Document(s) 11 of 15

Exploring Capacity Development in a Rural Development NGO in Bangladesh
Marise B. Espineli, Imrul Kayes Muniruzzaman, Victoria Bautista, and Snehalata Saha

The setting

Despite recent progress, Bangladesh is still one of the poorest countries in the world. Political anarchy, public-sector corruption and nonaccountability, rising social and economic inequalities with un- and under-employment, low status of women, and high illiteracy rates are just some of the forces that hinder poverty alleviation. Recurring natural disasters such as floods and drought also continue to undermine the country’s development gains. Since the mid 1970s, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have emerged as important partners to the Government of Bangladesh, international aid donors, and development agencies in their efforts to alleviate rural poverty.

The Rangpur Dinajpur Rural Service (RDRS) and the Philippines-based International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) are two nonprofit NGOs. The organizations became acquainted with each other in the mid 1990s when one of the RDRS staff attended a training course at IIRR. This began a five-year provider–client relationship that involved an almost consistent flow of RDRS staff to IIRR training courses.

RDRS was established 30 years ago as a field program of the Geneva-based Lutheran World Federation and provided relief for war refugees returning from neighboring India. After a series of transitions, RDRS now works to improve the living conditions of the rural poor in the northwest of Bangladesh through supporting institution-building and women’s development, disaster preparedness and social mobilization, and micro-finance for the organized poor, their communities, and other civil society actors.

IIRR was founded by Dr Y.C. James Yen in the 1920s in China and later established in the Philippines to spread the rural reconstruction development philosophy, which promotes a people-centered, integrated, and sustainable approach to rural development. IIRR has three programs. The learning community program works with the rural poor in the agriculture and natural resource management and community health management sectors. The education and training program develops the

capacities of rural development practitioners in participatory approaches to rural development. The publications and communications program is responsible for documenting best field practices in participatory approaches to rural development.

The capacity development effort

Both RDRS and IIRR have mandates for capacity development. When RDRS changed its status from an international NGO managed by expatriates to a local NGO managed by local staff, the need to concentrate on its own capacity development became a priority.

Staff development drew significant attention and resources during 1996–2000. During this period almost 20% of RDRS staff received training from IIRR and RDRS staff constituted over 7% of all IIRR trainees. RDRS has therefore invested a great deal in IIRR training and the organization is IIRR’s biggest ‘client’. The coherence in mission, use of participatory methods, and similar rural development mandates of the two organizations helped foster their relationship.

The evaluation study

Objectives. The evaluation study revolved around three major objectives: to determine the relevance of IIRR training courses to RDRS’s capacity needs, to examine the strengths and weaknesses of acquiring needed capacities through IIRR training, and to provide recommendations to improve capacity development in both organizations.

Guiding principles. The study was guided by three fundamental principles: a focus on information that would be useful to both organizations, receptiveness to reflection and ideas from various levels of staff in each organization, and the use of participatory self-assessment.

Study methods. The evaluation exercise used several methods to obtain data from a variety of sources. Reflection on internal processes in organizational capacity development was the main methodology used to obtain information on the study’s specific research questions. The reflection activities were conducted through small group discussions involving the assessment team and other key personnel from each organization. The results of group reflection were further cross-checked and refined by appropriate staff.

The two organizations conducted separate self-assessment workshops. RDRS’s workshop included 65% of IIRR-trained senior and mid-level managers. The workshop primarily focused on issues relating to key capacities developed, the processes used, and how these capacities were institutionalized within RDRS. IIRR also conducted a self-assessment process focused on its own processes for developing,

organizing, implementing, and evaluating its training courses. Following these workshops, joint reflection took place on the question of improving their capacity development processes and their partnership for capacity development.

A special survey among randomly selected IIRR alumni in RDRS and their supervisors was carried out. This helped identify the capacities that alumni obtained from the IIRR courses and provided insights into the skills they were able to apply in their work and the factors that contributed or hindered such applications.

A review of documentation included program and institutional reports, staff development plans, strategic planning documents, evaluation reports, policy papers, and staff training reports.

Key informant interviews were conducted with selected RDRS staff and managers on their understanding of the RDRS organizational capacity development efforts and expected performance of staff who had attended the IIRR training courses.

Limitations of data collection. Reliance on perceptual data from a limited number of IIRR alumni made it difficult to establish conclusions about what competencies were gained from the IIRR courses. The absence of job-specific competency requirements and appraisal tools at RDRS made it impossible to compare staff performance before and after training.

The evaluation findings

Common goals but a diffused relationship. Despite a diffused relationship, IIRR and RDRS share a common vision of development. IIRR’s course offerings were therefore deemed appropriate because of their emphasis on comprehensive and participatory development. Thus, while the two organizations did not undertake direct negotiations to ensure that the course offerings and capacity needs corresponded, common values served as an important basis for the five-year relationship.

Connecting individual capacity development to organizational capacity needs. From RDRS’s perspective, capacity development is interpreted both as building the capability of individual staff and building organizational capacity. On the other hand, IIRR’s training program focuses mainly on the enhancement of individual abilities rather than organizational capacities. Analyzing the connection between the individual training provided by IIRR and the organizational capacity needs of RDRS proved difficult.

Key capacities developed. Despite difficulties in determining direct links between IIRR training and RDRS’s organizational capacities, the evaluation provided evidence that training did contribute to the work of IIRR alumni and to the development of several

core organizational capacities. These included innovation and change, strategic management and leadership, participatory program management, the mobilization of resources, and building partnerships. As a result of its capacity development efforts, RDRS made a successful transition from a field program of an international charity to a strong, respected, self-administered, national NGO.

Processes used for capacity development. While there was a growing awareness within RDRS of the strategic importance of capacity development, a review of the processes used to address capacity development showed that many were informal. This is not to say that the informal procedures had been ineffective. Managers and staff indicated that, very often, training participants and training courses had been well matched.

The study also revealed that translating capacities from an individual to an organizational level was achieved by some and not by others. Individual initiative and management style largely influenced the application and use of knowledge and skills acquired through training where clear guidelines and procedures were absent. To some extent, the absence of formally determined procedures for utilizing capacities acquired through training left room for creativity and innovation. On the other hand, relying on individual efforts meant that some of the acquired capacities may have been lost when individual innovation and initiative were weak.

Improving IIRR’s and RDRS’s capacity development. The study concluded that IIRR’s training provision processes could be improved in three major areas: design, management, and evaluation. RDRS could optimize its capacity development efforts by improving its staff training, management procedures, and ideology. This could be achieved by better understanding of current and future needs through defining a set of indicators that are periodically reviewed for relevance to the organization. Long-term and short-term planning for capacity acquisition should also be prioritized.

RDRS’s other challenge is how to transform individual abilities acquired through training into organizational capacities. The study recommends the use of action planning to address this issue and encourages supervisors and department heads to develop processes and procedures to integrate learning from training courses.

Finally, the study suggests that RDRS should systematically assess all other dimensions of organizational capacity development. Leadership, management structures, systems and procedures, physical facilities, and technology also contribute to the effective implementation of organizational capacity development.

