Tag: Capacity Development Building Water WASH Training

From Gaps to Growth: Capacity development in WASH sector

This is a guest blog by RWSN member Kirsten de Vette.

Capacity development plays a pivotal role in fostering sustainable progress towards ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. This article presents several striking findings stemming from several recent capacity assessments and capacity development reviews I was involved in over the past three years. Tackling these issues will have transformative impact on the water, sanitation, and hygiene and development sectors, whilst the required effort is expected to be relatively low.

Photo 1: WASHPaLS#2: Focus Group Discussion Jigawa Nigeria. Photo credit Nanpet Chuktu

Finding 1: There is misalignment on what capacity means

There are diverse definitions and interpretations of this concept, which can impede effective implementation of interventions. Some speak of institutional capacity (enabling environment and organizational capacity), others speak about individual capacity (skills, competencies, abilities), and others only address the organizational capacity (knowledge management, leadership, systems etc) itself. This has a knock-on effect on what capacity development means. For some it is simply looking at the education of new professionals (i.e. TVET, universities). Others only equate the term capacity development with training, and others may indicate it is strengthening institutions (i.e. systems, policies etc.).

Very few stakeholders interviewed incorporate all four levels of capacity (enabling environment, organizational, individual, and society)[1] in their thinking. Many even seem to neglect the broader issues affecting capacity, such as workforce development and sustainable employment.

On top of this the terms capacity – building, – development and – strengthening are now used interchangeably to describe the process of increasing capacities. In academic literature the first two are explored and do in fact mean something different. The third is used by some to overcome a certain level of tension on the terminology inherited from the history of capacity development (will be described in following blog).

To address this, we need to develop a common understanding among stakeholders in water, sanitation, and or hygiene (perhaps broaden to include all development work) on what capacity means, and what effective capacity development then entails. This will create a solid foundation for future endeavours and collaboration.

Photo 2: WASHPaLS#2: Field visit Bihar India. Photo credit: Anand Shekhar

Finding 2: Addressing the Job Shortage Dilemma

Strengthening capacity and education alone may not be sufficient if there is a lack of suitable job opportunities. While the importance and shortages of human resources have been identified (IWA, 2014; GLAAS 2012/ 2014/ 2017/ 2022; World Water Development Report, 2016; forthcoming USAID WASHPals#2), the existence or development of corresponding employment opportunities cannot be guaranteed.

The labor market, especially for rural sanitation, is largely reliant on (I)NGOs, or Development partners, who are normally in place on project basis. Where positions are present in the public sector, they are shared with other responsibilities (e.g. water, solid waste, building & constructions and or others) that are of higher priority. The positions in the informal private sector are dependent on demand (and or projects) and often do not (yet) guarantee full-time employment in the long run.

To address this, we need to address sustainable employment, and create avenues for career growth in the sectors. This can be supported by raising awareness about the need for job creation (and investment), but also by developing the proper policies, mandates and incentives that justify stakeholders to create the needed jobs.

Finding 3: Coordination and Communication gaps

There is insufficient coordination and communication among capacity development providers, development partners, and sector actors. The education sector often struggles to meet the needs of the WASH sector, while the sector itself is unable to effectively communicate its requirements. It was also highlighted by several key informant interviews in country studies that INGOs/ development partners working at country level often fail to coordinate (all of) their capacity development efforts (the forthcoming USAID WASHPaLS #2). This results in overlapping interventions in certain regions while leaving others with inadequate support. 

We need to make capacity development a collaborative endeavour. By integrating capacity development (jointly defined as per finding one) and in particular workforce development into the narrative, and into the national review meetings and or Water, Sanitation and or Hygiene plans. But also, by developing a platform for stakeholders to engage in dialogues and share insights on how to develop the needed workforce and supporting structures to deliver the country’s plans. By fostering collaboration and shared responsibility, we can harness the collective expertise and resources to enhance capacity development outcomes.

