In my previous blog, From Gaps to Growth: capacity development in WASH, I emphasized the need for the WASH sector to reach consensus on the meaning of capacity and subsequently capacity development means. This consensus is crucial for improving coordination and communication efforts within the sector. To arrive at a common understanding, I believed it was necessary to explore the historical context of the term and its usage, as well as delve into the development of the current SDG 6 indicators on capacity development.

History of capacity (building/development/strengthening)

Before embarking on this journey, I had not fully examined the history of capacity building/development/ strengthening preceding the 70s/80s.  This journey has opened my eyes to the changing paradigms that have shaped the meaning of capacity development, including its role during the colonial era and its evolution in post-war development efforts. It has shed light on the potential issues surrounding the terminology.

Let’s start by looking back at ancient civilizations, where the need to enhance capacities was already recognized. For example, Mesopotamia established systems for apprenticeships to transmit craftsmen skills to apprentices, while ancient Egypt developed centers of learning such as the Library of Alexandria.

During the European Renaissance, there was a renewed emphasis on education and the cultivation of individual capacities. Scholars and philosophers emphasized the importance of intellectual and personal growth, leading to the establishment of universities and academies that promoted critical thinking, scientific inquiry, and specialized expertise. The concept of capacity building began to take shape within formal educational institutions.

During the colonial era, European powers sought to expand their dominion and establish governance systems in distant lands. Capacity building played a crucial role in this process. Colonizers introduced formal education systems, providing training in administrative, technical, and professional skills to local populations. Although often exploitative, this approach laid the foundation for future capacity building and development initiatives in post-colonial nations.

The aftermath of World War II witnessed a global surge in development efforts, initially focused on technical infrastructure and financing. By the 1970s, international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank recognized the significance of building local expertise and strengthening institutions for achieving sustainable development. They introduced technical assistance programs and knowledge-sharing initiatives aimed at enhancing skills, fostering innovation, and reducing poverty. In the academic literature, this was referred to as capacity building.

As the development landscape evolved, it became evident that top-down approaches to capacity building were insufficient for sustainable development. The critique lay in lack of ownership, and empowerment, and collaboration and the term capacity building was associated with the assumption that nothing was in place yet.

The late 20th century saw a paradigm shift towards participatory approaches. Development practitioners recognized that building capacities required engaging communities, civil society organizations, and marginalized groups. This gave rise to the concept of capacity development, which assumed the presence of existing capacities that could be further developed to effect change.

The then global development policies, such as Millenium development Goals (2000) and the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005), recognized that capacity development was the process that would help achieve development outcomes. It was at this point in time that UNDP developed its capacity development framework, recognizing 3 levels of capacity (individual, organizational and society). This change in development landscape also meant that capacity development now did not only mean formal education/ supply of graduates or newcomers into the sector, but incorporated a much broader set of capacities that could be used to change or advance overall outcomes.  

However, despite the changes in terminology, the practice of capacity development or capacity building did not always align with the intended principles. Critics argue that development interventions often focused on the “North” bringing solutions to the “South,” perpetuating a colonial mindset. Even today, the terms capacity building and capacity development are used interchangeably, without active efforts from practitioners or policymakers to distance themselves from the former.

In response to this and the decolonization agenda, some organizations are now introducing the term capacity strengthening instead of capacity development. I believe they seek to move away from the colonial legacy and practices that have not fully embraced the essence of capacity development as a localized process to enhance existing capacities towards specific outcomes. However, unless capacity development practices evolve alongside the terminology, even this new term is likely to face criticism.

It will therefore be crucial to create a common understanding and terminology for capacity development/strengthening that the sectors, especially in the countries receiving development support, feel comfortable with, even if it means completely abandoning the existing terminology.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Capacity Development

In the post MDG era, the global agenda continues to shape the meaning of capacity development and the way that the WASH sector is using it. The United Nations’ adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 did place capacity development at the heart of the global development agenda, with Goal 17 dedicated to it. The SDGs recognize the importance of building local capacities to address complex challenges such as poverty, inequality, climate change, and sustainable economic growth.

However, upon examining SDG 6 targets related to capacity development and Goal 17 (Box 1) it becomes apparent that none of the aforementioned historical developments were taken into account. Even the term capacity building is still used. The targets and indicators fail to provide a comprehensive reflection of the different levels of capacities, including individual, organizational, and the enabling environment or society. Moreover, the indicator on the “amount of development assistance” does not offer any insight into the success of development assistance or capacity development efforts.

Box 1: 

Target 6.a: By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies

• • Indicator 6.a.1:Amount of water- and sanitation-related official development assistance that is part of a government-coordinated spending plan

Target 6.b: Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management

• • Indicator 6.b.1: Proportion of local administrative units with established and operational policies and procedures for participation of local communities in water and sanitation management

Goal 17 includes targets for capacity-building, including increasing technology and innovation in least developed countries and improving data collection and monitoring for the achievement of the SDGs themselves

In addition to the lack of clarity on the concept of capacity development in the SDGs, the water and sanitation goals (SDG 6) are relatively behind on its focus on workforce development (individual and organizational capacity) compared to some of the other goals (see Box 2 ).

Box 2: Workforce focus in other Goals

Health Target 3.c Substantially increase health financing and the recruitment, development, training and retention of the health workforce in developing countries, especially in least developed countries and small island developing States.

 Education: Target 4a: By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least developed countries and small island developing states

In conclusion, the journey through history of capacity development and the associated terminology has helped me (and hopefully you) to understand the current state of capacity development in water, sanitation and hygiene. I hope this background will support in developing a joint definition on capacity and capacity development.

In addition to my earlier calls for action (see x blog), I would like to advocate for the following

• Improved indicators for capacity development that can be adopted in the post-SDG phase.
• Increased focus on workforce development in the WASH sector.

By addressing these aspects, we can enhance capacity development and strengthen our collective efforts to achieve sustainable and impactful outcomes in the WASH sector and beyond.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

About the author: Kirsten de Vette, owner of this website, and independent consultant and facilitator working in water, sanitation, and hygiene (related) sectors for over 13.5 years. I am a sociologist with business background who connects people, facilitates knowledge and expertise exchange, facilitates partnerships, collaboration and or change processes and facilitates capacity assessment/ development. My expertise is in capacity development, stakeholder engagement & facilitation of change processes and learning.

I wrote this blog as part of a series of blogs (3 in total) because feel a strong passion to bring about change in the sectors and capacity development efforts, and I wanted to share recurring findings across my recent projects in the hope that it may support action in the future. The type of projects this blog is based on is 1) coordinating (or facilitated) the undertaking of capacity assessments at organizational, national and global level and 2) reviewing capacity development efforts (2020-2023). Over 300 grey and white paper reports were reviewed across these projects, 150 people directly interviewed, and 6 country capacity assessments coordinated (with 350 people). The author wants to thank WaterAid and Tetra Tech under USAID WASHPaLS #2 for these assignments and their openness for the findings to be re-used. .

To take these learnings forward, I will be approaching key actors in the water, sanitation and hygiene sector to engage on these capacity development principles, and will write follow up blogs. My immediate thoughts are to first describe the Historic Journey of Capacity Development and then one to start the discussion on finding common terminology. Stay tuned on this website and on my linkedin