Lessons learned about evaluating organizational capacity development

• Defining organizational capacity development in terms of training impact creates a narrow perspective on capacity development and unrealistic expectations from
  
  training courses. There is a need to differentiate training impact and organizational capacity development conceptually.
• Training as an approach to capacity development has to be supported by other processes that link individual knowledge, attitudes, and skills acquisition to organizational capacities. These linkages are important for transforming individual capacities into organizational capacities.
• Organizational capacity development requires a relationship with the external agency that encourages mutual responsibility, growth, development, and understanding.
• The framework to be used for evaluating organizational capacity development should make a cognitive link between organizational goals and the objectives of capacity development efforts.
• Given the range of elements to be considered in evaluating organizational capacity development, results can be diffuse and, at times, inconclusive.
• One should not ignore the links between individual and organizational capacities when evaluating organizational capacity development. Making an analysis of such links can help determine whether, and precisely how, training has resulted in changes at the level of individuals and the organization as a whole.
• Since capacity development is not a one-way process, optimum participation of both organizations in all phases from planning to evaluation is important.

Uses and benefits of the evaluation

This was the first time that IIRR, a capacity development service provider, and RDRS, a beneficiary, had jointly examined and evaluated their organizational capacity development. There were several advantages to this type of evaluation:

• It brought the partners together to examine organizational capacity development through a negotiated lens where each participant had a stake in its outcome.
• It contributed to organizational knowledge and understanding about capacity development and its evaluation.
• The evaluation framework, guiding questions, and facilitation from the ECD Project stimulated collective reflection and the sharing of insights.
• The processes followed, the difficulties encountered, and the results identified led to a greater commitment to addressing organizational capacity development in each organization.
• The exercise provided equal learning opportunities to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of both organizations towards capacity development.

Following the study, RDRS and IIRR committed to conducting action plans aimed at improving their respective capacity development initiatives. RDRS planned

an organizational assessment where results of the evaluation study would be used extensively in the future strengthening of the organization. RDRS committed to link staff training more systematically to organizational capacity development. IIRR committed to improving its international training courses by focusing not just on the development of individual competencies but also on organizational capacities.

The evaluation convinced both organizations to think more comprehensively about capacity development. Following the evaluation, RDRS introduced a monitoring system with trained staff that will be incorporated into a personnel management information system. RDRS has also been rethinking and negotiating partnerships for organizational capacity development in several new areas such as advocacy, networking, and alternative research. The evaluation also inspired RDRS and IIRR to consider their capacity development relationship more creatively in line with their organizational mandates and emerging opportunities. Finally, the evaluation study results were shared widely within both organizations to broaden understanding and foster greater commitment to capacity development and its evaluation.

Towards Strategic Management in a Cuban Agricultural Research Institute
Albina Maestrey Boza, Maria Adriana Mato, Carmen Maria Mederos, José Antonio González, Adriana Ballester, Jorge Luis Piloto, José de Souza Silva, and Juan Cheaz

The setting

During the 1990s, Cuba experienced profound and rapid changes in its economic situation. The disintegration of the former Soviet Union brought to an end the trading relationship upon which its economy had been based since the 1960s. An ongoing United States trade blockade resulted in a lack of food and agricultural input supplies. Together, these factors presented a major challenge to agricultural research and development in Cuba.

Previously, state-managed farms, with assured inputs from the Soviet Union and an assured market, had been able to deal directly with agricultural research organizations and laid out clear directions for research priorities. The State farms have now disappeared and agricultural research organizations need to find a way to respond to the needs of small and medium-sized producers and, with them, to plan research priorities and disseminate results. To do this, they need to look beyond what is happening at the farm level and understand the entire agrifood chain from beginning to end.

There was, therefore, an urgent need for major change in Cuba’s agricultural research institutions and a subsequent need to evaluate the change process and its results. Since 1996, ISNAR’s New Paradigm Project and the Directorate of Science and Technology of Cuba’s Ministry of Agriculture have collaborated in an evolving set of activities aimed at developing a National System for Agricultural Science, Innovation, and Technology (SINCITA) and strengthening strategic management capacities within the system. The capacity to analyze agrifood chains has become particularly important. The evaluation study focused on a single capacity development effort, pork-meat chain analysis in the Swine Research Institute (IIP).

The capacity development effort

Given the changing political and economic context, IIP—one of the 17 institutes that make up SINCITA—saw the need to build its institutional capacity to correspond better to its changing context and to the demands of the market. Agrifood-chain analysis allowed IIP to study its context in a more systematic way, by encouraging it to identify critical factors and potential technological demands relating to farm suppliers, processors, and merchants, and the organizational and legal environment, as well as to the farms themselves. This type of analysis will allow IIP to contribute better to the formulation of national agricultural policies, to share its capacity with partner organizations, and to enhance its own credibility to secure greater political, financial, and institutional support.

Between 1998 and 2000, the New Paradigm Project led several regional- and national-level workshops focused on the development and implementation of training modules in agrifood-chain analysis. These added to IIP’s capacity development efforts, however, most of the Institute’s capacity development was done through ‘learning by doing’. In 2000 especially, the Institute took the lead in analyzing Cuba’s pork-meat agrifood chain. With support from SINCITA’s facilitation unit, the IIP’s Research Director and a core group organized a series of participatory workshops and studies. These aimed to gather and analyze information on the pork-meat chain and to reach consensus on the nature of the chain, its key links and segments, its critical factors, and the implications for research and development activities in this area.

The evaluation study

Objectives. Initially, the study intended to cover the entire institutional change process in SINCITA. However, it was later decided that it would not be possible to complete such a complex study within the timeframe and with the resources available.

Consequently, the team decided to focus on a single capacity development effort in a single institute, i.e. agrifood-chain analysis in IIP.

Methodology. Evaluation is frequently viewed as a ‘hide-and-seek’ game in which persons being evaluated try to give the best possible impression of their work to the evaluators and hide any of their defects. As a result, the evaluators seldom believe what they are told and must try to discover the ‘true’ story. To avoid this deep suspicion of the evaluation process, the evaluation team opted for a self-assessment methodology, which incorporated participation, interpretation, and interaction to encourage joint learning among the participants.

The evaluation study aimed to reach consensus on the importance and relevance of the capacity development effort, the key moments in the capacity development process and the principal factors driving and constraining it, the results of the capacity development process within and outside IIP, and the merits of the self-assessment methodology employed.

The study involved eight major steps: a preparatory meeting, internal workshops for SINCITA’s facilitation group, an IIP preparatory workshop, a review of documents, individual interviews, a self-assessment workshop, preparation of the workshop report, and preparation of the evaluation report.

The self-assessment workshop was structured and facilitated to elicit the views of individuals and interest groups and to make these views known to other groups. Subsequently, the groups negotiated a set of common conclusions, and divergent opinions were recorded and included in the workshop report.