Photo 3: WASHPaLS#2: Validation workshop, Accra Ghana. Photo credit Bertha Darteh

Finding 4: Persistent challenges in capacity development efforts

Beyond, the higher-level findings (1-3), there are also persistent challenges in capacity development interventions themselves. The most important ones are:

  • Mismatch supply and demand:  This can be caused by focus on what supply has on offer rather than soliciting what the audiences need.
  • Time Constraints and Limited Application: Capacity development initiatives often fall short in allocating sufficient time for participants to fully engage in the learning process and apply acquired knowledge to their work. This issue is compounded when training or workshops disrupt regular duties, compelling participants to tackle additional workload.
  • Narrow Focus and Overemphasis on Training: Capacity development is still frequently equated solely with training. This neglects other ways of (adult) learning that have already been recognized by the education sector and (adult) learning specialists. This limited perspective also fails to address broader aspects such as organizational structures, enabling environments, and societal factors that significantly influence capacity development outcomes.
  • One-Size-Fits-All Approach: Many capacity development efforts suffer from a lack of consideration for the diverse target audiences involved, including politicians, managers, and technicians. Recognizing the unique interests, needs, and learner preferences of each group is pivotal in designing tailored interventions that foster meaningful impact.
  • Unidirectional Learning: Traditional capacity development activities often fail to harness the valuable expertise and input of participants. By disregarding the insights of practitioners and experts during the design and implementation of programs, the potential for an inclusive and collaborative learning environment is undermined.
  • Lack of (long-term) capacity development strategy: Many capacity development efforts lack a comprehensive strategy (also referred to as design) capturing the outcomes, outputs, objectives, audiences, learning methods approaches, actions at the four levels of capacity, and evaluation of the intervention. In addition, and relevant for our sectors with high turnover rates, is strategizing for the retention and utilization of acquired learning and knowledge through knowledge management practices.
  • Insufficient Knowledge of Effective Practices: A lack of information on successful but also failing capacity development practices poses a significant challenge to the advancement of this field. Collecting data on impact and application is essential to identify and share evidence-based strategies, enabling continuous improvement and enhanced effectiveness.

Every capacity development intervention needs to check these points and address them accordingly.

Guiding Principles for Effective Capacity Development:

Building upon the identified four challenges there is a need for overarching guiding principles for effective capacity development.

  1. Time and Application: Allow sufficient time for learning and provide opportunities for participants to apply their knowledge in their work. Consider local governance, mandates, and roles to minimize disruptions and extra workload.
  2. Holistic Approach: Expand the scope of capacity development to address multiple levels of capacity, including individual, organizational, enabling environment, and society. Incorporate diverse learning methods, such as peer-to-peer interactions, virtual tours, mentoring, communities of practice, and working groups.
  3. Tailored Solutions: Recognize the unique interests, needs, and approaches of different target audiences. Develop customized capacity development activities that align with specific requirements.
  4. Engage Specialists: Involve practitioners and experts in the design and implementation of capacity development programs. Their expertise will ensure a comprehensive design that considers different audiences, learning methods, and impact measurement.
  5. Inclusive Learning Environment: Value the input and expertise of participants to create an inclusive and collaborative learning environment.
  6. Evidence-based Approach: Emphasize the importance of measuring impact and collecting effective capacity development practices. This data-driven approach enables continuous improvement and knowledge sharing.
  7. Learning Mindset: Foster a culture of sharing experiences, success stories, failures and lessons learned to encourage ongoing learning and adaptation

Photo 4: WASHPaLS#2: Focus Group Discussions, Bihar India. Photo credit Anand Shekhar

By embracing these guiding principles, stakeholders involved in capacity development can address common errors and enhance the effectiveness of interventions in the water, sanitation, and hygiene sectors. Collaboration, coordination, and a shared vision are paramount in creating sustainable solutions and achieving meaningful impact. Let us, as water professionals and international development professionals, strive for innovative and context-specific approaches to capacity development that foster lasting change.

