7.

CAPACITY BUILDING t p u
NSA support programmes often appear to be vast and complex entities
with regard to the nature of the objectives sought, which seek profound
changes across a plethora of domains. It is thus that the programmes
generally integrate several components that stretch from the capacity
building of individual organisations and their representatives to the
relationship aspects of networking and to questions of political dialogue
with the State in its different dimensions.
This multi dimensional nature of programmes conforms precisely with
the systemic nature of capacity building.

The Definition of Capacity Building

Capacity Building has become one of the recurring themes in institutional literature and in the
agenda of public administrations, international agencies and governmental and nongovernmental
organisations. However, despite its increasing importance from the point of view of dialogue and the
activities of organisations, there is not, at this point in time, a single, unequivocal definition
of the concept of capacity building.

In a strictly institutional sense, capacity building refers to the process of optimising the skills of
individuals and institutional support of one or more organisations.

On the basis of this definition and in respect of the spirit of the Cotonou Agreement, one can define
capacity building as the process aiming to facilitate, in conjunction with the stakeholders, a
consolidation of their capacities at an individual, organisational and sectoral level to allow
them to evolve and adapt to the new contextual requirements and fulfil their role within a
governance structure. This model is based on six principles:

The principle of pragmatism: it is important to build on what already exists; that is to say
that it is imperative that there is a core of competence that can be built upon and not an
ideal to be attained.
The principle of means - capacity building cannot be considered a goal in itself and
processes capacity building needs time to have an impact.
The principle of participation: capacity building must be undertaken with the direct
participation of the persons or organisations involved.
The principle of multi dimensionality: capacity building can, and should by default be
applied to three different levels for a systemic perspective: the individual level, the
organisational level and the relational and institutional level
The principle of the environment, firstly as a conditioning factor (positive or negative) on the
possibilities for capacity building of stakeholders and, secondly, as an element that one can
aspire to transform (the aforementioned institutional level).
The principle of flexibility and the adaptation capacity in different contexts: there is no
magic formula or blue print for capacity building. The different current approaches are the
product of a plethora of strategies, methods and resources focused on changing mentalities
such as the development of certain technical skills and the exchange of knowledge and skills.
Source : M. Floridi et B. Sanz Corella

As one can note, this systemic capacity building model is based on three levels:

Building individual capacity where questions linked to strategic leadership are also
handled;
The organisational level, with particular attention on issues such as identity, as well as the
effectiveness and efficiency criteria;
The level of sectoral institutional support, where the basic questions are those on the
development of skills and capacity for cooperation with other stakeholders and the creation of
a legal and institutional framework adapted to the needs of organisations.

As regards Capacity Building :

Lessons learned from the directives developed by the partners involved in Civil Society Support net
http://www.civilsocietysupport.net/doc/civil_society_-_guidelines_october_07_final.pdf
The discussions revolving around capacity building are numerous and animated. Different technical and financial
partners define capacity in different ways. Nonetheless, certain basic principles are held by the majority.
Capacity building is a matter of creating dynamism and apprenticeships, rather than a transfer of
knowledge. The question of ownership is, therefore, fundamental.
The point of departure for capacity building is to build on what already exists.
Capacity Building must aim for durable apprenticeships and recognise that the perfect solutions do not
exist. Each initiative must be considered in its own context and conceived as a product of specific needs.
It is useful to differentiation between support to civil society organisations (where the prime goal is that of
developing capacity) and support through/via civil society organisations (the approach according to which
donors support the activities implemented through civil society organisations in a variety of areas; service
contracting, governance actions, civic education, lobbying, etc.)
From these stem a series of necessary conditions for capacity building aid:
All initiatives must be based on an up to date situation report. The personnel of the CSO must be included
in these analyses as they are responsible for the changes created, and as such must recognise their own needs.
Capacity building is thus demand oriented
The objectives and methods vary in terms of the environment and dimension (individual, organisational or
institutional) under consideration
Capacity building is not about providing technical existence, but about liberating pre-existing potential.
The Instruments and Tools for building capacity
The instruments and tools for capacity building are significantly varied and comprise, among
others; training, access to and dissemination of information, exchange fora, facilitation and
guidance, consultative support, tutoring and twinning systems, inter organisational collaboration
and networking, feedback and capitalisation of experiences, tested institutional approaches, etc. The
following table gathers some of the most used instruments, all the while putting them into context as
much with the objectives sought as with the capacity building dimensions.

