| Capacity
building is about increasing the abilities and resources of individuals,
organisations and communities to manage change.
 Capacity
building -
Read this for two definitions of capacity building
Capital
- Capacity
building involves human, social, physical, financial and natural capital.
Communities
of practice
Communities of practice
are commonly referred to with capacity building. A prerequisite to improving
the stock of capital, which is integral to capacity building is involving
the people and groups whose practices and access to capital are integral
to improving a particular situation and achieving a specified goal, the
relevant community of practice.
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 are not capacity building.
Who
“does” capacity building? The
stakeholders in the relevant communities of practice “do” capacity building.
Capacity
building
A definition used in a research
report (link to research report Growing the Capital of Rural Australia
– the Task of Capacity Building) completed for the cooperative venture
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 (link to http://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=7AB47618-E7BE-4823-8E98346A6D93EFF1
):
"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 while financial and natural capital are self explanatory.
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.
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, is
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 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.
|