Do you have additional thoughts, ideas, or guiding principles to add? Reach out to me

Sources:

link to WASHPaLS 2: https://www.globalwaters.org/resources/assets/washpals-2-factsheet 

link to one of Wateraid projects I worked on (the others are internal to WaterAid)

https://washmatters.wateraid.org/publications/capacity-needs-assessment-for-regulators-in-water-sanitation-and-hygiene-how-to-guide

IWA. 2014. An Avoidable Crisis: WASH Human Resource Capacity Gaps in 15 Countries. [online] Available at: <https://iwa-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/1422745887-an-avoidable-crisis-wash-gaps.pdf&gt;

UN-Water GLAAS. 2022. GLAAS 2021/2022 Survey Data. https://glaas.who.int/glaas/un-water-global-analysis-and-assessment-of-sanitation-and-drinking-water-(glaas)-2022-report

UN-Water GLAAS. 2014. Investing in water and sanitation https://www.unwater.org/publications/un-water-glaas-2014-investing-water-and-sanitation

UN-Water GLAAS. 2012. The challenge of extending and sustaining services  https://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/pdf/glaas_report_2012_eng.pdf

Lincklaen Arriëns, W. and Wehn de Montalvo, U., 2013. Exploring water leadership. Water Policy, 15(S2), pp.15-41.

UN World Water Development report. 2016. Water and Jobs. https://www.unwater.org/publications/un-world-water-development-report-2016

UNDP, 2008. Capacity Assessment Methodology User’s Guide. [online] Available at: [Accessed 23 February 2021]

About the author: Kirsten de Vette is independent consultant and facilitator working in water, sanitation, and hygiene (related) sectors for over 13.5 years. She is 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. Her expertise is in capacity development, stakeholder engagement & facilitation of change processes and learning.

She wrote this blog to share recurring findings across her 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, she 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. Stay tuned on her website and on  linkedin  

30 años en la búsqueda de agua potable en Nicaragua

Este año celebramos los 30 años de la fundación formal de la Red de Abastecimiento de Agua en Zonas Rurales. Desde unos inicios muy técnicos como grupo de expertos (en su mayoría hombres) la Red de Tecnología de Bombas de Mano- hemos evolucionado hasta convertirnos en una red diversa y vibrante de más de 13.000 personas y 100 organizaciones que trabajan en una amplia gama de temas. En el camino, hemos ganado una reputación de imparcialidad, y nos hemos convertido en un convocante global en el sector del agua rural.

La RWSN no sería lo que es hoy sin las contribuciones y los incansables esfuerzos de muchos de nuestros miembros, organizaciones y personas. Como parte de la celebración del 30º aniversario de la RWSN, estamos llevando a cabo una serie de blogs en rwsn.blog, invitando a nuestros amigos y expertos del sector a compartir sus pensamientos y experiencias en el sector del agua rural.

Esta es una entrada de blog del miembro de la RWSN Joshua Briemberg, con sede en Nicaragua.

Mi carrera en el sector del agua y el saneamiento comenzó en 1993, poco después de que naciera la RWSN. Fue una elección deliberada para mí después de un breve período en la industria petrolera del Reino Unido que siguió a vivir y trabajar durante 4 meses entre 1991 y 1992 en la zona rural de Nicaragua para construir una casa escuela de dos habitaciones. Durante ese tiempo, la diarrea estaba a la orden del día, y de la noche, en una rudimentaria letrina de pozo. Todavía recuerdo que miraba a las hojas de plátano gigantes que se agitaban a la luz de la luna para encontrar una sensación de paz en cierta agonía. En aquella época, luchaba por concentrarme mientras estaba en la universidad en Canadá, entre los estudios de ingeniería química, con una clase de tratamiento del agua que me llamaba la atención, y los estudios de humanidades, intrigado por el debate sobre los derechos del agua y los pueblos de las Primeras Naciones de Canadá.