Capacity
Objectives of the
Building
capacity building
Dimension
Improvement of the
leadership of NSAs.
Creation or improvement of
the formulation, management
and monitoring capacities for
cooperation programmes and
Individual projects
Dimension
Instrument examples and methods
Trainings in terms of leadership;
Consultative support/technical assistance, guidance
in terms of strategic planning of organisations;
Consultative support/technical assistance for the
clarification of roles in the steering and
administration/management of companies;
Etc.
Consultative support/technical assistance/guidance
of companies (by a partner company (tutoring system),
a specialised cabinet etc.) in the formulation and
implementation of programmes;
Trainings in the management of projects focused on
the programme managers within the organisation;
Internships/exchange programmes/twinnings
within the partner organisations;
Limited missions for the technicians of a partner
organisation;
Financial means for the scoping of a project;
Recycling the frameworks of the organisation;
Support to the implementation of concrete projects
responding to the needs of the populace;
Etc.
 Improvement of the analytical
capacities in terms of public
policy
Improvement of the lobbying
and negotiation capacities of
NSAs
Improvement of the
management and
administration capacities of
organisations according to
transparency criteria
Organisational
Dimension
Improvement of the degree of
specialisation of organisations
and coherence of the mission
and actions.
Reinforcing the institutional
and financial stability of NSA
organisations
Support to the organisation of local, regional or
national workshops and seminars;
Trainings in terms of analysis of public policy and
the strategies of donor organisations;
Promotion of dialogue fora with donor organisations;
Etc.
Support to the organisation of local, regional or
national workshops and seminars ;
Trainings in terms of analysis of public policy and
the strategies of donor organisations;
Trainings in terms of negotiation and advocacy
(lobbying)
Networking and support/consultation on the part of
partners specialised in the domain of advocacy
(lobbying;
Diffusion of best practices;
Etc.
Consultative support/technical assistance/guidance
of organisations (by a contractor organisation, a
specialised cabinet etc.);
Financing organisational diagnostic studies;
Limited missions for the technicians of a partner
organisation;
Organisation and financing of national and
international exchanges;
Implementation of systems and procedures within
the organisation;
Trainings en accounting, financial management etc.;
Etc.
Consultative support/technical assistance/guidance
of organisations (by a contractor organisation, a
specialised cabinet etc.);
Financing of diagnostic operational studies and
strategic planning exercises and/or organisational
repositioning;
Financing and/or organisation of diagnostics aiming
to identify and listing of existing capacities within the
NSA;
Limited missions for the technicians of partner
organisations;
Organisation and financing of national exchanges;
Etc.
Financing of diagnostic operational studies and
strategic planning exercises and/or organisational
repositioning;
Implementation of systems and procedures within
the organisation;
Financial means for the scoping of a project;
Recycling the frameworks of the organisation;
Support to the implementation of concrete projects
responding to the needs of the populace;
Etc.
 Enhancement of the
representation and legitimacy
of umbrella organisations
Improvement of access to
information.
Relational and
Institutional
Dimension
Improvement of the
coordination of NSA
organisations
Improvement of the legal and
regulatory framework of NSAs
on different national levels
The approaches deployed by the programmes for the
prioritisation of NSA access to capacity building activities.
Analysis of the extremes of the continuum
Four main approaches are adopted by NSA support programmes. They can be placed on a
continuum, going from a purely reactive approach, based on the call for proposals tool to a
programmatic and proactive approach, based on the elaboration of a capacity building plan, starting
from a strategic analysis, as the figure below shows.
Organisation and financing of national and
international exchanges;
Promotion of dialogue fora (with donor
organisations) on sector policies;
Research activities based on experiences of
cooperation and coordination within the
region/international level;
Financial support for the capitalisation of local and
national coordination experiences;
Support to the implementation of umbrella
authorities;
Support/consultation/guidance for the amelioration
of accountability systems within umbrella
organisations
Etc.
Creation of a bulleting (paper and/or electronic);
Establishment of a web site portal for the totality
of NSAs organisations;
Organisation of regular meetings;
Networking between NSAs (local, regional, national
and international level, South-South, North-South);
Integration of organisations into the thematic and/or
regional, national or international networks;
Etc
Organisation and financing of national and
international exchanges;
Promotion of dialogue fora (with donor
organisations) on sector policies;
Research activities based on experiences of
cooperation and coordination within the
region/international level;
Support to the implementation of umbrella
authorities;
Support to the draft of a deontological code;
Etc.
Support/consultation and financing for the
elaboration of legal texts;
Promotion of exchanges with the government
(services cells and relations with non state actors);
Support/consultation to government cells and
services charged with NSA relations
Etc