The evaluation findings

Relevance and importance of the capacity development efforts. Participants in the evaluation study from IIP as well as from collaborating and client organizations concluded that the work on agrifood chains had been of great value to IIP for three main reasons. First, it helped IIP understand the changes that were taking place in the swine sector and define priority areas for its work to support the sector. Second, as participants prepared the agrifood chain study and set priorities for their research and development work, they gained a new sense of direction in their work, which made them more confident in their negotiations with other organizations. Third, the multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional emphasis of the study design helped participants understand how their individual work related to the overall organization and the interconnectedness of various technical and institutional factors at different points along the food chain.

Key events in the capacity development process. Participants in the evaluation identified several key events that led to the success of IIP’s capacity development process. First, the Ministry of Agriculture’s decision to consolidate SINCITA initiated a broad process of institutional change and pressed for research institutes to carry out agrifood chain studies. This was followed by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation’s decision to fund the New Paradigm Project’s work in Cuba. The sensitization efforts by the New Paradigm Project and SINCITA developed commitment from key actors and a positive attitude on the part of participants in IIP’s capacity development. Finally, the participatory workshops organized by the New Paradigm Project, SINCITA, and the IIP facilitation team stimulated commitment and motivation among participants to pursue the capacity development effort and provided a forum for sharing concepts, information, and experiences.

Factors that promoted the capacity development process. Participants in the evaluation identified several critical factors that led to the success of IIP’s capacity development efforts:

• There was political leadership from the Ministry of Agriculture, managerial leadership from SINCITA and IIP, and technical leadership from the New Paradigm Project.
• IIP’s capacity development effort was part and parcel of a broader, dynamic, and vigorous institutional change process within SINCITA.
• Special features of the New Paradigm Project included a focus on organizational capacity development, a respect for local autonomy and negotiation, and an emphasis on knowledge generation within the local context.
• The highly participatory method used by IIP to conduct agrifood chain analysis enhanced and legitimated the results, enriched the information base of the test study, and gained the commitment of potential users to accept the results and implement the recommendations.

Constraining factors. Time and resource limitations restricted training efforts within IIP’s capacity development, so there was a greater dependence on ‘learning by doing’. There were also only a limited number of actors involved in the food-chain supply study. The limited size, composition, and frequent turnover of the New Paradigm Project, SINCITA, and IIP facilitation teams jeopardized the range and amount of expertise available to support IIP’s capacity development efforts and the continuity and pace of the process.

Results and benefits of the capacity development process. IIP has indeed developed its capacity to carry out useful agrifood-chain analysis. The study had a broad institutional impact. It improved working relations and teamwork both within the Institute and with

its partners. IIP staff also applied training techniques learned in the New Paradigm Project-SINCITA workshops in their own training activities. The agrifood-chain study influenced the redesign of the Ministry of Agriculture’s swine research and development program and the formulation of 13 new projects based on results of the agrifood chain study.

The study also led to IIP’s increased institutional credibility and improved relationships with external actors. In 2000, the Ministry of Agriculture named IIP its ‘outstanding research center’. In the same year, IIP’s Director was named an ‘outstanding manager’ by the National State Council. IIP’s financial support increased by 11% between 1998 and 2000, and the agrifood-chain study carried out by IIP is now considered a model for other similar studies in Cuba.

Participants in the self-assessment exercise felt that the most important—although highly intangible—results of the capacity development process were in the area of institutional motivation and culture. There has been a marked improvement in the motivation of IIP staff members, in their commitment to the institute’s mission and objectives, and in the degree of connection between individual activities and projects.

Uses and benefits of the evaluation

This evaluation study allowed those involved to participate in a self-assessment exercise for the very first time. Participants generally felt that the approach had a number of advantages over conventional external evaluation methodologies. It brought internal and external actors together to discuss and assess their work. It contributed directly to the individuals’ knowledge. The guiding questions and facilitation stimulated collective reflection and analysis, and the process was action-oriented, leading to a commitment to using the results. Participants valued the participatory mode of the evaluation. The evaluation process was instinctively negotiated among the partners, which allowed for organizational learning.

Participants offered several suggestions for improving evaluation in IIP:

• to institutionalize self-assessment by introducing it into its annual work plan;
• to assign financial resources for evaluation in its budget;
• to develop capacity for self-assessment as had been done with the agrifood-chain methodology;
• to promote self-assessment as a strategy for improving its overall learning and capacity development efforts.

Based on the positive results of this first self-assessment exercise, IIP has now introduced self-assessment exercises into its annual work plan and has included

resources for this in its budget. In 2001, SINCITA organized a second self-assessment exercise in the Plant Protection Institute. Based on the promising results of these two cases, the Vice Minister of Agriculture has requested that SINCITA’s facilitation team organize a system-wide self-assessment in 2002 to assess the change process and its results, and to recommend measures to improve the Ministry’s future work in institutional development and change.

Understanding Capacity Development in a Plant Genetic Resources Center in Ghana
Samuel Bennett-Lartey, Raymond Vodouhe, and Jamie Watts

The setting

About 70% of Ghana’s population live in rural areas and depend directly or indirectly on agriculture and related activities for their livelihoods. Agriculture accounts for approximately 70% of Ghana’s exports and employs 66% of the country’s workforce.

Plant genetic resources are fundamental to improving quality of life because they are the basis of food supply and they are essential to improving agriculture without threatening the environment. Some of Ghana’s important plant genetic resources include cereals, roots and tubers, legumes, gourds, vegetables, fruit trees, spices, oil plants, cocoa, and coffee. The collection and conservation of plant genetic resources are necessary to protect genetic diversity, which is under threat from land degradation and other factors. The characterization, evaluation, and documentation of such plants help develop an understanding of the genetic character of the plant material conserved so that desirable traits, such as disease resistance or productivity, can be isolated and used to improve farming systems.

The Plant Genetic Resources Center is one of eight agricultural institutes of Ghana’s Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. It is mandated to coordinate plant genetic resources-related activities in Ghana and to collect, conserve, characterize, evaluate, and document Ghana’s plant genetic resources. It also conducts research on Ghana’s agricultural biodiversity and encourages the utilization of these resources by plant breeders, other researchers, and farmers.

The main external actors in the Center’s capacity development efforts have been the Government of Ghana, in providing the necessary skilled staff, infrastructure, and other facilities, and IPGRI. IPGRI is an international non-profit organization based in Rome, Italy, that has been working with the Center for approximately 20

years. Its mission is to promote the conservation and use of plant genetic resources to improve the lives of people around the world. Since the responsibility and authority for plant genetic resources rests with the countries themselves, IPGRI works very closely with national organizations and governments to help build their capacity for plant genetic resources research and management.

A more recent contributor to the Center’s capacity development has been the Cotonou-based Genetic Resources Network of West and Central Africa (GRENEWECA), which was established in 1998 under the auspices of the West and Central African Agricultural Research Council for Development. GRENEWECA’s goal is to contribute to sustainable agricultural development in its member countries through the conservation and use of the diversity of local plant genetic resources. The network aims to increase the effectiveness of each of its member country’s plant genetic resources programs through regional collaboration.

