About
Capacity Building
Capacity building is about increasing
the abilities and resources of individuals, organisations and communities
to manage change.
Capacity
building - Definitions
Capital
- Capacity building involves human, social, physical, financial and natural
capital.
Communities
of practice - Communities of practice are commonly referred to
with capacity building.
How
do you know if it’s capacity building? - Five elements to identify
whether a project is a capacity building one.
What
capacity building isn’t - Three elements that indicate a project is
not a capacity building one.
Who
“does” capacity building? - The stakeholders in the relevant communities
of practice “do” capacity building.
Capacity
building
A definition used in a CVCB
research report Growing
the Capacity of Rural Australia – the Task of Capacity Building is:
“externally
or internally initiated processes designed to help individuals and groups
associated with rural Australia to appreciate and manage their changing
circumstances, with the objective of improving the stock of human, social,
financial, physical and natural capital in an ethically defensible way.”
It occurs when relevant communities
of practice consciously use their stock of human and social capital and
their access to financial, physical and natural capital to improve a problematic
situation, and improve the stock of capital in the process.
A definition specific to
capacity building in natural resources management was given in the National
NRM Capacity Building Framework:
"Capacity building
relates to a range of activities by which individuals, groups and organisations
improve their capacity to achieve sustainable NRM. Capacity in this context
includes awareness, skills, knowledge, motivation, commitment and confidence.
While regional bodies are the target audience for capacity building, it
is equally an issue for diverse players such as landcare groups, indigenous
communities, industry sectors, local government and State/Territory and
Commonwealth Government agencies.
Capacity building for NRM
goes beyond the traditional top down approach of enhancing skills and knowledge
through training and the provision of technical advice. It focuses
on enhancing genuine community engagement in all aspects of NRM from planning
to on-ground actions. Therefore, in addition to the transfer of technology
and technical capability, capacity building should foster social cohesion
within communities, and build both human and social capital.”
Capital
Capacity building involves
human, social, physical, financial and natural capital. Human capital
refers to the capability of individuals while social capital refers
to the level to which social networks, relationships and processes within
a community support individuals to exercise their capabilities. Physical
capital refers to infrastructure; financial capital to goods
and services produced through human effort including both physical and
financial knowledge; and natural capital to the renewable and non-renewable
resources found in nature; useful and required for human existence. Taking
the definition and the different forms of capital, capacity building involves
improvement in:
business profitability and sustainability
industry profitability and sustainability
the ecological health of catchments
the wellbeing of people
the wellbeing of their communities.
The ethical aspect of
capacity building comes about because different sorts of capital can be
substituted for others e.g. if we don’t have knowledge we need we use financial
capital to buy it (advisors); if natural capital in the form of soil fertility
is deficient, we use financial capital to buy fertiliser; if community
relationships are poor (social capital), one solution is to build a community
centre (physical capital).
Communities
of practice
Capacity building involves
improving the stock of capital. A prerequisite to doing this is involving
the people and groups whose practices and access to capital are integral
to improving a particular situation and achieving a specified goal. In
this way, those who have an interest in or are affected by the outcome
of capacity building are a community of practice.
A community of practice can
be small, e.g. a farm family determining a succession plan or large e.g.
a town or an industry. The community of practice involved in determining
a succession plan could include family members, including those not directly
involved in the farm enterprise; a solicitor; an accountant; and a mediator.
A community of practice involved in developing a strategic plan for an
agricultural industry could include individual farmers, farmers organisations,
community groups, marketers, customers (such as buyers, processors, value
adders and consumers); the banking and finance sectors; regulatory, research
and extension agencies; and local government.
Communities of practice have
a profound effect on their members because they define what it means to
be competent e.g. a competent low-input grower of organic vegetables or
a competent manager of a corporate cotton farm. Each is likely to be 'in
step with a different drummer'. Similarly, agricultural extension officers,
agri-business advisers and natural resource management facilitators constitute
different communities of practice (despite urging to merge).
Communities of practice can
inhibit or promote new ways of doing things. Individuals are members of
more than one community of practice (e.g. business person, amateur golfer,
church goer) and this provides scope for import of new ideas. If, however,
diverse communities of practice can be engaged in collaborative learning
the scope not only for new ways of thinking, but importantly in capacity
building terminology, new ways of acting, are enhanced.
The capacity building challenge
is to engage the diverse communities of practice 'whose practices and access
to capital are integral to improving the situation'. This is no mean feat
because they often dislike each other and the way they view the situation.
If they can be engaged there is the potential for a new community of practice
related to the problematic situation to emerge, and this will be a capacity
building goal.
How do you know if
it’s capacity building?
How do you identify whether
a project is a capacity building one, or not? A number of fundamental elements
are listed below as a guide. Check these questions.
Is the program based on co-learning
- so that everyone who has knowledge relevant to the project, is willing
to share, and to learn? If this is not the case then the project is unlikely
to be a capacity building one. A provider/user perspective can have this
effect if the relationship is not a two-way street. Where agencies or organisations
(providers) develop and offer training, information or resources for users,
such as landowners unequal power relations often distort perceptions and
expectations. Within a capacity building relationship "providers" also
see themselves as 'users' of information and resources held by other
stakeholders, the landholders for example.
Do the initial goals of action-taking
vary among stakeholders, e.g. an increase in financial capital for commercial
agents, physical and financial capital for farmers, social capital for
community groups, and human capital for educators? A “one-size-fits-all”
approach where there is one (often imposed) goal for taking action to improve
a particular situation, is not taken with capacity building.
Are incentives tailored to meet
the goals of different stake-holders, e.g. a tax incentive or access to
infrastructure funds for those seeking an increase in physical or financial
capital? Offering a single incentive to all stakeholders is not likely
to stimulate participation in capacity building.
Do other stakeholders participate
in a joint effort to improve a problematic situation? This participation
provides a context for generating shared increases in the stock of human,
social, financial, physical and natural capital.
Is leadership style facilitative
and does it result in all stakeholders being able to initiate action to
do with the project? Facilitative leadership is essential for building
and maintaining a pattern of reflective practice†
among stakeholders in a joint effort to improve a problematic situation.
If leadership style is top down or the leader comes from a funding group
or organisation that sees itself as the one to which the group is “accountable”
then it is unlikely that capacity building principles are being implemented.
†Reflective
practice refers to on-the-spot surfacing, criticising, restructuring, and
testing of intuitive understandings of your experience with a particular
event or activity. It is an important part of capacity building as it allows
learning and co learning to occur.
What capacity building
isn’t
Capacity building isn’t education
and training or technology transfer although they are tools that can be
used to develop capacity.
It isn’t about experts imparting
knowledge to others, rather capacity building is based on the concept of
everyone learning together (co-learning), and this can be with input from
people who have special expertise.
It isn’t a process where an
organisation external to the process can determine the final outcome.
Who “does” capacity
building?
The people who should be
involved are those whose practices and access to capital are integral to
improving a particular situation, i.e. stakeholders in the relevant communities
of practice who, in turn, form a new community of practice for the purpose
of capacity building. In this context defining some communities of practice
as providers and others as users is counter-productive. All are co-learners
in the new communities of practice they form.
Back to top
of page
Copyright CVCB 2004
