On June 7th 2007, the World Bank Institute (WBI) and the Operations Policy and Country Services (OPCS) hosted a lunch-time mini-conference, as part of the brown-bag lunch, titled Aid Effectiveness and Capacity Development: the Challenge of Scaling Up. The conference explored current status of international efforts and capacity development commitments from the Paris Declaration. Five invited speakers include the Alternate Executive Director for Germany, the Program Coordinator of Operations Policy and Country Services (OPCS), the Director of German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ)/the Chairperson of the Learning Network for Capacity Development (LenCD), the Director of World Bank Institute (WBI), and the Sector Director of Africa Region. Ruediger von Kleist, Alternate Executive Director for Germany commenced the discussion, defining aid effectiveness as optimized management of limited resources. Then, he argued that funds could be put to optimal disbursement under result-based projects, where all players were mutually accountable for fund management.  Christopher Hall, Program Coordinator of OPCS continued the discussion, expressing his perspective on the Paris Declaration. For Hall, as the number of donors and the amount of aid increased, questions regarding fund management and aid delivery became more substantial and worthy of attention. In essence, the Paris Declaration committed to capacity building through the country-led partnership system, where donors aligned themselves with specific nations and where donors and nations were mutually accountable. Hall argued that in order for the partnership system to work, the donors should opt for technical cooperation and establish leadership within the partner country. However, surveys revealed that donor coordination still is lacking and noted that strategy and priority setting with regard to capacity development still are problems.
Andreas Proksch, Director, GTZ and Chairperson of LenCD continued the discussion, arguing that concepts and definitions for capacity development had been integrated into the Paris Declaration and therefore had been agreed upon within developed nations. Proksch, however, recognized the ambiguity in relation to development operations, where practitioners are still struggling to find the best ways to make capacity development progress on the ground. This, coupled with the problem of defining the level of capacity in a country or in a sector or measuring capacity development progress means that there is still much work to be done. For him, the integration of capacity development into poverty reduction requires much more attention by development partners. He noted that various competing methodologies are applied to capacity needs assessments and argued that links between needs and broader development strategies must be established. His ending notes presented capacity development as a long-term process consisting not of stable targets, but of forward-moving targets. Later, Proksch explained the LenCD as a peer-learning network with participants, creating a community of practice which fostered peer learning and satisfied the increase in demand for knowledge services. LenCD, in essence, formed a bridge between the North and the South, allowing developing nations to draw from past experiences of developed nations.  Michele de Nevers, Director, WBI, clarified the role of the WBI in the World Bank. It started as a training institute and expanded into a platform for knowledge exchange between governments and development professionals across the globe, as governments increasingly regarded the World Bank as a source of information. Further, de Nevers raised discussion questions regarding the roles of the World Bank in the country-led partnership system and noted that further advances on capacity development will require that the Bank adopt a more ambitious approach to country systems. Does the Bank have a clear strategy to help develop country systems? Are there experiences and lessons from areas or countries that have succeeded upon which struggling countries could draw? Have we done enough in this area?
As the last speaker, Yaw Ansu, Sector Director of Africa Region revealed that capacity development is an issue regarding institutional strengthening, not merely bringing knowledge to Africa. For Ansu, capacity development is an integral and all-encompassing concept; it pushes beyond basic knowledge sharing and encompasses various factors such as institutions, organizations, incentives, growth, strategy, and technical assistance. Further, Ansu warned that capacity building should be demand-led, and he demonstrated an example where supply-led training had resulted in out-migration of skilled-workers due to inadequate incentives to retain these workers in Africa. He argued that an effective capacity development entails a reform in the incentive system, prior to training workers who would migrate out of Africa. Following the speakers, the attendees asked questions that called for evidence, explanations of past failures, and implications on their current advisory services to clients. As speakers answered questions, they reminded attendees that capacity development is country-specific and that a recipe to be implemented in all nations does not exist. Ruediger von Kleist reminded the group that institutions are the result of human action, not merely human design. For de Nevers, the next step is to examine the linkage between supply and demand, to ensure that aid is effective and sustainable. In the end, when Proksch reiterated that capacity development is a long-term goal, he advised the attendees not to feel discouraged, but encouraged to search for ways in which capacity development can be effectively implemented, and more importantly sustained. For more information please contact: Mark Nelson or Ajay Tejasvi |