The capacity development effort

The capacity development effort assessed in this study was not a one-off intervention, but the development of the Center’s capacity over a 20-year period. Various factors contributed to the Center’s development including, but not limited to, the interventions of IPGRI and GRENEWECA. IPGRI and GRENEWECA contributed to the Center’s capacity development through three broad categories of support: training, technical support, and information services.

The Center, IPGRI, and GRENEWECA are motivated to collaborate in capacity development efforts because they share a common mission. Although IPGRI and GRENEWECA were created to promote conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources, neither organization actually controls any germplasm. Therefore, to accomplish their own missions, they must build the capacity of organizations like the Center.

The Center works with IPGRI and GRENEWECA because they have specialized knowledge and skills in plant genetic resource conservation and use. IPGRI and GRENEWECA are also able to attract and secure resources from international official development agencies and other international organizations and foundations to help organizations like the Center accomplish their goals.

The evaluation study

Objectives. The study evaluated capacity development in the Center between 1980 and 1999, during which time major growth and change occurred. The evaluation of IPGRI’s

contribution included a retrospective analysis of the Institute’s support to the Center with the aim of identifying how capacity development programs could be improved in the future. The focus of the evaluation for GRENEWECA was more forward looking, focusing on how to solve problems in a collaborative way among network members to plan for a more effective capacity development program in the future.

The specific objectives of the evaluation were to

• analyze the development of the Center’s capacity to conserve, evaluate, and utilize plant genetic resources—specifically its staff development, facilities, and methods for conservation—so that the Center can carry out its mandate more effectively;
• illustrate and learn from Ghana’s capacity development experiences to help develop IPGRI and GRENEWECA’s other national programs in Africa and elsewhere;
• promote the use of evaluation for capacity development and to build skills in conducting these analyses within the three participating organizations.

Motivation for the evaluation. All three participating organizations became involved in the study to learn more about capacity development processes and how to evaluate them. For the Center, the study was a means of evaluating its overall performance and identifying weaknesses. It was also an opportunity to increase awareness among its stakeholders and upper-level managers about the Center and to engage them in problem solving and priority setting.

For IPGRI and GRENEWECA, capacity development is a high priority and an important part of their core mission. They were, therefore, interested in better understanding of how their organizational capacity development efforts can be more effective. This evaluation was an opportunity for both organizations to take an in-depth look at their experience with one national program and to extend what they learned to other programs.

Evaluation design. A case-study approach was used for the evaluation with a strong emphasis on self-assessment by each of the organizations involved. This approach provided a means to evaluate the complex interactions and processes involved in organizational change.

The study was designed and implemented by a team made up of members from each of the three participating organizations, including the head of the Center. The study included three major components, each focused on one of the organizations involved in the study. In each component, self-assessment workshops, interviews with key informants including staff and stakeholders, and a review of relevant archives, records, and other documentation were used.

Once all the components of the study were concluded, evaluation team members from the three organizations met to compare and consolidate their findings and develop overall conclusions and recommendations. Drafts of the evaluation report were reviewed by key stakeholders, and revisions were made as necessary.

The evaluation findings

Capacity developed. The evaluation study concluded that the Center’s capacities have grown appreciably over the 20-year period studied. Areas of improvement include infrastructure development, acquisition of key administrative staff and technical staff, improved research methodologies, and an increased engagement with national and international stakeholders. The Center has also diversified its services and products thereby increasing its financial resources.

The Government of Ghana played a substantial role in the Center’s development process through provision of land, payment of salaries, and allocation of basic operating budgets. A significant improvement in the ability of the Center to carry out its mandate occurred in 1994 when the Government granted it the status of a semi-autonomous research center. This resulted in a direct funding allocation to the Center and greater control over its budgetary resources.

IPGRI’s contribution. IPGRI contributed to the development of the Center’s capacity through its sustained partnership over a period of approximately 20 years. In comparison with other external partners, IPGRI provided the most support over the longest period of time. IPGRI’s support to the Center came in the following forms:

• increasing technical expertise by sponsoring long- and short-term training for Center staff;
• strengthening infrastructure development by providing the Center with basic conservation and research facilities;
• providing technical assistance to facilitate the introduction of new methodologies;
• providing publications, which increased Center staff access to important technical information;
• sponsoring collaborative research in innovative methodologies and technologies;
• promoting the development of a more conducive international policy environment for plant genetic resources that would hopefully impact positively on Ghanaian law and policy, which in turn would be supportive of the Center’s operations;
• helping to promote improved management practices;
• increased public awareness about the importance of plant genetic resources;
• promoting inter-regional collaboration and strengthening by sponsoring the secretariat of the GRENEWECA network.

GRENEWECA’S contribution. Although GRENEWECA has only recently become operational, it has contributed to the development of the Center’s capacity by:

• sponsoring collaborative research activities on germplasm collection and evaluation;
• training staff in documentation, project proposal writing, and plant genetic resources management;
• raising awareness among the Center’s stakeholders and decision-makers on the importance of plant genetic resources for food, agriculture, health, and economic development;
• promoting collaboration within member countries by sponsoring national plant genetic resources committee meetings;
• providing a platform for the Center to actively advocate greater support for plant genetic resource development at the international level.

Improving capacity development efforts. The study indicated that the capacity development of the Center could be better achieved in the future if improvements are made in four key areas. First, to better target capacity development efforts to the needs and priorities of the Center. Second, to define capacity development more broadly and move beyond technical training to include management and strategic planning skills. Third, to better monitor and evaluate capacity development efforts, and fourth, to build the capacities of IPGRI and GRENEWECA to more effectively achieve their goals as capacity development agents.

Uses and benefits of the evaluation

The participatory approach used in the evaluation study helped build capacity for evaluation and an understanding of capacity development among the study team members and their organizations and stakeholders. Participants in the study are now more likely to understand, value, use, and implement the findings of the evaluation.

Limitations in the methodology. A good basis for the evaluation was established during the planning phase but more should have been done to develop the assumptions, indicators, and theoretical framework in a truly participatory manner. A stronger understanding and consensus on the theoretical framework of capacity development should have been developed among team members. Managers and staff of the three participating organizations could have been more involved in the planning phase to help ensure complete understanding of the basis of the study and commitment for the uptake of recommendations.

Applications of findings. The evaluation report was used in an external review of IPGRI’s sub-Saharan Africa Regional Office that took place in September 2001 and in a review

of its capacity development project that took place in the spring of 2002. The study’s findings were also used in the development of a new strategic plan for capacity development that will guide IPGRI’s capacity development activities over the next five years.

By disseminating the study report to various interested parties in Ghana and elsewhere, the Center was able to raise support to implement the recommendations of the study and to hold a strategic planning exercise in 2002. Finally, the results of the study were presented at several international conferences, and the final report is being published for distribution to the Center’s stakeholders. This information dissemination is expected to increase awareness of the importance of the evaluation process and its outcomes.

