In April 2005, over 100 analysts and programme officers from 20 donor organisations and partner countries met in Washington to discuss the challenges of providing support for capacity development processes in the context of programme-based approaches (PBAs). The meeting was organised by theLearning Network on Programme-based Approaches (LENPA).

Previous LENPA meetings have also addressed capacity development issues. However, there was a need to pursue discussions on the CD-PBA interface, and in particular to generate some empirical material on the subject. The presentations in Washington included 13 case studies, two conceptual papers, a review of World Bank experiences in building state capacity in Africa, and good-practice papers on capacity development for public financial management and procurement. All of the documents and presentations are available on LENPA’s extranet site. Although this is a password-restricted site, readers are welcome to register by following the link on the home page. A synthesis report on the forum is being produced. In the meantime, a summary report that was drafted as a companion piece to the present article has been posted on this website (see link below).

Development cooperation has changed dramatically in recent years, as donors have shifted away from support in the form of stand-alone projects in favour of programme-based approaches, in which donors combine their efforts in support of a locally owned programme of development. Programmes supported in this way tend to be relatively comprehensive, covering an entire sector, for example, or even a country’s poverty reduction strategy. This allows the partners involved to take a more holistic and coordinated approach to the task at hand, under host-country leadership. [1]

As instruments for pursuing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), PBAs can be seen to have two preoccupations. The first is the scaling up of activities that have proven to be effective in meeting the MDGs (such as more schools, textbooks or teachers). The second is enhanced institutional performance or productivity in developing countries, leading to improved outcomes, regardless of scale, through capacity development.

The search for enhanced institutional performance is fundamental to PBAs. Indeed, much of the critique of stand-alone projects that led to the emergence of PBAs is premised on the realisation that projects often undermine institutional capacity in developing countries by creating parallel structures rather than working with existing institutional arrangements. [2] Under PBAs, this approach is reversed, in favour of working with domestic institutions and encouraging learning by doing.

Programme-based approaches can thus be seen as an instrument of capacity development. At the same time, PBAs themselves can only succeed to the extent that local institutions have the capacity to deliver. This provides added incentives for all parties to promote and support capacity development processes in those institutions. The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness [3] makes numerous references to the underlying principles of capacity development and programme-based approaches, and includes both concepts in indicators of progress 4 and 9. [4]

At the Washington forum, participants explored these subjects from a variety of thematic and sector perspectives, and shared their observations on false starts, strategies and approaches, donor roles, results and challenges. What emerged from these discussions was a picture of support for capacity development that is most highly developed in the areas of financial management and procurement, but remains incipient in many other areas, in particular those having to do with service delivery. Systematic capacity assessments and capacity development strategies appear to be the exception rather than the rule, and donors have much to do to improve their own capacity to intervene successfully.

LENPA members participating in the Washington forum were able to advance both their conceptual understanding of the challenges of capacity development under PBAs, and their knowledge of current practices. Further work is needed, both to deepen our understanding and to put that understanding into practice. The fact that indicator 4 of the Paris Declaration bears directly on the coordination of capacity development efforts should hopefully provide an impetus for more vigorous and better coordinated efforts to promote capacity development processes in the context of programme-based approaches.

[1] For a formal definition of PBAs, see OECD (2005) Harmonising Donor Practices for Effective Aid Delivery, vol. 2, box 3.1.

[2] Lavergne, R. (2003) Program-based approaches: A new way of doing business, Development Express, vol.3. CIDA, Policy Branch.

[3] Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, March 2005.

[4] Indicator 4 is about strengthening capacity through coordinated support. Indicator 9 is about the use of common arrangements and procedures, with specific reference to PBAs.

Lavergne SPECIAL REPORT PDF.pdf (72.07 kB)