Una vez terminada mi carrera de ingeniería en 1992, mi verdadera vocación siguió eludiéndose y me trasladé al Reino Unido. Durante mi estancia en Londres, primero como mensajero en bicicleta y luego como ingeniero de salud y seguridad para la construcción de una plataforma petrolífera de 11.000 millones de dólares en el Mar del Norte, la librería Intermediate Technology (que más tarde se convertiría en Practical Action) se convirtió en mi destino favorito y la publicación mensual Waterlines en una temprana inspiración, mientras planeaba volver a Nicaragua para hacer algo, cualquier cosa relacionada con el agua. También recuerdo haber llevado algún que otro paquete como mensajero a una pequeña oficina de WaterAid en un edificio cercano a Green Park. Veinte años más tarde, todavía viviendo en Nicaragua, se me pediría que diseñara y luego dirigiera el primer programa de país de WaterAid en América Latina.

En algún momento, dejé de lado cualquier idea de seguir una formación formal en las aulas de institutos de renombre como el WEDC de la Universidad de Loughborough, donde una vez me reuní con John Pickford, o el IHE de Delft, donde también hice una breve visita. El campo se convertiría en mi aula.

Mi andadura en el mundo del agua y el saneamiento en 1993 empezó de verdad al realizar un estudio sobre la presencia de pesticidas en las aguas subterráneas de las ciudades del histórico cinturón algodonero de Nicaragua en los años setenta. De ahí pasé a un par de trabajos en lo que iba a ser mi campo como ingeniero químico: planes maestros de alcantarillado para Managua y tratamiento de aguas residuales mientras estaba brevemente en Canadá.

Foto: Clase de graduados de Agua para la Vida

Pero fue entonces, cuando me encontré dirigiendo el primer ciclo de un programa de formación de ingenieros de pueblos para diseñar y construir pequeños sistemas rurales de abastecimiento de agua por gravedad alimentados por manantiales en las montañas del centro-norte, cuando realmente encontré mi vocación: el abastecimiento de agua en zonas rurales. En poco más de 30 años esta operación –Agua para la Vida– ha trabajado con pequeñas comunidades rurales de montaña para establecer más de 100 sistemas de abastecimiento de agua utilizando herramientas de diseño de última generación para optimizar el rendimiento y el coste. Los sistemas de abastecimiento de agua por gravedad alimentados por manantiales de montaña bien diseñados son asombrosamente duraderos con unos costes de funcionamiento muy manejables; el principal reto es la protección de la zona de recarga de la cuenca y garantizar la cohesión de la comunidad y una gestión eficaz.

Cautivado por la alegría de abrir el grifo y tener agua limpia a borbotones después de meses de sudor y esfuerzo, me sentí impulsado a seguir en la búsqueda de un vaso de agua limpia en todas partes.

Una cosa que descubrí durante estos años fue que, mientras diseñábamos para el crecimiento, las comunidades a menudo se reducían en tamaño debido a la migración en busca de mayores oportunidades económicas en otros lugares.

Aproveché los conocimientos aprendidos con las comunidades devastadas por la guerra en la frontera agrícola para trabajar con las comunidades indígenas Miskitu y Mayangna para llevar agua limpia de montaña a la gente a lo largo de un sistema de ríos en las profundidades más lejanas de una de las dos reservas de la biosfera en Nicaragua. El suministro de agua por tubería alimentada por gravedad siguió siendo mi opción por defecto hasta que se agotaron los manantiales.

En mi primera misión de reconocimiento, en 1997, en la aldea de Raiti, en el río Coco (Wangki), que separa Honduras de Nicaragua, me acompañó un hidrogeólogo estadounidense que no hablaba ni español ni la lengua local, el Miskitu. Durante la conversación con los líderes de la comunidad sobre la existencia de fuentes potenciales de manantiales, un líder de la comunidad me dijo que la fuente potencial estaba a unos 15 minutos de distancia mientras que otro dijo que estaba más bien a un día de distancia. Ni que decir tiene que mi hidrogeólogo decidió quedarse atrás y tardamos cerca de 6 horas en llegar al lugar que los aldeanos consideraban una fuente viable.

