Making Capacity Building Meaningful: A Framework for ... - Springer Link

Environmental Management (2008) 42:833–846 DOI 10.1007/s00267-008-9158-7

Making Capacity Building Meaningful: A Framework for Strategic Action Lisa Robins

Received: 23 November 2007 / Accepted: 12 May 2008 / Published online: 10 June 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract This paper aims to give practical meaning to ‘capacity building’ through (a) identifying a suite of practical measures, such as mentoring or best practice guidelines, that have been shown to or are considered to build human, social, institutional, and economic capital; (b) placing these measures within a broader systems framework; and (c) exploring stakeholder feedback on specific measures to inform framework implementation. The 29 measures described provide actors, whether government or nongovernment, with a suite of practical investment choices for building capacity. These measures are then clustered into eight groups according to their primary purpose and placed within a systems framework. The framework provides a tool for actors with responsibilities for or an interest in capacity building to inform more holistic and strategic targeting of effort and investment. Stakeholder feedback gathered through surveys and workshops is subsequently reported to further inform implementation of specific measures within the framework’s eight groupings. The framework presented may be built upon through the identification and inclusion of further capacity building measures. The research is conducted within the context of decentralized governance arrangements for natural resource management (NRM), with specific focus on Australia’s recently formalized 56 NRM regions and their community-based governing boards as an informative arena of learning. Application of the framework is explored in the Australian setting through the identification and comparison of measures supported and

L. Robins (&) The Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, W. K. Hancock Building (No. 43), Biology Place, Acton, Canberra 0200, Australia e-mail: [email protected]

most preferred by four major stakeholder groups, namely board members, regional NRM organization staff, policy/ research interests, and Indigenous interests. The research also examines stakeholder perceptions of capacity issues, and whether these issues are likely to be addressed through implementing their preferred measures. Keywords Capacity building Decentralization Governance Natural resource management Natural Heritage Trust National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) This paper looks at giving practical meaning to ‘capacity building’ to guide the efforts and investments of government or nongovernment actors with responsibilities for or an interest in capacity development. Its emphasis is on (a) identifying a suite of practical measures, such as mentoring or best practice guidelines, that have been shown to or are considered to build human, social, institutional, and economic capital; (b) placing these measures within a broader systems framework; and (c) exploring stakeholder feedback on specific measures to inform framework implementation. The research is framed within the context of decentralized governance arrangements in natural resource management (NRM), with specific reference to Australia’s recently formalized 56 NRM regions and their community-based governing boards (ACIL Tasman 2005; WalterTurnbull 2005). These NRM boards, principally comprising persons with NRM interests from the regional community (such as landholders, councilors, local industries, environmentalists, and the like), present an informative arena of learning. The principal target of the capacity building measures discussed in the paper are therefore the members of these boards, individually and collectively. The research outcomes are relevant to both

123

834

Environmental Management (2008) 42:833–846

government and nongovernment actors, including the decentralized entities themselves. The conceptual model shown in Table 1, based on the so-called ‘‘four-capital model’’ (Ekins 1992), was used as an analytical device in the conduct of this research. It provided clarity about the nature and scope of capacity building in the minds of research participants and facilitated structured discussion around capacity development. The conceptual model achieved this end through its holistic representation of capacity across human, social, institutional, and economic dimensions and through the use of plain English to describe these—that is, what tangible measures we can use to enhance knowledge, trust, networks, finances, etc. Some commentators view relational capital as overarching or a fifth pillar rather than a subset of social capital or divide economic capital into manufactured/produced and financial (e.g., Ison and Watson 2007; Porritt 2007). However, for the purposes of this research such definitional precision was not needed, and does not detract from the validity or applicability of its findings.

Context-Setting The research methods, and results and discussion sections that follow are framed within the context of emerging community-based decentralized governance arrangements for NRM, globally and specifically in Australia as a case study focus. This is the context of the acknowledged need to more holistically and strategically focus effort on and investment in building capacity in this arena. Community-Based Decentralized Governance Hutchcroft (2001) describes two forms of decentralized governance as ‘administrative’ (the transfer of administrative functions from central government to regional or local state or nonstate actors) and ‘democratic’ (the transfer of authority and resources to independent or semi-independent state or nonstate actors at the local or regional level). The devolution of the responsibilities and functions

of governments to market and community actors is also referred to as ‘distributive governance’ (Bakker 2007). Decentralized management, according to Lane and others (2004: 105), embodies ‘‘reduced State involvement, enhanced popular participation and engagement, a deliberative approach to policy formulation, and the utilisation of local or experiential knowledge.’’ Decentralized environmental governance is being promoted in more than 60 countries worldwide, and increasingly advocated by governments and communities (Jennings and Moore 2000; Ribot 2002). The rationale for decentralizing governance for NRM, as in other arenas, is embodied in the subsidiarity principle: ‘‘that any particular task should be decentralized to the lowest level of governance with the capacity to conduct it satisfactorily’’ (Marshall 2007: 4). Most donors and governments, according to Ribot (2002: 3), ‘‘justify decentralization as a means for increasing the efficiency and equity of development activities and service delivery, and also for promoting local participation and democracy.’’ Further benefits espoused are the capacity to better account for specific contexts and garner regional ownership and commitment (Kellert and others 2000; Bradshaw 2003). ‘Capacity,’ according to Marshall (2007), is central to community-based regional bodies fulfilling the responsibilities devolved from government(s), and is a growing area of interest (Ivey and others 2004). Many commentators note that governments have been more adept at devolving responsibilities (and accountability) than providing the requisite power and resources and supporting development of capacities (Lane and others 2004; Paton and others 2004; Armitage 2005). This is supported by experiences in Australia, Canada, the European Union, New Zealand, and the United States, where researchers have found the capacity of decentralized NRM organizations wanting across human, social, institutional, and economic dimensions (Barg and Oborne 2006; Blomquist and others 2007; Connor and Dovers 2004; Ison and others 2004; de Loe and Kreutzwiser 2007; Flora and Flora 2008; Hooper and Lant 2007; Michaels and others 2007; Robins 2007a). By way of example, the specific capacity issues