Assessing Organizational Change in an Agricultural Faculty in Nicaragua
Matilde Somarriba Chang, Esther Carballo Madrigal, Javier López, Edmundo Umaña, and Francisco Reyes

The setting

Despite its abundant natural resources, Nicaragua continues to experience high levels of poverty. This is due in part to a lack of vision and commitment by national organizations to manage natural resources. It also reflects the lack of appropriate frameworks and methods for professionals working in the environmental and agricultural sectors. It is therefore necessary to provide an education that is both relevant and practical to the agricultural and forestry sectors to move the country forward.

Nicaragua’s National Agrarian University (UNA) provides a professional education to its students and tries to address the development, political, economic, social, and cultural needs of the country through its programs. UNA has four separate departments, including the Faculty of Natural Resources and the Environment (FARENA), which this evaluation study is focused on.

FARENA is responsible for preparing students for careers in forestry and agronomist engineering with a focus on soil and water, and in renewable natural resource management. Its mission is to create professionals who can contribute to the agricultural development of the country by generating appropriate technologies for natural resource management in order to contribute to the establishment of sustainable and competitive agrarian production systems.

The capacity development effort

FARENA has both academic and administrative autonomy from UNA and has sought to build its capacity through partnerships with several international governmental organizations and NGOs. These include the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT); the Program for Sustainable Agriculture on the Slopes of Central America; Forest, Trees, and People; the Swedish International Development Agency; and Texas A&M University. The capacity development efforts included joint research projects, technological and financial support, and institutional capacity development and information exchange.

The evaluation study

Motivation to conduct the evaluation study. In 1999, UNA conducted an assessment of the professional needs of Nicaragua’s agricultural sector, which resulted in curricula reform and a reorganization of FARENA. When the opportunity to participate in this evaluation study arose, there was interest on the part of FARENA’s management to participate in the effort since its organizational changes had been approached essentially from a technical rather than an organizational perspective.

Objectives. Originally the purpose of the study was to evaluate CIAT’s contribution to the development of FARENA’s capacity for integrated natural resource management with a special focus on watershed management. Thanks to the contributions of various organizations, the focus of the study shifted to an overall assessment of FARENA’s capacity to achieve its mission between 1997 and 2000, a period when vast political changes took place in the country and when critical organizational changes took place in UNA and FARENA.

The study’s specific objectives were (a) to identify the processes by which FARENA accomplished its mission, (b) to analyze the recent changes in the context, motivation, capacity, and performance of FARENA and how these impacted on the organization’s capacity to accomplish its mission, (c) to identify the contributions of external organizations in the organizational development of FARENA and how this impacted on its ability to accomplish its mission, and (d) to identify the capacities FARENA needs to accomplish its mission.

Principles of the evaluation study. The evaluation was based on

• joint reflection on achievements, limitations, and future options in FARENA’s organizational development but not on specific outcomes that had already been achieved;
• FARENA as a management unit but not individuals within the organization;
• capacity development as an integrated effort, where the main functions of the organization are addressed and where an examination of how they benefit the organization’s target group takes place;
• understanding that capacity development involves multiple, interacting efforts with many external agents whose contributions are difficult to distinguish from one another.

Study methods and activities. The evaluation was conducted through a series of participatory and self-assessment workshops with participants from FARENA, other University departments, students, and external partner organizations. A sensitization workshop was held followed by a second workshop analyzing FARENA’s external environment, motivation, and organizational capacities. A third workshop evaluated external agencies’ contributions to FARENA’s capacity development, and a fourth evaluated FARENA’s capacities related to extension services. A final workshop examined the processes that led to the development of capacities in FARENA. A team of four reviewed the outcomes of each workshop and secondary information and helped compile a final report.

The evaluation findings

Processes used by FARENA to achieve its mission. The study concluded that FARENA’s management, teaching, research, and extension processes contributed to delivering professional graduates and providing technical and scientific information and services related to renewable natural resources. The study also concluded that FARENA’s educational process comprises activities planned and oriented around providing an individual with knowledge, skills, and values to help develop more effective management of Nicaragua’s natural resources.

Changes in the external environment. Although national politics have created a polarized environment in Nicaragua, the study concluded that there now appears to be a more favorable environment for cooperation between universities and government institutions. FARENA already has a good relationship with a number of related local governmental organizations and NGOs.

Changes in organizational motivation. In terms of overall organizational development, the study concluded that change processes were put into place that served to motivate FARENA to redefine its mission, vision, and role in the area of renewable natural resource management in Nicaragua, even though FARENA was initially neither technically prepared nor organized to undergo change.

Looking at organizational culture, the study found that most members of staff were willing to work in groups on topics of common interest and that the attitude of personnel towards change was generally very positive. However, some aspects of organizational culture affected staff motivation, for example, the culture of improvisation meant that planning was often not carefully done, and plans that had been agreed to were sometimes not followed in practice.

Staff incentives and rewards were also important. Employment stability, opportunities for professional development, and competitive salaries helped maintain the commitment of FARENA personnel.

Capacities developed and to be developed by FARENA to accomplish its mission. The evaluation enabled FARENA to determine what capacities have improved or limited its overall performance. These included leadership; strategic planning; governance, structure, and organization; planning, monitoring, and evaluation; staffing issues; internal and external communication; technologies to develop teaching and research capabilities; financial resources; and facilities and infrastructure.

Changes in FARENA’s performance. In this study, performance was measured according to efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, and financial viability. The study suggested that FARENA could have used its professional resources more efficiently. The University’s slow and centralized administrative system also had direct repercussions on the department’s performance. FARENA’s administration is understaffed and requires training on administrative and high-level education management techniques. FARENA also needs to put into place a mechanism to evaluate organizational performance and the effectiveness of staff members on an individual basis.

FARENA has managed to maintain its relevance by designing curricula reform based on an assessment of national demand and needs for agricultural sciences. The financial resources allocated to FARENA do not, however, allow it to undertake all of its mandated activities and FARENA will need to develop a specific strategy for fundraising in a more sustainable way.

The contribution of external agencies. The study concluded that external agencies contributed to FARENA’s integrated natural resource management focus and to the development of FARENA’s research and extension capacities. The appropriation of CIAT’s tools for making decisions on natural resource management contributed to the Faculty’s acquisition of knowledge and skills. A better understanding of the need for community participation in planning processes for appropriate natural resource management led to a change of attitude among technicians and extension personnel.

The various contributions made by external entities contributed the following achievements:

• increased collaboration and communication with a variety of national organizations and national and international networks;
• improved research capabilities through enhancing researchers’, students’, and graduates’ capacities;
• increased training for natural resource management-related sectors;
• updated equipment and methodologies.

The evaluation also recommended new approaches to working with external agencies for the following reasons:

• to negotiate with external agencies so that FARENA decides the terms of the support so that capacity development efforts contribute to developing FARENA’s strategic plans;
• to make organizational development part of the goal of specific projects;
• to improve FARENA’s administrative and management capacities to fulfill the external organization’s accountability requirements;
• to establish monitoring and evaluation strategies within the project and/or agreements to help make appropriate decisions.