Approach 2: Calls for
Approach 1: Call
proposals and ad hoc
for proposals
training
Approche 3: Approach 3:
Approach 4:
Mixed Process : calls for
Capacity building
proposals and capacity
plan
building plan

The majority of NSA support programmes rely on a fundamentally reactive approach, where the call
for proposals constitutes a prioritised mechanism, sometimes the only mechanism, to address
the capacity building needs of NSAs, while a minority of programmes uses a capacity building plan
based on demand analysis.

Several programmes (such as those in Uganda and the Dominican Republic) resort to a mixed
approach, combining the calls for proposals with a programming step in terms of capacity building.

Some Innovative aspects of the mixed approach adopted by the CSCBP programme in
Uganda
The programme adopted a mixed approach providing grants for the support of projects (including
for service delivery) together with designed institutional support and trainings by the intermediary
organisations (IO) and more general trainings on classical issues such as leadership, responsibility,
transparency etc. In addition, the programme also foresaw an element relative to the definition of
policy.
The direct grant system acted at the same time as a motivation and as a direct contribution to
the work of CSOs, with demonstrable effect. The support from top to bottom provided by the
PMU and the IO was also of vital importance.
This integrated model provided a useful and efficient capacity building model, allowing for
the planning of a simpler strategy in the framework of the capacity building programme,
as well as a naturally proactive process, not one merely dictated by demand.
On the other hand, the programme possessed a Promotion Fund to reach organisations at the
lowest level of social organisation. The goal was, thus, to reach CSOs and groups that were not
adequately qualified to tender for a grant.
Some examples of innovative tools employed by the programme in terms of capacity building
include:
The apprenticeship mechanism with a partner
Personal visits to the grants' applicants prior to the allocation of funds
Presentation of the projects in their communities
The reward system for best practices
The reward system for best grantee
Some innovative elements of the mixed system adopted by the PRIL in the Dominican
Republic
 Balance in the approach between a reactive strategy (implemented through FONDESIN
(Support funds to CSO initiatives) to support the initiatives of CSOs) and a proactive strategy
(through the initiatives proposed directly by the PRIL in response to the analysis elaborated and
the priorities identified, not necessarily undertaken by CSOs themselves in the form of proposals
submitted to FONDESIN).
Differentiation of the guidelines for calls for proposals with separate budgets, aimed,
potentially, at different groups of CSOs (distinct levels of organisation and areas of intervention).
Mechanism for promoting the grouping of CSOs (forming of consortia) in a way that
integrates the weakest organisations in terms of quality of partners and/or the end beneficiaries of
different funded projects, to avoid exclusion on the basis of strict eligibility and selection criteria
imposed under EDF regulations in the calls for proposals. In this sense the PRIL seems to have
found a balance in the FONDESIN mechanism to guarantee, on the one hand, the basic technical
capacities with the organisations that are naturally strong and able and, on the other, with the
need to reach the weakest CSOs most in need of capacity building.
CSO guidance system, through the availability of ad hoc expertise, financed by the programme to
assist the organisation in the preparation of their projects in light of the call for proposals.