Desafortunadamente, como casi todas las fuentes de agua superficiales en la región oriental o caribeña de Nicaragua, estaba situada a una altura inferior a la de la comunidad, que era la forma en que las comunidades se protegían contra el riesgo de inundaciones. Y así comenzaron mis primeras experiencias de excavación y perforación de pozos con lo que para entonces se había convertido en un estándar nicaragüense: la bomba de mecate.

Transportando tubos en el Río Coco (2000-2003)

No fue hasta principios de la década de 2000, y con una década de experiencia empírica sobre el terreno, cuando empecé a entrar en contacto con redes como la RWSN, que se convirtieron en referencias esporádicas pero importantes, combinadas con otros focos de inspiración que encontraba en las escasas oportunidades en que salía de comunidades remotas por senderos, caminos de tierra y ríos.

A través de estos contactos, me inspiré para añadir nuevas herramientas a mi caja de herramientas en la búsqueda continua de agua limpia. La recogida de agua de lluvia y el tratamiento en el punto de uso o los filtros se convirtieron en aspectos importantes de mi búsqueda para llegar realmente a la última milla, al tiempo que experimentaba con bombas hidráulicas de ariete en el camino. Además de las tecnologías en sí, enfoques como el Marco de Aplicabilidad de la Tecnología (TAF), la aceleración del autoabastecimiento y el fortalecimiento de los sistemas se han convertido en herramientas esenciales en los últimos diez años de mi viaje.

Además de la RWSN, que no conocí formalmente hasta 2011, cuando asistí al 6º Foro Internacional de la RWSN en Kampala, Uganda, también encontré inspiración en la red HWTS, la Alianza Internacional para la Recolección de Agua de Lluvia (IRHA), el Grupo del Centro SMART, SuSanA, Agenda para el Cambio y otros. A nivel local, las redes WASH de Nicaragua y Centroamérica (RASNIC y RRAS-CA, respectivamente) representaron los esfuerzos por llevar la colaboración a los niveles regional, nacional y local.

De estos contactos surgieron no sólo referencias técnicas clave, sino una mayor comprensión de la importancia del contexto en la aplicabilidad de una solución, la complejidad de la sostenibilidad, la importancia de los enfoques basados en la demanda acompañados de sistemas que no son necesariamente exclusivos del sector público, sino que incluyen el papel del sector privado local, el espíritu empresarial, las alianzas y la aceleración de los modelos de autoabastecimiento de la prestación de servicios.

Todavía existe una tensión considerable entre estos dos enfoques del suministro de agua -el fortalecimiento de los sistemas y la aceleración de los modelos de autoabastecimiento-, aunque considero que estos últimos son complementarios y forman parte de los primeros, y a pesar de que en el ámbito del saneamiento las soluciones familiares individuales siguen siendo la norma para la población de las zonas rurales.

Ni que decir tiene que pasé de mis inicios en los sistemas de abastecimiento por gravedad alimentados por manantiales a los pozos de sondeo superficiales y profundos, a la perforación manual y mecánica, a las bombas manuales y a las impulsadas por energías renovables, a la captación de agua de lluvia en los tejados y al tratamiento y almacenamiento de agua en los hogares. También me adentré en el concepto de resiliencia y en los conceptos de usos múltiples y fuentes múltiples o sistemas híbridos, este último todavía menos considerado.