Table 1 A conceptual framework for facilitating structured discussion about capacity development Human capital

Social capital

Institutional capital

Cognitive (social norms)

Structural (networks)

Knowledge

Trust and reciprocity

Networks

Skills

Values, attitudes, and behavior

Relationships

Experience

Commitment Motivation Sense of place

Source: Modified from Moore and others (2006)

123

Governance arrangements

Economic capital

Infrastructure Financial resources


835

management entities than existed previously (Dore and Woodhill 1999; Moore and Rockloff 2006). While more consistent, significant variation exists in their form, function, capacities, and context (historical, cultural, social, political, ecological, economic) both between and often within jurisdictions, notably in corporate form (statutory authorities, incorporated associations, limited companies, body corporates), size (5 to 75 staff, 6 to 20 board members), and land area (1.8K–1850K km2) (Davidson and others 2007; Robins and Dovers 2007a, b). This so-called ‘regional model’ is now widely perceived as the preferred approach to NRM delivery (Steering Committee to Australian Governments 1999, 2000; Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group 2006; Sinclair Knight Merz 2006), including among Indigenous communities (Keogh and others 2006). Support, however, is not universal (Lane and others 2004; ITS Global 2006). According to Virtanen (cited by Moore and Rockloff 2006: 274), the process is one of ‘‘de-concentration rather than (democratic) decentralization,’’ as ‘‘there is little evidence of real power transfer.’’ Regional NRM organizations and their governing boards are widely perceived as requiring development of capacities (Broderick 2005; Farrelly 2005; Keogh and others 2006). Paton and others (2004) describe the current

(as problems or opportunities) of NRM boards in Australia are explored in detail in this paper, and used to inform implementation of the framework presented. Australia’s Regional NRM Organizations Figure 1 shows the formalized boundaries for Australia’s 56 NRM regions. Each has a regional organization (except in the case of two regions, which have nonstatutory advisory bodies) and is governed by a community-based board. While constitutional power over land and water management primarily rests with Australia’s eight states and territories, the federal government has actively used tied grants (and the signing of bilateral agreements with state governments) to intervene in and shape the NRM sector as a whole, and drive more consistency and greater formalization of regional institutional arrangements (Keogh and others 2006). The federal government has also further extended its influence and power at the regional level through the establishment of its own national network of NRM facilitators, traditionally employees of state agencies (Australian Government no date). These regional NRM organizations represent a far more recognizable and persistent set of institutional and

Torres Strait Shared management Murray-Darling Basin Cape York

Wet Tropics

Northern Gulf

Northern Territory

Mackay Whitsunday Southern Gulf

Burdekin Maranoa Balonne

Desert Channels

Border Rivers Burnett Mary Condamine

Fitzroy

Rangelands(WA)

South East (QLD) South West (QLD)

Alinytjara Wilurara

Border Rivers/Gwydir

SA Arid Lands

Northern Agricultural Region

Northern Rivers

Western Namoi

Avon

Swan

Eyre Peninsula South West Region

Northern and Yorke Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Kangaroo Island South Coast Region SA Murray Darling Basin South East (SA) Wimmera

Central Lower West Murray/ Lachlan Darling Murrumbidgee Mallee Murray

Glenelg Hopkins North Central Corangamite Port Phillip and Westernport

0

250

50

1000

1500

2000 Kilometres

North West (TAS)

Hunter/Central Rivers Hawkesbury/Nepean Sydney Metro

Southern Rivers ACT

North East (VIC) East Gippsland Goulburn Broken West Gippsland North (TAS) South (TAS)

Fig. 1 Australia’s 56 NRM regions (Source: Robins and Dovers 2007a)

123

836

regional arrangements as a social experiment, and emphasize that long-term investment in capacities is needed. A report to the Australian Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry comments that ‘‘the capacity of regional groups to achieve their objectives varies—for some it remains a significant problem’’ (Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group 2006: 145). The examination of community-based NRM boards in Australia in this paper is especially framed within the context of building capacity to deliver major national programs, with particular reference to the Natural Heritage Trust Extension (NHT2) (A$1.75B from 2002–2003 to 2007–2008) (WalterTurnbull 2005; ITS Global 2006) and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP; A$1.4B from 2000–2001 to 2007–2008) (Council of Australian Governments 2000; Commonwealth of Australia 2001). Their successor, ‘‘Caring for our Country,’’ has funds of approximately A$2.25B from 2008–2009 to 2012– 2013 (Australian Government 2008). Funding under these programs is principally devolved directly to regional NRM organizations and allocated subject to federal accreditation of a regional NRM plan and associated investment strategy (Council of Australian Governments 2000; Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council 2002; Australian Government 2008). In 2002, a capacity building framework for the NHT2 and NAP was endorsed by the Programs Committee of the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (Commonwealth of Australia 2002); however, it is deficient in that the scope of capacity is limited to building ‘‘awareness, skills, knowledge, motivation, commitment and confidence’’ and does not provide any mechanism for relating different capacity measures or choosing between them. This paper may be used to inform the development and implementation of a capacity building framework beyond these programs.