Hereunder is an analysis of the two extremes of the continuum (Call for proposals approach vs
Programming approached based on a capacity building plan) with an indication of the
strengths, weaknesses and associated risks.

Call for Proposals Approach Capacity Building Plan

A competitive system adapted to EDF
procedures that guarantees transparency in
the award of financial support and
prioritises the capacity for proposals of the
organisations and, in principle, their
excellence. However, this system is only
performing if the organisation have a
proposal capacity (technical and
administrative) and master the necessary
procedures;
Approach adapted to the support of
governance actions, human rights,
citizenship, etc. (in the guise of a project)
and to local development initiatives. As in
the framework of a Thematic Programme,
the local initiatives, as well as the actions in
terms of governance, human rights,
STRONG
citizenship etc. require an approach guided
POINTS
by the demand, the external goal being to
finance the activities proposed by the
actors themselves. This logic, however,
differs from the capacity building logic,
which focuses primarily on the actor, the
activity nothing more than a tool for the use
of the actor and not an end in itself;
The notion of a programme that
integrates a plethora of diverse and
complementary actions, aiming to reinforce
the organisations and existing support
systems in the framework of long term
objectives, relying on the orientation of
national poverty reduction strategies;
The existence of a coherent strategic
intervention plan that is adapted to the
context and the priorities in terms of
capacity building;
The possibility of implanting a progressive
process with a gradual autonomy of
organisations;
The possibility to implant an iterative
process bearing in mind technical
capacities and dialogue with NSAs wherein
the capacity building should follow flexible
steps that are linked as much to the general
political context as to the internal dynamics
of NSAs;
The existence of a central cell that acts as
much as an information relay of NSAs and
contacts as an area of capitalisation and
interface;
The possibility to gather a national and
international pool of expertise across a
variety of disciplines according to the needs
of the programme;
The possibility of dedicating the
necessary time to experiment in depth with
new dialogue and inter actor partnering
modalities, with a view towards the
promotion of a sort of collective
apprenticeship;
 The call for proposals approach, despite If the capacity building plan is not
its global predisposition, ends by elaborated on the basis of a good
prioritising organisations which are solidly participative diagnostic, shared by NSAs,
established and/or already supported and if it is not implemented in cooperation
and/or have strong experience in the with and with the competition of
drafting of projects, to the detriment of beneficiary organisations, it runs the risk of
organisations deprived of such support and being seen as an external imposition,
experience, despite the relevance of the disconnected from the local reality;
organisations and projects presented. The The management of such a plan is more
more a selective approach is need, bearing complex than the management of a call for
in mind the limited means and the existence proposals and, as such, requires specific
of a plethora of organisations, some very skills. In effect, the development and
rarely operational, the more an excessive, implementation of such a plan requires very
even restrictive selection risks mitigating strong skills on the part of the PMU in
the impact of the programmes in terms of terms of institutional development,
the number of organisations assisted; monitoring and evaluation, as well as the
In the absence of a defined strategic plan, EDF procedures. By contrast, its
the call for proposals approach results in implementation also relies on the good
the dissipation of isolated, poorly selection of actors and actions that follow;
coordinated initiatives and/or an excessive It is often a costly modality. Much hinges
concentration on certain themes (notably on the role of the TA, if it has an
training to the detriment of other lesser accompanying role and not just an
known tools) and/or certain geographic administrative management role, then the
regions (notably the capital); costs are justified by the results that the
There are a great number of programme could attain (e.g. a component
organisations who are not able to correctly reinforcing the capacities directly managed
identify and precise their demand in terms under the service contract and not via the
of capacity building let alone meet the WP);
formal requirements in terms of project Some limits to the management
formulation, as directed by the call for associated with the WP can become
proposals. Some of these organisations, constraints (length of work programme
having succeeded in presenting an 12-18 months; financial ceilings, etc.)
acceptable and financeable then find
problems when it is time to implement the
WEAKNESSES capacity building project, bearing in mind
AND the complex needs in terms of technical and
ASSOCIATED financial monitoring;
RISKS In terms of the length of project, 12 to 18
months is normally too short a period for
the implementation of initiatives in the field
of capacity building to ensure that they
have a real impact;
If there is no differentiation strategy (for
families of actors and/or by structural
level), organisations with a very different
vocation and, thus, distinct approaches will
find themselves in the same basket and
this despite their various skills and degree
of institutionalisation;
In order that the system might perform
there needs to be a consolidate offer in
terms of capacity building, an aspect often
neglected;
Calls for proposals often exclude INGOs
that partner with local actors, even though
these have the vocation of guiding local
actors. In the context where the national
offer in terms of capacity building is not
consolidate, this exclusion will always pose
problems;
Capitalisation and Innovation are rarely
taken into account;
NSAs, to obtain funding, often call upon
consulting companies (that work on the
logic of the market) to prepare their
proposals without there being an
appropriation in terms of the proposed
action. The priority, thus, lies on the level of
the access to financing and not at the level
of appropriateness of the action on the level
of the institutional development of the
actor.
The concrete experiences and apprenticeships of the
adoption of the capacity building system
The first results linked to the programmes that adopted the Capacity Building system tool (Angola,
Mali, DRC, Niger and Guinea) show that at least five conditions must be fulfilled in order for it to be
effective.