No debe pasar desapercibido que mi búsqueda de agua limpia en Nicaragua se ha visto confrontada y marcada en el camino por un número creciente de huracanes: Mitch en 1998, que me llevó al río Coco para construir sistemas de abastecimiento de agua donde no los había, pero donde las comunidades a lo largo del río habían sido totalmente arrasadas. Félix, en 2007, dejó una franja de destrucción en la costa caribeña nororiental. Y, más recientemente, Eta e Iota, en noviembre de 2020, arrasaron con todos los más de 250 sistemas de captación de agua de lluvia en los tejados, con tanques de ferrocemento de 4.000 litros, que habían sido construidos uno a uno durante 5 años por hombres y mujeres en la comunidad de Wawa Bar.

Training RWH System installers Wawa Boom (2021)

En el camino, también me encontré con algunas contribuciones significativas al abastecimiento de agua en las zonas rurales, incubadas en Nicaragua en el espíritu de su afamado poeta de las letras españolas modernas Rubén Darío: Si la Patria es pequeña, uno grande la sueña. Entre ellas se encuentran la bomba de mecate, el filtron de barro (Filtron) y un clorador en línea de fabricación artesanal (conocido originalmente como CTI-8).

Fueron el tratamiento y el almacenamiento de agua en el hogar y Ron Rivera, de Alfareros por la Paz, los que me iniciaron en el concepto de autoabastecimiento y los enfoques basados en el mercado. Este concepto ha terminado por costarme dos veces mi trabajo con organizaciones “sin ánimo de lucro” que no están dispuestas a socavar su modelo de caridad y su dependencia de un estado permanente de “filantropía humanitaria”.

Ahora que mi camino de vida entra en su recta final, mi enfoque es reunir tanto física como virtualmente la mayor cantidad de todas estas grandes iniciativas y las nuevas que surjan, dentro de un marco basado en el contexto y la construcción colectiva de modelos de prestación de servicios adecuados.  Mi vehículo desde 2017 es el Centro SMART de Nicaragua: Conectando, asistiendo, acelerando.  El Centro SMART fue inspirado en 2015 por Henk Holtslag, a quien conocí en el Foro de la RWSN en Kampala en 2011.

El Centro SMART en Nicaragua

A principios de este año, RWSN publicó una versión concisa de mi evaluación rápida del impacto a largo plazo del enfoque SMART: El caso de la bomba de mecate en Nicaragua, una mirada retrospectiva a 40 años de desarrollo como historia de éxito del autoabastecimiento acelerado. Sólo me queda esperar que el faro de la Red Rural de Abastecimiento de Agua siga iluminando el camino durante otros 30 años para que yo pueda aportar unos cuantos granos de arena más.

Sobre el autor:

Joshua ha trabajado como profesional en el sector de WASH rural durante más de 30 años, casi en su totalidad en Nicaragua, América Central, con la excepción de un período de 3 años en el que dirigió el desarrollo de un programa en Colombia. Su trabajo le ha llevado desde breves periodos en el sector público y en una empresa privada de consultoría de ingeniería, hasta organizaciones no gubernamentales pequeñas e internacionalmente reconocidas, y agencias de ayuda bilateral. Es el director fundador del Centro de Tecnologías SMART de Agua, Saneamiento e Higiene de Nicaragua, una empresa social que reúne a los sectores público y privado, las instituciones de microfinanciación y el mundo académico para promover los enfoques SMART, incluido el autoabastecimiento para llegar a la última milla. Recientemente ha sido coautor de una nota de campo de la RWSN en la que se hace un balance de los 40 años de historia de la bomba de mecate en Nicaragua.

¿Le ha gustado este blog? ¿Le gustaría compartir su perspectiva sobre el sector del agua rural o su historia como profesional del agua rural? Invitamos a todos los miembros de la RWSN a contribuir a esta serie de blogs del 30º aniversario. Los mejores blogs serán seleccionados para su publicación y traducción. Por favor, consulte las directrices del blog aquí y póngase en contacto con nosotros (ruralwater[at]skat.ch) para obtener más información.Si aprecia el trabajo de la RWSN y desea apoyarnos económicamente, puede hacerlo aquí.