Research Methods A review of the literature was conducted in order to identify a suite of tangible, practical capacity building measures. This approach extended outside the traditional domain of NRM by exploring capacity building approaches in the sectors of health (internationally) (Robins 2007b) and risk and emergency management (primarily in Australia) (Robins 2008). Twenty-two measures were identified from this component of the research, some of which are new to NRM (e.g., Academic Detailing). This suite of measures may be further extended through consideration of other sectors (e.g., education, defense). The framework presented later in this paper allows for the addition of further measures.

123


The 22 capacity building measures identified through literature reviews were subsequently presented in the form of a plain-English publication, entitled ‘‘Enabling Regional NRM boards: A Discussion Paper on Capacity Building Options’’ (Robins 2007c). The discussion paper provided a description of each measure and its purpose, as well as research findings on its efficacy where such information was available. Ideas about the relevance of each measure to building the capacity of regional NRM boards were also outlined. A full draft of the report was provided to a sample of government agency staff and regional NRM organization representatives for market testing prior to publication, and amendments were made accordingly. The discussion paper was used as the basis for conducting consultations with major stakeholder groups in Australia (identified and discussed below) and incorporated a survey or ‘feedback form’ at the rear. Respondents were asked to indicate their support for each of the 22 capacity building measures as ‘‘strongly supportive,’’ ‘‘supportive,’’ ‘‘don’t know,’’ ‘‘don’t support,’’ or ‘‘strongly unsupportive.’’ Respondents ranked the six measures they most preferred (from 1, most, to 6, least), and the rationale for their first selection. The survey also asked respondents to identify whether any of the measures described were considered inappropriate or whether they could identify any additional measures of relevance. Table 2 describes the 22 measures presented in the discussion paper, together with a further seven measures (shown in italics) identified through consultations with stakeholders. Three major stakeholder groups of interest to the research were identified for consultations, namely, NRM board members, regional NRM organization staff, and policy/research interests. A fourth category, Indigenous interests, was explored to a limited degree, primarily through the national network of Australian Government Indigenous Land Management Facilitators (ILMF) (Australian Government no date). Levels of support and preferences for specific capacity building measures were thought to potentially differ between these major groups and, therefore, have implications for implementation within the context of any proposed framework. A total of 239 discussion papers were distributed. A report accompanied by a letter of invitation to respond to the survey was distributed to the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of all 56 NRM regions.1 Upon request, the Australian Government’s Capacity Building Unit agreed to distribute the report to its network of 31 state-level NRM facilitators (Australian Government no date). Surveys from the related ILMF network and their supporting staff at the federal level (15 people in total) were supplemented by the outcomes of a workshop 1

An additional five reports were provided to or requested by other regional NRM organization staff.


837

Table 2 A brief description of the 22 capacity building measures presented in the discussion paper and 7 additional measures (in italics) identified by survey respondents and workshop participants Capacity building measure

Brief description

Risk Standards & Guidelines

A generic framework for identifying, analyzing, assessing, treating and monitoring risk

Environmental Standards

Standards on aspects of environmental management systems

Protocols Quality or Process Improvement Methods (‘Office Systems’)

Documents (e.g., bilateral agreements, MoUs) used to clarify roles, define boundaries, assign responsibilities and facilitate open communication Improving service through breaking down the service into its component parts and focusing on improving each step in the process

Quality Improvement (QI) or Learning Collaboratives

Groups of practitioners from different organizations coming together to work in a structured way to improve one aspect of their service

Audit & Feedback

Systematic review processes for bringing about practice change through measuring improvement against criteria and the implementation of change Exchanges focused on developing a shared understanding of objectives and outcomes, enabling reflection, reporting on outcomes, and making recommendations for the future

Briefings & Debriefings Information Centre

A national center (modeled on Emergency Management Australia) for improving information consolidation, standardization, and access

Best Practice Guidelines

Guidelines that specify best practice through a process of integrating, codifying, and simplifying high volumes of information A mechanism for collating and organizing information and research findings into a more accessible, usable, and comprehensible form

Information & Research Compendia Training Facility

A national facility (modeled on the Emergency Management Australia Institute) for improving training quality, consistency, and access

Competency-Based Training

Accredited courses providing national qualifications and statements of attainment delivered by Registered Training Organizations (public and private) An evidence-based method of continuing education designed to change behavior involving a trainer visiting the trainee in his/her own business setting for a one-on-one session

Academic Detailing Exercises

Information session, walkaround, tabletop, simulation, field, and future scenario planning exercises designed to improve plans and decision-making and build teams

Personal & Professional Development

Structured approaches to developing personal and professional skills (e.g., leadership programs, fellowship programs, practice-based courses) A relationship involving an experienced and trusted counselor, or more senior and experienced individual, who advises a junior colleague, or where counseling is between equals (co-mentoring)

Mentoring & Coaching

Local Opinion Leaders Case Studies & Storytelling

A formal approach to using local opinion leaders to influence peers through group discussions, informal consultations, and revision of protocols, guidelines, and processes A mechanism (both written and oral) for capturing different perspectives, experiences, knowledges, and practices to inform decision-making

Recognition & Service Awards

A mechanism for recognizing and rewarding service to the community and the environment through conferring an award

Registers

A register for recording the availability of qualified experts prepared to provide advice or other services on a volunteer basis Computer-based and manual methods used for prediction and the presentation of spatial data to aid decision-making processes

Models, DSS & GIS Computer-Based Knowledge Exchange

Computer-based methods of sharing knowledge (e.g., internet broadcasting, computerbased telephony, interactive CD-ROM)