Capacities that need to be developed. The capacities that FARENA needs to develop include improved understanding of the concepts surrounding integrated management of watersheds, environmental impact assessment, tools for monitoring natural and water resources, better understanding of the impact of its work on the country’s socioeconomic development, and a mechanism for introducing fees for environ-mental services.

Uses and benefits of the evaluation

The evaluation contributed not only to FARENA’s understanding of its capacity development processes but also in helping it address its organizational performance issues. The Faculty will now be able to improve on its limitations and develop the required capacities to achieve its mission. Recommendations were made regarding actions to be carried out not only by FARENA but also by the University and how to improve collaboration with external partners.

This study is expected to serve as a reference for other organizations in Nicaragua that work in education, research, and extension and that wish to carry out an evaluation of capacity development efforts. The study has been used to prioritize FARENA’s 2002 workplan and to design a training program for its academic personnel. The evaluation study was shared with a UNA evaluation team that is conducting an

evaluation and accreditation process for a regional project supported by the Inter-American Development Bank.

FARENA proposes to carry out another evaluation in the next two years to enable it to evaluate the progress made on the recommendations from this report. The evaluation will also serve to identify improvements in FARENA’s performance and how these have benefited the organization.

Strengthening Participatory Research Capacities in a Philippines Root Crops Research Center
Dindo Campilan, Jocelyn Perez, Jovita Sim, and Raul Boncodin

The setting

Root crops play a vital role in food security and income generation among poor farmers in the Philippines. Root crops—such as sweetpotato, cassava, potato, taro, and yam—can grow in marginal areas, give good yields with little inputs or care, and offer great potential for commercial food and nonfood uses. For many Filipino farmers and families, root crops guarantee a consistent food supply and cash income.

Given their potential contribution to poverty alleviation in the Philippines, root crops were identified as a major commodity for research in the early 1970s. In 1977, a Presidential Decree created a regional research center for the northern Philippines, which is now called the Northern Philippines Root Crops Research and Training Center.

The Root Crops Center is mandated to spearhead research, training, and extension on root crops in the highlands of the northern Philippines. It was established as an autonomous public-sector organization operationally attached to Benguet State University (BSU). In the late 1980s, the Center began collaborative activities with various national and international organizations, including the Users’ Perspectives with Agricultural Research and Development (UPWARD) network.

UPWARD is an Asia-wide network of research and development professionals seeking greater involvement from farmers and other users of agricultural technology in the research and development of root crops. Its ultimate goal is to apply participatory research methods to enhance the contribution of root crops to income generation for farmers and for individuals and organizations to introduce a participatory dimension in their agricultural research activities.

The capacity development effort

In the early 1980s, the international agricultural research community recognized the need to develop and apply new research and development approaches, particularly participatory research, to the needs of marginalized farming groups. Since root crops are often associated with resource-poor farming households in the Philippines, the Root Crops Center identified participatory research as a relevant and essential capacity for the successful implementation of its mission and objectives. The Center consequently developed its capacity to undertake participatory research by training its staff, acquiring and using publications, and employing small grant-funded projects, which enabled staff to ‘learn by doing’.

The International Potato Center (CIP) has a long history of partnership with the Root Crops Center, and its major intervention for developing participatory research capacities was formalized via UPWARD. ‘Learning by doing’ and ‘learning through sharing’ are key features of UPWARD’s networking strategy. The Center–UPWARD partnership, which was formally launched in 1990, was founded on a shared interest in root crops as a priority focus for research, and participatory research as a potential means to achieve the target outputs and development outcomes of root crops research.

Collaborative field projects formed an important UPWARD strategy for developing participatory research capacity among its partner organizations. The Center–UPWARD collaboration began with a research project on sweetpotato-based home gardens in Baguio City. Over the last 12 years, UPWARD has supported the Root Crops Center’s capacity development efforts through collaborative projects, training, information services, and facilitating the exchange of expertise. The eight phases of development of the partnership are as follows:

The evaluation study

Objectives. The Root Crops Center and UPWARD participated in the ISNAR-led ECD Project primarily because of their common interest to evaluate and learn from their 12-year partnership. The Center was experiencing declining levels of funding and needed to redefine its niche within the country’s broader root crops research system. It also wanted to maintain its relevancy and contribution to agricultural development in the Philippines and intended to use this evaluation to contribute to its internal review and planning processes. UPWARD saw the need to systematically review how its decade-long capacity development efforts had contributed to the organizational development of its partner organizations.

The joint evaluation aimed to:

• analyze the processes and outcomes of developing the Root Crops Center’s participatory research capacity;
• determine how its participatory research capacity had contributed to the effective performance of the Center as a research organization;
• examine how UPWARD had contributed to the development of the Center’s participatory research capacity;
• formulate a recommendation for improving capacity development efforts at the Center.

Study methods. The evaluation primarily used a self-assessment methodology, involving Center staff and stakeholders in designing the evaluation, collecting data, and analyzing findings. The evaluation involved several phases. Secondary data collection was followed by a planning workshop to discuss concepts, practices, and issues in capacity development and the ECD Project, and key informant interviews. A summative workshop was held to present and analyze the data collected, draw conclusions, and identify the limitations of the evaluation. The final phase involved drafting the evaluation report, which was then shared and finalized during workshops involving evaluation stakeholders.

The evaluation focused on human capabilities rather than organizational resources. The evaluation team faced major constraints in data collection due to a lack of monitoring records and difficulty in contacting key informants for the period being covered by the study. In addition, the evaluation was conducted simultaneously with an external financial audit of the Root Crops Center. This unwittingly affected stakeholders’ perceptions of the purpose and use of the evaluation.

The evaluation findings

The evaluation identified environmental and motivational factors influencing capacity development and performance, examined the processes of developing participatory research capacity at the Center, and assessed the contribution of partner organizations to capacity development for participatory research.

Factors influencing capacity development. Environmental factors, such as the policy and funding environment, organizational autonomy, and natural disasters, and motivational factors, such as organizational change and reorganization, staff homogeneity, and external recognition, influenced the Center’s capacity development and performance in participatory research in positive and negative ways. The research it conducted on home gardens helped the Center contribute significantly to the public- and private-sector’s response to food shortages in Baguio City as a result of the 1991 earthquake.

The Root Crops Center’s efforts in capacity development. The study concluded that training, information support, mentoring, and small grant projects all made a contribution to the Center’s overall strategy for capacity development. Although the partnership between the Root Crops Center and UPWARD was specific to participatory research, the study concluded that it was crucial for the partner organizations to understand how a subset capacity relates to and creates synergy with the other technical, facilitative, and strategic management capacities of the organization. Designing an appropriate mix of capacities over time and space is one of the fundamental challenges facing the organization.