The Business Case for Capacity Building

By Millie Adam Posted March 21, 2016 on CAWST’s blog

A growing list of reports argue for increased emphasis and investment in capacity building for international development. That’s a good thing. Why then has that increased attention largely failed to catalyze funders and implementers to make greater investments in capacity building?

Capacity building is too often treated like a minor add-on to an infrastructure project, thought of as an added cost, or not budgeted or planned for until partway through a project when the gap in capacity becomes glaringly apparent.

Changing this mindset requires a paradigm-shift. Capacity building is a fundamental part of development that doesn’t simply take funds away from “real”/tangible results, but rather helps achieve targets and maintain outcomes.

To deliver sustained water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services to all by 2030, significant and meaningful investments in capacity building are needed from funders and implementers, in  parallel with hardware investments.

The need for capacity building is clear and well-documented. Less so a clear case that lays out the benefits of investing in capacity building. There are five key benefits to investing in capacity building that should motivate donors and investors to ensure capacity building is a significant part of any initiative they are supporting.

1. Universal WASH coverage by 2030 is not achievable with current human resources

The scale of the need alone makes the case for capacity building. As outlined by the IWA’s report An Avoidable Crisis: WASH Human Resource Capacity Gaps in 15 Developing Economies, “There are not enough appropriately skilled water professionals to support the attainment of universal access to safe water and sanitation”. Furthermore, the current formal systems for training will not produce enough people by 2030, so the human capacity gap threatens the success of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

As the UN-Water Means of Implementation states, “Investment in capacity-building has been a major challenge facing many countries and has to be addressed if the Goals are to be met.”

The UN-Water GLAAS 2012 report (chapter four) reported that less than 20 per cent of respondent countries consider the supply of skilled labour and technicians adequately developed to meet the needs in rural sanitation.

2. Capacity building increases the quality of implementation

WASH practitioners often run into problems they are unable to solve on their own, thus hindering or halting a program; or they unknowingly implement incorrectly. Building the capacity of field workers increases their ability to:

  • Evaluate options and select appropriate technologies
  • Properly construct and install technologies
  • Work with the community to create demand and change behaviour
  • Be active, informed participants in the WASH sector who strengthen and scale-up programs or approaches.

If field workers are doing the above things well, then people will have access to high quality, locally appropriate WASH technologies that they want and use. Further, decision-making around WASH becomes a discussion with local stakeholders as opposed to a decision handed down from above, ensuring that WASH programs continue to serve the needs of end users.

A 2010 Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) technical paper, “Case Study on Sustainability of Rural Sanitation Marketing in Vietnam”, points to the importance of capacity building of practitioners. The case study looked at rural sanitation marketing in Vietnam and found that initial success of trained promoters and providers led others to build toilets for sale; the quality of construction and user satisfaction both declined.

3. Capacity building makes interventions more sustainable

Programs need to be driven at the outset by local organizations on the ground: those who have the mandate to provide WASH services to their communities, who understand the local context and challenges, who take ownership of the services and who will still be there long after the rest of us have moved on. In many cases, those with the mandate don’t have the skills and knowledge they need to do the best job that they can and want to do. Building the capacity of those organizations translates to:

  • Better decisions
  • Higher adoption and sustained use
  • Ability to overcome challenges and adapt to changing circumstances
  • Ongoing delivery and maintenance of services for the long term
  • Disaster resilience
  • A slow but pragmatic exit strategy for those of us who aren’t local organizations.

The WSP technical paper on rural sanitation marketing referred to above concluded that the approach may not be sustained and expanded in the long term without institutionalized capacity building for promoters and providers (among other things).  Similarly, building capacity at the community level increases correct, consistent and continued use of WASH technologies. A key conclusion from the recent Cochrane review on water quality interventions was that interventions that achieved a higher compliance led to greater health impacts. In contrast, some technologies that performed well in controlled test settings achieved lower health impacts. From this, we can infer the importance of not only choosing appropriate technologies, but also building the capacity of local actors to effectively operate and maintain these technologies over time.