Such a tool requires a relatively in depth knowledge of NSAs and their context, as much in
terms of capacity building as in terms of the identified development and governance
challenges. This presupposes the availability of an up to date body of information on NSAs.
The availability of this information cannot be left to chance, but must be the result of an
intensive activity focusing on the comprehension of the social dynamics that characterises
NSAs in any given country. This, of course, necessitates a significant investment of personnel,
and an often complicated system to implement, often relying on the support of non state actors
at a regional level, in the role of Programme correspondents.
A strong attitude on the part of the PMU to communicate and ensure understanding of the
novelty of the tool and the differences with the call for proposals and the need of a proactive
role for the PMU in the definition of the annual priorities in terms of capacity building.
The PMU must hold not only the administration and managerial role of the programmes
resources, but must also hold the role of guide to the dynamics and actors involved .
The PMU must have specific technical skills to work with the capacity building system tool.
These skills are, of course, available both at the level of national and international expertise
upon which the PMU may rely. However, adequate resources must be foreseen for this.

The concrete experiences and apprenticeships of the

adaptation of the call for proposals tool and the question of
grassroots organisations
The Call for Proposals (CP) must, above all, be adapted as much to the context as to the nature of
the capacity building support programmes of the 9th EDF. While on the one hand it is important to
ensure the call for proposals does not adopt the micromanagement logic of programmes present
prior to Cotonou, on the other it is necessary that the competition is open to all forms and structural
levels of collective actors, notably as regards grass roots organisations.

The question of grass roots organisations merits a degree of elaboration, as the problems faced by
these organisations confronted by the Call for Proposals tool is a double edged one;

On the one hand, there is the problem of access to the programme information and resources
through the call for proposals tool; in other words, do grass roots organisations have access to
the necessary information and are they, by contrast, able to prepare proposals according to
the standards set out under community cooperation?
On the other hand, there is the problem of availability and incentive, either on the part of
consulting companies (in the case of Externalised Direct Labour Operations and indirectly
managed calls for proposal; that is to say the framework of a programme workplan), or the
administrative and accounting services of Delegations and National Authorising Officers (in
the case of direct state control or indirect state control of the programme management, but
management of the grant contracts as specific engagements outside of the work programmes)
to bear the risk (notably for the study groups) and/or manage these micro-grants, considering
the workload that this would involve .
As regards the first question (access to information and the capacity to draft conforming and eligible
proposals), the experiences undertaken by the programmes show that if there is not an adaptation of
the call for proposals tool (which includes infringement of the standard forms and procedures), it is
very likely that these organisations will be automatically disqualified. It is, for example, possible to
adapt the calls for proposals to the idiosyncrasies of these grassroots organisations (such as in Mali,
Niger, Guinea, in terms of the eligibility and selection criteria).