Legislative, Constitutional & Policy Frameworks Recruitment, Selection & Succession

Legislative, constitutional, and policy frameworks within which regional NRM bodies and boards are established and operate The processes and approaches for recruiting and selecting board members and ensuring their future succession

Regional Infrastructure & Staff

The fundamental infrastructure (e.g., accommodation, equipment) and human resources for supporting the regional delivery model (including servicing the board itself)

Policy Decision-Making Processes

Clear and structured approaches to decision-making at the national level to achieve strategic and consistent policy Financial arrangements that provide scope to respond to unanticipated issues and emerging priorities at the regional level

Flexible & Adaptive Resourcing Arrangements

123

838


Table 2 continued Capacity building measure

Brief description

Performance Measures & Reporting

Performance measures and reporting requirements that provide clarity and certainty in the delivery of regional plans and strategies

Team & Collaborative Relationship Building

Mechanisms for establishing and developing relationships, networks, teams, and partnerships between regional NRM bodies and boards and relevant individuals and entities

session, which focused on the question: What are the capacity issues with regional NRM boards in delivering outcomes for Indigenous peoples? This event was attended by 35 participants from the ILMF network, their host agencies, and Australian Government representatives. A further 132 reports were distributed to policy (47) and research (85) stakeholders in both government and nongovernment organizations closely affiliated with the regional NRM arrangements. The collective knowledge and experience of these individuals (primarily senior ranking staff) was thought to provide valuable insights to inform capacity development. In the case of policy, report distribution was largely confined to national-level policy makers (Australian Government NRM Team, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Department of Environment and Water Resources, Murray-Darling Basin Commission, National Water Commission) and policy influencers (Australian Landcare Council, Landcare Australia Ltd., Australian Local Government Association, Greening Australia, National Council of Young Farmers, National Farmers’ Federation, Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, World Wide Fund for Nature). Inclusion of state-level policy networks was outside of the research scope. Presentations were delivered at a CEO forum (March 2007, Melbourne) and at a national meeting of Australian Government NRM Facilitators (March 2007, Canberra) to promote the research and, in the case of CEOs, followed up with telephone and e-mail correspondence to encourage survey completion and submission. An overall survey response rate of 46% was achieved (n = 111). The number of responses from policy/research and regional NRM organization stakeholders were comparable, at 42% and 49%, respectively, with Indigenous stakeholders comprising the remaining 9%. Of the 56 NRM regions, 70% (n = 39) provided a response, representing 62 to 100% within any jurisdiction. A 1-day workshop for policy/research stakeholders, entitled ‘‘National Workshop on Enabling Regional NRM Boards,’’ was convened in Canberra in March 2007, supported by a professional independent facilitator. The 24 workshop participants examined the capacity issues facing NRM boards, reflected on preliminary survey results, and discussed preferred measures and their linkage to identified problems and opportunities.

123

The discussion paper, together with a letter of invitation to respond, was also distributed to the chairs of all 56 NRM regions; however, only four responses resulted (two from New South Wales and one each from South Australia and Western Australia). Consultations with NRM board members therefore focused on four case study regions representing different jurisdictions: Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority (CMA; New South Wales), Burnett Mary Regional Group for Natural Resource Management (Queensland), Mallee Catchment Management Authority (Victoria), and South Coast NRM (Western Australia). Responses were also received from three board members of Eyre Peninsula NRM Board (South Australia), as a potential fifth case study region; however, an associated workshop was not feasible within the research timeframe. A total of 23 board members2 therefore responded to the survey, while 20 board members (and 8 staff) from the four case study regions participated in workshop discussions. Survey results were discussed in workshops conducted from May to July 2007 (1.5 to 3.5 hours in duration; longer deliberations were precluded by high workload pressures experienced by NRM board members), and deliberations principally focused on the group’s most preferred measures. Discussions on characterizing the board’s capacity issues were only conducted with Mallee CMA (Victoria) and South Coast NRM (Western Australia). The outcomes of these consultation processes were subsequently used to inform the development of a capacity building framework. A systems diagramming approach (a technique for showing the structure of a system of interest) was used to develop the framework. The desired purpose of such a framework was to provide actors with responsibilities for or an interest in capacity building with a practical and adaptive tool for informing and guiding more holistic and strategic targeting of effort and investment. The following criteria were therefore considered desirable in devising such a framework: (a)

holistically encompass human, social, institutional, and economic dimensions of capacity; (b) identify tangible capacity building measures and the relationships between them; 2

Seven members of Southern Rivers CMA (New South Wales) provided one aggregated survey response (n=1).


(c)

allow for the addition of further measures as they arise; (d) be a simple tool for use by different nonexpert actors (e.g., regional NRM organizations, governments) to guide effort and investment; (e) provide flexibility in meeting different needs and preferences; and (f) provide a potential structure for supporting monitoring, evaluation, and reporting.

