some of the key features of capacity that are of special interest to this program. For instance, selection of participants envisaged to benefit from this program must include ability to learn (i.e. Acquire new knowledge and skills) as one of the critical criteria. Moreover, to acquire knowledge is more critical than to “access” knowledge. A learner can access information but not knowledge; for knowledge is earned (i.e. learnt or acquired). Similarly, a person may have access to knowledge, but without necessarily learning much to enable her/him to undertake a given task that requires a certain level of know-how in order to ensure effectiveness and efficiency. Although interrelated and sometimes used interchangeably, skills and knowledge are quite different. For the purpose of this document, skill is the “art of doing” things as opposed to “know how to do” things, which is knowledge. Two individuals may have the same knowledge, but have different skills. Learning is then a process of acquiring asset, such as knowledge.
Performance is the second characteristic of capacity, which is of particular interest especially as it relates to the quality of economic governance – in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability. The quest for quality (in this case, good economic governance) is the ultimate objective in the performance of any task by an individual, organization and/or state. But in order to ensure quality performance, a task to be performed must clearly be defined. For example, in the case of drought resilience program the core functions/tasks are (a) advocate for multi-sectoral approaches with regional perspective require strong political buy-in and deep analysis of the compatible methods to deliver the capacity.
These are the core functions that call for the capacity of member states to be enhanced their commitment, so as to ensure that it achieves the key objectives stated in the resilience steerage in Interim Period.
The effectiveness of the program would be judged, among other things, on how the overriding objectives of the three pillars of ISAP and resilience have been addressed.
On governance, a comprehensive definition of governance is given by Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi (KKM) as:
“The traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes (1) the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced, (2) the capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies, and (3) the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them” .
Turning to institution, reminiscent of “capacity,” there are numerous definitions of institutions. However, for the purpose of this document, only five definitions have been identified. The definitions that were identified include the following:
- “Working rules of collective action in restraint, liberation, and expansion of individual action” John R. Commons: (1959 : 73).
- “Rules and conventions of society that facilitate coordination among people regarding their behavior” . Vernon Ruttan and Yujiro Hayami (1984).
Drought Resilience Framework
Priority Intervention Areas (PIAs)
- PIA 1: Natural resources and environment management
- PIA 2: Market Access, Trade and Financial Services
- PIA 3: Livelihood Support and Basic Social services
- PIA 4: Disaster Risk Management, Preparedness and Effective Response
- PIA 5:Research, Knowledge Management and Technology Transfer
- PIA 6: Conflict Prevention, Resolution and Peace Building
- PIA 7: Coordination, Institutional Strengthening and Partnerships
- Priority Intervention Areas (PIAs)