A second possibility, also used under several programmes, is that of limiting the size of grants to
10,000, allowing a bypass of the classical call for proposals format and recourse to a simplified
competitive procedure for the award of grants. The example of the Promotion Funds in the
framework of the programme in Uganda, or the funds for support of local initiatives in the field of
social enterprise within the framework of the Zambian programme represent examples of this
process.

As regards the second question, notably the will and availability on the part of consulting companies
as of the delegations and NAO services to should the associated risks and workload for the
management of these micro grants, a solution could be to regroup these projects through sub-
granting scheme (with a maximum of 100,000 per grant and a maximum of 10,000 per delegated
grant).

One final solution to resolve this second issue is that of focusing on the grass roots organisations
indirectly, through national and international organisations that specialise in grass roots
organisational capacity building. In this scenario, firmly established and well known organisations in
the field of guiding grass roots organisations (here meaning NGOs or other national CSOs with a
guidance role, associations and consortia integrating capacity building into their mission, as well as
INGOS considered as essential vectors of grass roots organisational support) propose, in cooperation
with grass roots organisations, capacity building programmes, for which they take responsibility and
which they manage. Unlike the sub-granting (which involves a delegated financing system), in this
scenario organisations act both as intermediaries on the behalf of these organisations, with them as
final beneficiaries, as well as they influence the capacity building initiatives themselves.

Reference points for further information

References within European Commission texts

Practical guide to contract procedures for EC external actions. 2008

Practical guide to procedures for programme estimates financed by the European

Development Fund (EDF) and the General Budget of the European Communities (BUDGET)
(project approach). Version 1.1. October 2007

Guidelines on Principles and Good Practices for the Participation of Non-State Actors in the
development dialogues and consultations. EC DG development. November 2004.

Reforming Technical Cooperation and Executing agencies on the External Aid project of the
European Commission. Framework Strategy. July 2008. European Commission.

Guidelines on Principles and Good Practices for the Participation of Non-State Actors in the
development dialogues and consultations. EC DG development. November 2004.
 Capitalisation study on NSA capacity building programmes under the 9th EDF. Service
Contract 2008/162532. Final Report. Written by Maurizio Floridi, Beatriz Sanz Corella and
Stephano Verdecchia. IBF. June 2009; 5. Capacity Building : Operational Approaches and
Modalities in the Framework of 9th EDF Programmes.

The Commissions management of Non-State Actors' involvement in EC Development

Cooperation together with the Commissions replies. Special Report No 4/2009 (pursuant to
Article 248(4), second subparagraph, EC). Court of Auditors

Evaluation of EC AID delivery through civil society organisations. Final report. Service
Contract for the Evaluation (sectoral and thematic) of European Commission Programmes and
Policies in Third Countries, relating to Social and Human Development issues. Contrat number
EVA/116-833. Drafted by a consortium composed of PARTICIP, Cideal, Channel Research and
South Research.

Other references

The Cotonou Agreement, NSA users manual. Drafted by ECDPM for the ACP Secretariat
February 2004

Civil society support net

Building capacity in non-profit organizations. McPhee y Bare dans De Vita & Fleming. The
Urban Institute; 2001.

Nonprofit Organizations: Challenges and Collaboration (various authors). Ed Palgrave

Macmillan. March 2006

Mapping of approaches towards M&E of Capacity and Capacity Development. ECDPM: June
2006

Monitoring and evaluation of capacity and capacity development. David Watson. ECDPM
(European Centre for Development Policy Management), Discussion Paper, nm. 58B, abril de
2006.

Framework for Evaluating Capacity Development in IDRC. Anne Bernard y Greg Armstrong:
Evaluation Unit, IDRC, febrero de 2005

Evaluating Empowerment. The World Vision Area Development Programme, Adrian Zenz
World Vision. 2007

Evaluating Empowerment: The human element of capacity building, Kate Roberts & Jeff
Coutts. Rural Industries Research and Development; 07/063 July de 2007.

Capacity development

[www.civicus.org/new/CSI_overview.asp CIVICUS]