Results and Discussion Research results and discussion are presented in three parts. First, I introduce and describe the capacity building framework, which incorporates the suite of 22 measures arising from literature reviews and 7 additional measures identified through stakeholder consultations. The framework is followed by the results of surveys and workshops with stakeholders about their level of support and preferences for specific measures. Finally, I explore whether the anticipated outcomes from implementing a package of measures are likely to address the capacity issues (as problems or opportunities) identified by stakeholders. The Capacity Building Framework This section presents a framework that may be used as a tool by those with responsibilities for or an interest in more holistically and strategically targeting effort and investment in capacity building, especially governments delivering national programs. Through this research, the framework combines the examination of literatures with rich empirical data resulting from extensive consultation processes across a breadth of stakeholder groups. The capacity building framework, shown in Fig. 2, categorizes individual measures according to their primary purpose into the following eight major groupings and indicates the linkages between them: • • • • • • • •

Define the organizational business Set the standards & expectations Access infrastructure & resources Strengthen structures & processes Underpin with effective business systems Develop and sustain networks & relationships Grow the knowledge base Build the information base & tools

The construction of the framework draws from the 22 measures presented in the discussion paper and an additional 7 measures identified by workshop participants and survey respondents (Table 2). Together, these 29 measures

839

bridge the multiple dimensions of the conceptual model for capacity development (Table 3). The elements of the framework form an interconnected system, with each part needed for the system to function effectively. A survey respondent remarked, ‘‘The measures must be inextricably linked in order to be effective,’’ while another commented, ‘‘They need to be considered as part of an overall coherent framework ... and delivered in a coordinated way as opposed to a series of separate elements.’’ The framework illustrates that the absence of any individual element weakens or paralyses overall capacity even if capacity with respect to some elements is strong. It may therefore be used as a tool for making choices between specific measures and informing the implementation of an integrated package of measures. It may also be built on through the addition of measures arising from the examination of further literature (extending on the sectors of NRM, health, and risk and emergency management). Selecting Specific Measures In selecting between and within the framework’s eight groupings, the research provides detailed data and information on the level of support and preferences of major stakeholder groups for specific measures. The discussion that follows focuses on comparing the top 10 preferences identified by board members (as the principal target of capacity development) with those of other survey cohorts within the context of the framework. However, it is important to note that the research indicates support to some degree for all 22 measures presented in the discussion paper, so therefore even lower ranked measures may have relevance in particular circumstances within the diverse contexts of regional NRM boards and their associated bodies. Any process of capacity development needs to have scope for considering the broad suite of measures presented in the framework and the identification and inclusion of others over time. Table 4 compares the first 10 preferences identified by board members (n = 23) against preferences nationally (n = 111) as well as for the subsets of regional (n = 39) and indigenous (n = 10) stakeholders. The six most favored measures for each survey cohort fall within this range and are shown in boldface type. These results indicate a high overall concurrence of preferences for these measures among the stakeholder groups surveyed. Personal & Professional Development, as the most preferred measure of board members, is highly ranked nationally and specifically by regional stakeholders. Workshop discussions with board members characterized Mentoring & Coaching and Competency-Based Training as subsets of a broader program of Personal & Professional Development. This may partly explain the lower ranking of Mentoring & Coaching by board members compared to

123

840


Fig. 2 Framework for capacity building

other stakeholder groups. In the context of the framework, these measures all fall within ‘‘Grow the knowledge base.’’ When viewed together as an integrated package of capacity building measures, the research suggests establishing a flexible, nonprescriptive Personal & Professional Development initiative, with Mentoring & Coaching and Competency-Based Training elements as required. The mechanism should be demand-driven (e.g., in the case of Mentoring & Coaching, as sister regions, chair-to-chair, buddy systems, expert-to-chair) and suit the specific needs and interests of individuals and their regional bodies. Consultations suggest that an agreed plan based on a skills audit and needs analysis could form the basis for assessing priorities and allocating resourcing. The next three measures, Risk Standards & Guidelines, Best Practice Guidelines and Environmental Standards, are

123

categorized in the framework under ‘‘Set the standards & expectations.’’ Risk Standards & Guidelines ranked highly across all groups. The data tends to indicate that the implementation of Risk Standards & Guidelines is more advanced than for Environmental Standards, and suggests an evolutionary process from one to the other with time and experience. Some respondents suggested integrating these measures within a NRM Quality Standard modeled on the NSW Standard (Natural Resources Commission 2005). Ideally, any such standard should address all elements of the NRM system and, therefore, extend beyond the regional organizations to incorporate standards for participating government agencies, including research purchasers. The need to make such measures simple and nonprescriptive was emphasized, together with recognizing the limitations of implementation for smaller and less developed regions.


841

Table 3 The relationship between the capacity building measures and the building of different aspects of capital Capacity building measure

Capital Human

Social

Institutional

Economic

P

P

Cognitive

Structural

Protocols

S

S

Legislative, Constitutional & Policy Frameworks Set the standards & expectations

S

P

Define the organizational business


S

S

P

P


S

S

P

P


P P

S S

Performance Measures & Reporting Access infrastructure & resources Information Centre

P

S

P

Training Facility

P

S

P

Regional Infrastructure & Staff

P

Flexible & Adaptive Resourcing Arrangements

S P

S

P

Strengthen institutional structures & processes Briefings and Debriefings

P

Recruitment, Selection, & Succession

P

Policy Decision-Making Processes

S

S

P P

S

P

Underpin with effective business systems Quality or Process Improvement Methods (‘Office Systems’)

P

S

P

S

Quality Improvement or Learning Collaboratives

P

S

P

P

S

Audit and Feedback

P

S

S

P

S

Recognition and Service Awards

S

P

Team & Collaborative Relationship Building

S

P

S

P

Develop and sustain networks & relationships P

Grow the knowledge base Competency-Based Training

P

S

Academic Detailing

P

S

Exercises

P

S

S


P

S

S


P

S

S

Local Opinion Leaders

P

P

Registers

S

S S

Build the information base & tools Information & Research Compendia Case Studies & Storytelling

P P

Models, Decision Support Systems, & Geographic Information Systems

P

Computer-Based Knowledge Exchange

P

S S S

S

Note: P, primary purpose; S, secondary purpose

While Best Practice Guidelines ranked lower nationally and for regional stakeholders compared to board members and Indigenous stakeholders, workshop discussions with policy/research stakeholders supported focusing such guidelines on matters of governance and strategy. Protocols and Audit & Feedback both rank between third and sixth preference across all survey cohorts.