4. Capacity building can reach the hardest to reach

The SDGs compel us to reach the poorest and those in vulnerable situations, which the MDGs did not reach in equal numbers. There is growing evidence supporting a renewed focus on those who are hardest to reach, such as UN-Water arguing that targeting the poorest 40 per cent of the population yields the biggest gains.

The 2014 GLAAS report argued that current funding isn’t going to those most in need. “If plans exist for reducing inequalities in access by targeting disadvantaged groups, the outcomes are commonly left unmonitored,” the report says. “Less than half of countries track progress in extending sanitation and drinking-water services to the poor.” The report went on to add that “the vast majority of those without improved sanitation are poorer people living in rural areas. Progress on rural sanitation — where it has occurred — has primarily benefitted the non-poor, resulting in inequalities.”

In many cases, unserved people are dispersed, living in challenging conditions or have no legal tenure. In these situations, large scale infrastructure solutions either aren’t appropriate or aren’t affordable. To reach these people with WASH services, we need a variety of technologies and approaches and we need to work with different types of organizations; both require increased capacity across a range of players.

  • Capacity building enables many small projects using a variety of technologies and approaches that can be adapted to those challenging situations
  • Capacity building enables the organizations with the best likelihood of success to participate in WASH services (including small, local organizations, and those who might not focus on WASH, but who have strong relationships with vulnerable groups and who best understand their complex context)
  • Capacity building enables the vulnerable or disadvantaged to actively participate in WASH programs and services

5. Capacity building addresses the gender gap

One of the guiding principles of the Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development is that “Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water” and that to implement this principle, we must “equip and empower women to participate at all levels”. A reality check from the GLAAS 2012 report: “Half of the GLAAS respondent countries reported that women make up less than 10% of the professional/managerial staff”.  We all know the critical role of women in water. Building their capacity to fully participate not only works toward closing gender gaps, but also leads to better results for WASH programs.

According to an ADB gender equality results case study, significant participation of women (>40%) in preconstruction and postconstruction training on how “to plan, construct, manage, operate, and maintain water supply schemes and sanitation facilities […] equipped women with necessary skills and knowledge. This enabled them to engage more effectively in committees taking decisions related to the operation and management of water supply systems, undertaking maintenance with support from trained VMWs, and raising monthly tariffs.”

The 2012 GLAAS report profiles Ethiopia’s health extension programme. It was launched in 2003 in response to a lack of trained health workers; by 2009, there were 30 000 health workers. Women who have more than 10 years of formal education and who want to work in their communities are trained on family health, hygiene and environmental sanitation, and health education. “The success of this programme is a result of investment in training by donors, widespread acceptance within communities and investment in information systems on family health, demographic data and use of services.”

In short, capacity building is a good investment

Failure is costly, and without capacity building projects are more likely to fail. The Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN) found in 2007 that an average of 36 per cent of hand-pumps across 21 countries in Africa were non-functioning. That represents a total investment of between $US1.2 and $US1.5 billion over 20 years. The topic is covered in this Triple-S Briefing.

Capacity building lays the groundwork for well-implemented WASH services which should increase adoption, extend the life of interventions and improve quality of implementation resulting in larger health impacts.

We all seem to recognize that capacity building needs to happen, and yet we consistently fail to put enough resources toward it. Our hope is that laying out the case for capacity building will help those who know it needs to happen argue for its inclusion and resourcing, but also that it will refine the way we do capacity building to ensure that we are in fact realizing the above benefits.

In CAWST’s experience of supporting 970 implementing organizations in 78 countries, the benefits don’t end there; we have seen how capacity building catalyzes action and then empowers people to take further actions, as well as how it provides opportunities for those with new skills, knowledge and confidence.