Joint statement on results and capacity development

Dear LenCD colleagues,

As announced in the May 2011 LenCD Updates, LenCD has launched a process, which aims at demonstrating that sustainable results are premised on proper investments in capacity development. The aim of this process is to have influential stakeholders advocate for results-orientation in a manner that leaves space for CD processes, in the run-up to the Busan High-Level Forum.

The initiative recognises that, while both developing countries and development partners are focusing on results, they have difficulties in balancing short and long term results, as well as in identifying the relevant level of results that logically follow from joined investments in CD and, crucially, include the dimensions that ensure the sustainability of results - that is, the underlying capacities of individuals, organisations and systems.

The LenCD initiative includes the preparation of a joint short statement which attempts to bridge what is often an apparent divide between Results-Based Management and Capacity Development communities, by stressing that meaningful, sustainable results require and follow from investments in capacity development and that results materialize at different levels, within different scopes and time-horizons.

After a first round of comments to an early draft from LenCD’s steering group members, a new version has been prepared and is posted here, on the LenCD website, for discussion and comments. In revising the joint statement, we have tried out best to reflect the broad spirit of the initial comments, while at the same time trying to keep it realistically brief. The present version is, therefore, still very much a draft for discussion.

Against this background, we would like to invite you to review the joint statement and participate in this discussion forum. Based on the discussion and the comments that we will receive over the next 2 weeks, we will aim at having a final version ready by 8 July, which we will then askyou to endorse.

Let us clarify here that, for endorsement we mean a ‘light’ endorsement by CD practitioners in and beyond LenCD, and not any formal endorsement by governments, development organisations or other partners. We would like to be able to say “The statement has been developed and endorsed by members of the LenCD, including capacity development practitioners from (countries a,b,c,) and (organisations x,y,z).  

In addition to comments to the statement, we propose that we start a discussion around some of the very fruitful initial issues that have been raised around the idea of this results work-stream:

1.       Focus on sustainable results as a starting point, as opposed to capacity development

The statement, as it stands, now starts from sustainable results and then works backwards and argues that these are premised on investments in CD. Deliberately, this is a different choice than starting from CD and arguing “forward”, if you will, that this will lead to sustainable results.

Both lines of argument are, of course, correct. However, here we would like to suggest breaking away with our longstanding focus on CD. For more than a decade we have argued for the importance of CD, however, we cannot claim that we have been understood or heard as much as we would have wanted to.

We are, therefore, suggesting pitching our message at the level of sustainable results (i.e. increased performance, better services delivery, etc...), which are those that most matter, both to developing countries and development partners. By starting from sustainable results, and arguing that they are rooted in capacity (and therefore, when needed, on investments in CD), we want to engage more directly with those who are (yes, admittedly, sometimes a little too narrowly) focused on results.

Therefore, with the joint statements we suggest zooming in on sustainable results, and out on capacity development; rather than the other way round, which has been for years our traditional approach. The intention is not to give in on any of the fundamentals we believe in – but rather to meet those we want to engage with on their own turf, instead of waiting for them to come to us. 

2.       Terminology

Colleagues have recommended using the statement to make more clarity around the term capacity development.

The quote is another version of a so frequent – and correct – observation that has repeated itself over so many years of advocacy for CD. This quote, however, is maybe one of the reasons why it has been so difficult to break the glass ceiling for CD. Against this, it is our suggestion that we instead try to use a language around results, the different types of results and the different timescales for results – instead of hammering out another version of the more or less standard definition of CD that we all refer to (and that is not very specific) –.

3.       CD requires a long term perspective vs. the pressure for short-term results

A final issue that is worth discussing more is how to gain weight behind, and acceptance of, the fact that CD takes time. While politicians, in both donor and partner countries, are pushing for short term and visible results, some would say that this, to a degree, leaves little space for CD.

In the draft joint statement, the argument is mostly driven around a focus on the time it takes for different types of results to materialise. For instance, some of these results are intermediary, such as a group of stakeholders who are ready to engage and work for change, or the increased capacity of an organisation to interact with its clients. Performance results, such as better service delivery, instead, take longer; and ultimately, sustainable impact, which is driven by domestic capacity that allows a country to graduate from development assistance, takes much longer. So, basically, instead of saying that CD takes time, we are suggesting to argue that meaningful, sustainable results take time, and that results-based management regimes must acknowledge and work with that reality. 