Protocols are at the peak of the framework under ‘‘Define the organizational business.’’ While ranked highly among NRM boards, the measure was not the subject of detailed discussions at any of the four regional workshops. Survey responses and workshop deliberations suggest that preferences and support for both Protocols and Audit & Feedback are a response to high levels of scrutiny and a

123

842


Table 4 Comparison of top 10 preferences of boards for specific measures against other survey cohorts Measure

Boards (n = 23)a

National (n = 111)b

Regional (n = 39)c

Indigenous (n = 10)


1

2

1

11


2

3

2

=2


3

8

8

1


4

13

14

7

Audit & Feedback

5

4

3

6

Protocols

6

5

6

5

Case Studies & Storytelling Mentoring & Coaching

7 8

6 1

9 4

4 =2

Competency-Based Training

9

7

15

10

Quality or Process Improvement Methods (‘Office Systems’) 10

10

5

8

Note: Boldface type denotes top six preferences of the survey cohort a

Seven members of Southern Rivers CMA (New South Wales) represented as n = 1 (one aggregated survey response submitted)

b

Denotes national survey results (i.e., excludes board members)

c

Denotes national survey results for 39 regions (24 by the regional CEOs and the remainder by staff members)

related desire to clarify the terms of business and streamline accountability arrangements. Audit & Feedback, Quality Improvement or Learning Collaboratives, and Quality or Process Improvement Methods (‘Office Systems’) are all categorized under ‘‘Underpin with effective business systems,’’ the latter of which falls within the top 10 preferences across all survey cohorts and was ranked more highly by regional stakeholders. Finally, Case Studies & Storytelling is moderately ranked across the survey cohorts, though higher in the case of Indigenous stakeholders. Workshop deliberations suggested greater support for this measure if used strategically to directly support the above measures (e.g., as a component of Best Practice Guidelines, Risk Standards & Guidelines, or Competency-Based Training). Of the measures indicated under ‘‘Build the information base & tools,’’ Case Studies & Storytelling ranked the most highly. Three elements of the framework are missing from the preferences discussed thus far. For effective capacity building, measures must also target the elements of ‘‘Access infrastructure & resources,’’ ‘‘Strengthen institutional structures & processes,’’ and ‘‘Develop and sustain networks & relationships.’’ The first two measures under ‘‘Access infrastructure & resources’’ (i.e., Training Facility and Information Centre) were ranked more highly by policy/research stakeholders, while regional stakeholders expressed concern about relevance, accessibility, and costs. Survey responses from regional stakeholders tended to focus on the additional measures associated with this element of the framework, namely, Regional Infrastructure & Staff and Flexible & Adequate Resourcing Arrangements. While not discounting the potential relevance of a national Information Centre and Training Facility, the research suggests that the latter

123

measures should be the principal focus of any strategic response to build capacity. The first two measures under ‘‘Strengthen institutional structures & processes’’ (Briefings & Debriefings and Recruitment, Selection, & Succession) were each discussed at a regional workshop. Several survey respondents expressed concern about board viability and longevity and the need to more actively address Recruitment, Selection, & Succession. Regional stakeholders ranked Briefings & Debriefings the most highly valued of any survey cohort at seventh place. The research suggests that Briefings & Debriefings could be used to improve communication associated with the progress and outcomes of formal processes of critical relevance to regional boards. They could also be used to facilitate equitable input to decision-making (e.g., bilateral agreement negotiations, new program development). ‘‘Develop and sustain networks & relationships’’ is an important element in the overall framework, to which implementation of several measures in other parts of the framework make a contribution (e.g., Quality Improvement or Learning Collaboratives, Mentoring & Coaching), even if it is not their main focus. Policy/research workshop participants emphasized the need for Team & Collaborative Relationship Building, and this was reinforced through survey responses, including from regional stakeholders. Will Implementation of a Package of Measures Address the Capacity Issues? Development and delivery of any package of measures within the context of the framework and preferences discussed in the sections The Capacity Building Framework and Selecting Specific Measures, above, should be grounded in a process of


eliciting stakeholder perceptions about the capacity issues (as problems or opportunities) and the outcomes anticipated from implementing an individual measure or program of measures. It is important to establish that there is a link between perceived problems and suggested solutions. This final section of results therefore examines the connection between stakeholders’ characterization of the capacity issues of NRM boards and their perceptions about potential outcomes arising from implementing measures to build capacity. The following discussion specifically focuses on the nine measures discussed with board members at regional workshops, shown in Table 5. I note that these nine measures fall within only five of the eight groupings that comprise the framework; they do not address ‘‘Define the organizational business’’ (Protocols, however, was ranked sixth by boards), ‘‘Access infrastructure & resources,’’ or ‘‘Develop and sustain networks & relationships.’’ In part, this may suggest greater interest by board members in those aspects of the framework over which they have more influence and control. Information and data in relation to implementing these nine measures are drawn from both surveys and workshops across all stakeholder groups. In the case of defining the capacity issues, however, information and data are confined to three stakeholder groups (board members, policy/research interests and Indigenous interests). In terms of human capital, informants across all stakeholder groups suggested that NRM boards have an inadequate understanding of and skills to underpin rigorous and holistic decision-making. Implementation of the capacity building measures shown in Table 5 was expected to support more rigorous, objective, equitable, ethical, and cost-effective decision-making, as well as build awareness and a more positive image of NRM boards. The measures were also anticipated to provide and improve access to simple, accurate, synthesized, and practical information, including nontraditional knowledge and experience, to support improved decision-making. It was suggested that less capable individuals and regions should be preferentially targeted, as well as where the need is shown to be greatest. Boards characterized themselves as lacking or having