UPWARD’s contribution. UPWARD was identified as the main external institution supporting the Center’s efforts for developing participatory research capacity. Mentoring was UPWARD’s primary means of support. This occurred through informal visits and consultation meetings with senior UPWARD network members and staff from the UPWARD coordinating office. Approximately half of UPWARD’s investment in the Center’s capacity development involved training and mentoring activities and one-third involved project grants. This suggests that the Center–UPWARD collaboration was grounded on a diverse portfolio of joint efforts for capacity development and research implementation.

Outcomes of capacity development efforts. A wider evaluation of changes in participatory research capacity through self-assessment showed that a variety of types of capacities were developed spanning the entire process of research planning and implementation. These extended even beyond the research realm by enabling Center staff to teach

university courses and organize training sessions. The self-assessment showed that the Center’s capacity benefited most from efforts to define a research agenda that was based on stakeholder needs. The least capacity improvement was seen in the skills acquired for undertaking fieldwork. This finding underscores the need to focus more attention on developing capacities for field-based research, especially among researchers who have been primarily involved in on-station work.

From the individual to the project level. The evaluation also examined the Center’s organizational capacity on a project and institutional level. Individual capacities were successfully transformed into project-level capacities, and this was demonstrated by sustained project implementation, even when project leadership changed, expanding team membership, and the receipt of awards that recognized project-level performance.

The contribution of individual- and project-level capacities to organizational-level capacities for participatory research was also demonstrated. Participatory methods in the Center-UPWARD collaborative project were used for other projects undertaken by the Center. Co-ownership of the project was expanded among the various program divisions of the Center. Project-based publications and documents were produced and have become part of the Center’s collection of information resources on participatory research.

Changes in organizational performance. Improvement in participatory research performance was demonstrated by the team’s successful implementation of new participatory research activities. Positive changes in organizational performance were also seen as the project carried out its planned activities, produced the corresponding outputs, and worked toward the accomplishment of desired outcomes. The longer-term organizational performance of the project was also evaluated in terms of the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and sustainability of project processes and results. The study concluded that throughout project implementation, the team continuously learned to improve its participatory research performance.

Contribution to UPWARD outputs and outcomes. The evaluation revealed that the collaborative project yielded key outputs and outcomes, not only for the Center but also for UPWARD. The field-based experiences of the project contributed to UPWARD’s broader programmatic agenda in several ways. UPWARD’s knowledge on concepts and practices in participatory research were improved, and the experiences contributed to the planning and implementation of CIP’s root crops research agenda. In addition, the development of participatory research capacity for other UPWARD members was enhanced.

The Center–UPWARD partnership highlighted the two-way nature of capacity development. Conventional thinking would view the Center and UPWARD as service recipient and provider, respectively. However, it was clear from the evaluation that UPWARD gained as much as the Center from the partnership. All this points to the need to rethink the popular notion of partnership as a patron–client relationship.

Uses and benefits of the evaluation

The administration of BSU responded positively to this study by re-affirming its stake in the process and outcome of the evaluation. In response to the suggestion by the University administration to share the evaluation more widely, the evaluation team organized a series of seminars and workshops aimed at various constituents of the University. This also allowed the team to clarify the nature and purpose of the evaluation in light of various erroneous interpretations of the evaluation’s agenda.

Parallel evaluations have been carried out with other UPWARD partners, drawing from the initial experience of the evaluation with the Root Crops Center. Findings from this study, especially on new training needs identified by Center staff, served as input to the development and design of an UPWARD international course on participatory research and development.

Guidelines for future evaluations of capacity development efforts. Some key guidelines have emerged from the evaluation that could be useful to those seeking to do evaluation of capacity development. These include the following:

• Evaluating capacity development inevitably involves collecting sensitive information and can only take place in an atmosphere of transparency and objectivity.
• Capacity development is a complex area that people in the organization need to reflect on and talk about to each other.
• It is important that everybody gains consensus on what we mean when we say ‘capacity development’.
• It is important to have common, useful, visual, and conceptual frameworks to refer to when we talk about complex notions such as ‘organizational performance’ and ‘organizational capacity’.
• It is important for all participants to talk in concrete terms (our organization, our mandate and mission, our projects, our management systems, our personnel) and not in abstract terms. Using a case project (e.g., sweetpotato enterprise development) provides concrete examples and indicators on which discussions and exercises can be based.
• Reflecting on an organization’s capacity development is a complex exercise. It requires an iterative process, i.e. doing things several times before they become
  
  clear and before being able to sort out the more useful examples and indicators from the less useful.
• Systematic record keeping is important in proceeding with a capacity development project. Good ideas and important details get lost if these are not recorded systematically.
• Keeping a written record of attempts to come to grips with organizational development is also valuable.

Expanding Capacities in a Rural Development Institute in Viet Nam
Le Thanh Duong, Nguyen Quang Tuyen, and Ronnie Vernooy

The setting

Viet Nam’s government has decided to join the forces of globalization and has applied for membership of the World Trade Organization and the Asian Free Trade Area. In the last decade, the government has also implemented an ambitious reform process (doi moi). Economic growth during most of the 1990s has been impressive, but conditions remain tough for those who lack access to good health care, job opportunities and capital, productive land, and/or adequate housing. Problems such as over-exploitation of the natural resource base, including soil erosion and ground water pollution, are ongoing or worsening. Changes in science and technology have been modest and the dominant ‘top–down’ approach excludes producers from setting research and development agendas. Unidisciplinary-oriented scientists continue to control these sectors. Rural areas are under-served, and few women are involved in agricultural development and research.

This evaluation focuses on Can Tho University’s Mekong Delta Farming Systems Research and Development (R&D) Institute, which was established in 1988 to enhance sustainable agriculture and rural development in Viet Nam through research, training, and extension activities inside and outside the Mekong Delta region. The study also analyzes the capacity development efforts of two Institute-coordinated networks—the Farming Systems Research Network (FSRNET) and the Natural Resource Management Network (NAREMNET). These networks bring together a number of Vietnamese organizations with the objective of developing staff capabilities in participatory research and community-based natural resource management. The Mekong Delta Farming Systems R&D Institute and the networks have been supported by IDRC.

IDRC’s purpose is to initiate, encourage, support, and conduct research into the problems of the developing world and into the means for applying and adapting scientific, technical, and other knowledge to the economic and social advancement of these regions. IDRC’s mandate and objectives emphasize capacity development through a ‘learning by doing’ approach and the Centre supports research in three broad program areas: social and economic equity, information and communication technologies, and environment and natural resource management. The Community-Based Natural Resource Management program (CBNRM) is one of six programs and works directly with local people involved in natural resource management. The CBNRM program recognizes that these individuals may have intimate knowledge of the local resource base, may have contradictory views on resource use, and will be motivated to adopt sustainable production if they will benefit from improvements in productivity.

The capacity development effort

In a transition economy such as Viet Nam’s, organizational capabilities and academic skills in social sciences are particularly limited. As a result, capacity development is a continuing priority in IDRC’s programs in Viet Nam. IDRC has provided significant funding for the networks and minor funding for a number of Institute research support activities as well as for the participation of Institute staff in training workshops. IDRC program staff has made regular visits to the Institute and to network partner organizations.