The bottom line – and we invite a discussion about this – is to phrase the CD discourse in terms of results, to explore if this can bring us forward up to Busan – without throwing our CD baby out with the bathwater.Is this a useful approach, and does the statement strike the balance, keeping it short and succinct?

4.       Action – What is next?

Once we get to a good narrative and content of the statement, the big question for all of us would be: how can we push this shared agenda forward?

Various suggestions have already been made.

a)      All of us can play a role, individually and collectively, to influence the way our respective organisations approach the results agenda.

b)      We can also, through our individual networks and channels, seek to bring the thinking behind the statement onwards to others (colleagues, partners, etc), in the various processes that lead up to Busan.

c)       The statement ends with an invite to consider a multi-partner facility to support partner countries’ pursuit of sustainable development results, which are grounded on investments in capacities. Is this an interesting proposal that we should consider taking some steps further over the next months?

d)       Should the statement end with other recommendations for action? One suggestion in this direction would be to turn the statement into a more formal mutual commitment to a set of principles, as in the PD and AAA, which might facilitate potential pick up for the HLF IV.

e)      Collecting, from different LenCD partners and other organizations within our respective networks, short (1-2 pages) and compelling stories on CD investments that have led to sustainable results, which can support through evidence the joint statement in Busan.

f)       A small event in September to deepen forward thinking, arguments and additional steps up to and beyond Busan, regarding results and capacity development.  Not a big splash for which we have neither money nor time, but a couple of days to strategize and package what this processes has generated.

What are other suggestions for pushing this agenda through in Busan? Which strategic alliances should LenCD promote and/or pursue?

Dear LenCD colleagues,

As part of our ongoing work on the results agenda, we are pleased to launch a call for submission of stories on results and capacity development, to provide evidence in support of our joint statement  on results and CD, and which will be presented in Busan.

For the development of stories on results and CD, please, follow the enclosed guidelines and the example story from Azerbaijan. While recognizing that the Azerbaijan story, provided here as an example, still needs some additional and stronger evidence, we hope that it can guide you in the development, or re-packaging, of  your own stories. These stories should clearly and concisely (not more than 2 pages) articulate how development results achieved within countries, sectors or institutions, have followed from investments in capacity development, which have been supported by exogenous and (mainly) endogenous CD processes.

Stories submitted by southern partners (i.e. the Cairo workshop participants and others), that clearly show how sustainable development results are premised on endogenous capacity development processes, are considered critical to support the joint statement on results and CD, and for bringing forward the CD agenda in Busan in a meaningful way.

Please, send your stories to alessandra.casazza@undp.orgby Tuesday, the 26^th of July, for review by a LenCD review group (soon to be established) and subsequent publication.

We look forward to receiving your inputs.

While the statement is useful, we also need to move towards action.  Building on the recent Evaluation of the Paris Declaration might help to chart some paths for future work.

The Evaluation finds that progress in developing capacity has been limited and identifies several underlying causes:

-           “The destination for the reform is not always clearly or commonly understood…” (page 35).  The report suggests that partner countries need to prioritize the areas where they need support in developing capacity – in other words, understand what capacity is required as the end result of the process of capacity development.

-          The Evaluation sees capacity as an organic process and suggests that engineered solutions, which generally involve definition of results in advance, do not usually work (page xv).

-          The Evaluation suggests that "donors and agencies have so far demonstrated less commitment than partner countries to making the necessary changes (to improve aid effectiveness) in their own systems." (page xv). There has been a lot of emphasis on helping partner countries to change their approaches but less on how donors and agencies can make changes. 

These insights suggest some activities which could push the capacity development agenda forward:

-          Organising seminars and courses for donors and partner countries to help develop a common understanding of capacity and capacity development and what this implies for programming. This should include an emphasis on iterative approaches that help to find good fits with the context, rather than on finding “one size fits all” solutions.  

-          Rethinking the “results” demanded by results-based management to emphasize the importance of process and of strengthening the organisations responsible for those processes. 

-          Setting up a group that looks at the incentive systems under which donors work, such as national interests and financial and procedural systems. The group would develop strategies for how these incentive systems could be adapted to support new approaches to development, including capacity development.  Such a group could build on the thinking begun by Owen Barder of the Centre for Global Development in his paper entitled Beyond Planning: Markets and Networks for Better Aid (2009).