843

insufficient opportunities to learn from or share with others, especially other boards. Sharing and learning between board members and across regions was anticipated to emerge from implementing the measures discussed; however, the need to learn from and build on existing and past activities, infrastructure, networks, and experience was emphasized. Board members also identified the limited pool of people from which to appoint new members as a constraint to human capital. Capacity building measures therefore need to facilitate the participation of potential new board members, including targeting minority groups. All stakeholder groups identified mistrust and negative power relationships (with governments) as a social capital issue and, therefore, perceived regional support, vision, voluntary participation and leadership, and bottom-up dialogue in the development and delivery of capacity building measures as an important element in moving forward. While boards were portrayed by policy/research and Indigenous stakeholder groups as being unwilling to learn, share, or change paradigms, their perspectives were anticipated to broaden, as well as leaders and a culture of leadership to emerge, following implementation of the package of measures. All stakeholder groups perceived some boards as having failed to adequately understand and meet the needs of their region or specific stakeholders, and suggested that the measures would need to be tailored, and flexibly managed, to individual and regional contexts in order to address this deficiency. Collectively, the measures were expected to build structural capital through facilitating and underpinning collaborations, partnerships, and networks. Board members identified inadequate capacity to network and build relationships at regional level as an important issue. Unclear or unsatisfactory roles and responsibilities were identified by policy/research and Indigenous stakeholders as adversely affecting the institutional capital of NRM boards, whereas boards emphasized the negative impacts of operating in a complex and changing environment. Informants indicated that governance support and improved implementation of and reporting on regional NRM plans could be expected to result from putting in place the

Table 5 Measures nominated for discussion at workshops with board members in case study regions Southern Rivers (NSW)

Burnett Mary (Qld)

Mallee (Vic)


Personal & Professional Development Risk Standards & Guidelines

South Coast (WA) Best Practice (Guidelines)b

Risk Standards & Guidelines Case Studies & Storytelling and Environmental Standardsa


Audit & Feedback


Personal & Professional Development Personal & Professional Development

Briefings & Debriefings



a

Measures discussed concurrently

b

Best Practice Guidelines interpreted more broadly at workshop as Best Practice


Recruitment, Selection, & Succession

123

844


package of capacity building measures, which could also reduce risk and provide greater clarity, consistency, equity, accountability, and certainty. In doing so, it was noted that innovation should be supported and tested. The same stakeholder groups characterized standards and processes as unclear and unsuitable. The capacity building measures were thought to improve this situation through collectively providing feedback and support for evaluation, comparison, reflection, adaptive management, and continuous improvement. Structures and operating frameworks were described by policy/research interests and boards as inflexible, inconsistent, and unsuitable. Informants emphasized that better arrangements need to be negotiated and formalized. An integrated package of measures was anticipated to reduce duplication and increase cost-effectiveness, as well as reduce or minimize administration while maintaining a focus on NRM outcomes. Onerous demands and poor remunerations emerged as dominant issues for economic capital from the perspective of board members and policy/research interests. Informants suggested that delivery of a package of measures should consider and address time constraints, low remunerations, reluctance to participate, and the potential for burnout, as well as recognize the service of board members and provide equitable rewards. According to all stakeholder groups, economic capital was further perceived as constrained by insufficient or competition for resources to achieve NRM outcomes. Respondents indicated that adequate and ongoing resourcing should be provided on the basis of need/demand, cost-effectiveness, and equitable cost shares. It was perceived that capacity building measures should especially target less capable individuals or regions, or those in greater need, and be supported by effective staff and facilitators. It was anticipated that reliance on government support would reduce over time.

preferences of key stakeholder groups for these measures. The research was also able to demonstrate a link between the anticipated outcomes from implementing a package of measures preferred by board members and the perceived capacity issues. This did not, however, encompass all elements of the framework. The research demonstrates the need for building the capacity of community-based boards, and the high level of interest in the case of NRM in Australia across the stakeholder groups consulted. Through its conduct, the research has generated a level of momentum and expectation for action. The literature suggests, and the Australian experience confirms, that governments and other actors need to closely collaborate with decentralized NRM bodies and their boards when devising and delivering capacity building programs if they are to effectively and holistically address their capacity issues. Countries with similar decentralized governance arrangements or an interest in their development and implementation may especially look to Australia throughout the implementation of the ‘‘Caring for our Country’’ program (2008–2009 to 2012–2013) to glean further learnings from its successes and failures.

Conclusion

References

This paper has investigated ways of making ‘capacity building’ more meaningful for actors with responsibilities for or an interest in developing and implementing programs to develop capacities, with specific reference to community-based NRM boards in Australia. It has presented a framework, informed by an examination of literature combined with rich empirical data, as a tool to inform more holistic and strategic thinking and action. This well-supported framework provides actors in different parts of the NRM system, limited by time and resources, to more confidently institute a program of capacity development. The framework brings together specific measures in a systems approach, and its implementation is supported by information and data on the levels of support and

123

Acknowledgments I wish to acknowledge and thank respondents to the national survey, and those who participated in workshops, including Mike Williams (Michael Williams & Associates) for his skilled facilitation of the national workshop. I acknowledge and thank Professor Stephen Dovers, Professor Val Brown and Dr. Richard Baker (The Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University) for their advice and guidance. The generous support of the Department of Education, Science and Training (Australian Postgraduate Award), Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (Postgraduate Research Scholarship), The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (Science Program Scholarship), Land & Water Australia—Knowledge for Regional NRM Project and Social Institutional Research Program (support for consultation processes), and Australian Government NRM Team through the Natural Heritage Trust (support for consultation processes and publication of the discussion paper) is also recognized.