The evaluation study

Objectives. The study aimed to improve, through action research, the understanding of individual and organizational capacity development efforts within the Institute. The study also provided the opportunity to design and try out a variety of tools for monitoring and evaluating these efforts and their results.

The study focused on the period between 1990 and 2000. The research methodologies included a review of program and project documents and relevant studies, key informant interviews, questionnaires, and a number of participatory tools including self-assessment workshops and participatory workshops. A variety of stakeholders took part in the study including researchers, extension workers, government officials, and farmers. Institutional and project documents produced by the Institute and IDRC and relevant studies published in the form of books about recent political and economic developments in Viet Nam were also reviewed. In addition, selected interviews were carried out with key individuals, such as the Director of the Institute and the IDRC program officer responsible for Institute support.

A small sub-case study was added to the main evaluation and focused on the impact of the networks on one of their members, the Institute of Agricultural Science of South Viet Nam (SIAS) in Ho Cho Minh City.

The evaluation findings

Changes in the Institute’s organizational capacity. The study concluded that the Institute has developed a set of important organizational capacities that allow it to function as a major research and development organization in Viet Nam. The study identified key capacities as those that allow the Institute to achieve its mission. The core elements of the Institute’s capacity development efforts are strategic leadership, the use and dissemination of an innovative research approach and methodologies, strong personnel management, funding, infrastructure, programs and projects, and dynamic networking both nationally and internationally.

The study concluded that over time the Institute has grown rapidly and made a number of achievements in the field of training, research, and extension that have enabled it to play a leadership role in scientific and policy innovations in Viet Nam. Important processes that led to these changes included the following:

• development of a more holistic approach to rural development research, training, and extension that included a multi-disciplinary, participatory, and community-based natural resource management approach;
• more frequent, stronger, and more responsive relationships with other researchers and clients;
• development of a common approach and agenda with other national research organizations due to the successful efforts of the networks;
• greater effectiveness in fund raising and efficiency in the use of funds;
• improvement in coordination and cooperation with donors;
• improvement in personnel management (knowledge, attitudes, skills, and practice);
• expansion and increasing complexity of infrastructure.

Networking as a capacity development effort. The networks helped raise awareness in SIAS’s target group for the role of the community in water resource management through the formation of community organizations. Members of the local organizations also improved their knowledge and application of participatory methods in management and project implementation. Local leadership sympathized with the activities and results of the project. However, important gaps prevailed:

• Collaboration between local organizations faced obstacles because of staffing and budgetary problems.
• Staff resources were limited and staff did not have clear responsibilities, making it difficult to track, reward, or punish in response to performance.
• The division of duties in irrigation system management is not locally regulated.
• The management of local associations is weak.

The Institute and SIAS staff concluded that the network projects supported by IDRC have contributed to the development of their resources and managerial capacities. The networks also gave IDRC staff an opportunity to become familiar with natural resource management problems in Viet Nam and encouraged the ‘standardization’ of research to a community-based natural resource management approach.

Individual staff contributions to the development of the Institute’s organizational capacities. The driving forces behind the above-mentioned changes were staff motivation and staff pride to improve themselves and the organization. Strong leadership from the Institute’s Director was demonstrated both internally and externally through linkages with donors, other researchers, and policy-makers.

Achieving results, applying a ‘learning by doing’ approach, and operating in an external environment that allows experimentation, innovation, and independence has had a positive effect on the Institute’s capacity development.

Future challenges for the Institute’s capacity development efforts. One major challenge identified by staff is the new policy environment that threatens the future financial viability and sustainability of the Institute. The staff also identified a number of capacities that require further strengthening, including staff development, the improvement of internal rules and regulations, the building of new partnerships to improve research capabilities, and the upgrading of facilities.

Giving and receiving: donor program delivery revisited. The study concluded that IDRC’s support was critical in the early 1990s when it introduced a new, radically different approach to research for development through new research methodology, documentation, in-house training, and funding. In adopting and adapting to this new approach, the Institute became a leader in the country. The cumulative project experiences of the six organizations involved in the networks, and others doing community-based natural resource management work, became a basis for other activities and other donor support.

The evaluation concluded that at the national level, supportive policies (personnel development, science and technology, agriculture and rural development) and funding are crucial as these directly affect the organization’s viability and sustainability. At the international level, the following donor factors are especially important: flexible funding, motivating for research quality, facilitating networking, promoting linkages with other donors, providing access to expertise and expert support, respecting other languages and cultures, and encouraging supportive monitoring and evaluation.

Uses and benefits of the evaluation

This study is only a preliminary step in a wider process of follow-up activities that will allow the Institute to achieve a more precise evaluation of its organizational capacity development efforts by using participatory approaches. The study was a key element in learning about the strengths and weaknesses of the organizations involved and as a means of identifying gaps and opportunities for future action to improve planning, management, policies, and practices and to increase the organization’s financial viability.

The use of participatory evaluation with a strong self-assessment focus was appropriate for the types of organizations involved, since staff and partners/clients can undergo such processes on their own. The evaluation needs to consider both individual and organizational capacity development. A case study approach such as the one used in this evaluation seems adequate as it represents a comprehensive approach that makes selective use of theory and various participatory tools.

It is planned to use the evaluation results to formulate an organizational action plan for the Institute. The results from this research will be disseminated to various individuals and organizations inside and outside Can Tho University. Results and findings of the study will also be shared and discussed with IDRC. Continued collaboration with the Institute on its action planning is expected. After a mid-term review workshop, the Institute’s staff will practice the approach and methods from the project to identify lessons for improving capacity development efforts in the future, whether at the project or organization level.

Further Information

Further information on the organizations taking part in the evaluation studies can be found on the following websites:

The Rangpur Dinajpur Rural Service, Bangladesh: www.drik.net/memisa/html/rdrs.html

The International Institute of Rural Reconstruction: www.iirr.org

The Swine Research Institute Cuba: www.isnar.cgiar.org/shiip/cuba-capacity.htm www.sian.info.ve/porcinos/publicaciones/viencuent/valdiviachu.htm

National System for Science and Agrarian Technological Innovation, Cuba: www.felixvarela.org/Conf98/pp34.htm#sincita

ISNAR: www.isnar.cgiar.org

International Plant Genetic Resources Institute: www.ipgri.cgiar.org

Genetic Resources Network for West and Central Africa: www.ipgri.cgiar.org/regions/ssa/networking/greneweca.htm

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Ghana (parent organization of Plant Genetic Resources Center: www.csir.org.gh

Faculty of Natural Resources and the Environment, Nicaragua: www.una.edu.ni/farena.htm

Benguet State University, the Philippines (parent organization of Root Crops Center): www.bsu.edu.ph

Users’ Perspectives with Agricultural Research and Development: www.eseap.cipotato.org/upward

IDRC Community-Based Natural Resource Management Program: www.idrc.ca/cbnrm

Document(s) 11 of 15