ACIL Tasman (2005) Institutional arrangements in the Australian water sector. National Water Commission, Canberra Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group (2006) Creating our future: agriculture and food policy for the next generation. ABARE, Canberra Armitage D (2005) Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environmental Management 35:703–715 Australian Government (2008) Caring for our country. Available at: http://www.nrm.gov.au/publications/factsheets/pubs/cfoc-general. pdf. Accessed May 2, 2008 Australian Government (no date) Natural resource management facilitator network: helping communities work with governments. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra Bakker K (2007) Commons or commodity? In: Bakker K (ed) Eau Canada: the future of Canada’s water. UBC Press, Vancouver, pp 359–368

Environmental Management (2008) 42:833–846 Barg S, Oborne B (2006) Adaptive poilcy case study: analysis of Manitoba’s conservation district policy. In: Designing policies in a world of uncertainty, change, and surprise: adaptive policy-making for agriculture and water resources in the face of climate change: phase 1 research report, pp 117–150. International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Energy and Resources Institute, Winnipeg, Manitoba, and New Delhi, India. Available at: http://www.iisd.org/climate/vulnerability/policy.asp. Accessed May 25, 2008 Blomquist W, Calbick KS, Dinar A (2007) Canada: Fraser Basin. In: Kemper KE, Blomquist W, Dinar A (eds) Integrated river basin management through decentralization. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp 131–147 Bradshaw B (2003) Questioning the credibility and capacity of community-based resource management. Canadian Geographer 47:137–150 Broderick K (2005) Communities in catchments: implications for natural resource management. Geographical Research 43:286– 296 Commonwealth of Australia (2001) National action plan for salinity and water quality. Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry Australia, Canberra Commonwealth of Australia (2002) National natural resource management capacity building framework. Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and Environment and Heritage, Canberra Connor R, Dovers S (2004) Institutional change for sustainable development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK Council of Australian Governments (2000) Our vital resources: a national action plan for salinity & water quality. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra Davidson J, Lockwood M, Curtis A, Stratford E, Griffith R (2007) NRM governance in Australia: NRM programs and governance structures. School of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart de Loe R, Kreutzwiser R (2007) Challenging the status quo. In: Bakker K (ed) Eau Canada: the future of Canada’s water. UBC Press, Vancouver, pp 85–103 Dore J, Woodhill J (1999) Sustainable regional development: final report: an Australia-wide study of regionalism highlighting efforts to improve the community, economy and environment. Greening Australia, Canberra Ekins P (1992) A four-capital model of wealth creation. In: Edkins P, Max-Neef M (eds) Real-life economics: understanding wealth creation. Routledge, London, pp 147–155 Farrelly M (2005) Regionalisation of environmental management: a case study of the natural heritage trust, South Australia. Geographical Research 43:393–405 Flora CB, Flora JL (2008) Rural communities: legacy and change, 3rd edn. Westview Press, Boulder, CO Hooper BP, Lant C (2007) Integrated, adaptive watershed management. In: Hanna KS, Slocombe DS (eds) Integrated resource and environmental management: concepts and practice. Oxford University Press, Toronto, pp 97–118 Hutchcroft PD (2001) Centralization and decentralization in administration and politics: assesing territorial dimensions of power and authority. Governance: An International Journal of Environmental Policy and Administration 14:23–53 Ison R, Watson D (2007) Illuminating the possibilities for social learning in the management of Scotland’s water. Ecology and Society 12:21 Ison RL, Steyaert P, Roggero PP, Hubert B, Jiggins J (2004) Social learning for the integrated management and sustainable use of water at catchment scale (EVK1-2000-00695SLIM). Final Report. DG Research, Brussels

845 ITS Global (2006) Evaluation of the bilateral agreements for the regional component of the natural heritage trust of Australia: final report. ITS Global, Melbourne Ivey JL, Smithers J, de Loe RC, Kreutzwiser RD (2004) Community capacity for adaptation to climate-induced water shortages: linking institutional complexity and local actors. Environmental Management 33:36–47 Jennings SF, Moore SA (2000) The rhetoric behind regionalization in Australian natural resource management: myth, reality and moving forward. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 2:177–191 Kellert SR, Mehta JN, Eddin S, Lichtenfeld LL (2000) Community natural resource management: promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society and Natural Resources 13:705–715 Keogh K, Chant D, Frazer B (2006) Review of arrangements for regional delivery of natural resource management programmes: final report. Ministerial Reference Group for Future NRM Programme Delivery, Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Environment and Heritage, Canberra Lane MB, McDonald GT, Morrison TH (2004) Decentralisation and environmental management in Australia: a comment on the prescriptions of The Wentworth Group. Australian Geographical Studies 42:103–115 Marshall GR (2007) Nesting, subsidiarity, and community-based environmental governance beyond the local level. Occasional Paper 2007/01. Institute for Rural Futures, University of New England, Armidale, NSW Michaels S, McCarthy D, Goucher NP (2007) Information management for water resources: concepts and practice. In: Hanna KS, Slocombe DS (eds) Integrated resource and environmental management: concepts and practice. Oxford University Press, Toronto, pp 220–235 Moore SA, Rockloff SF (2006) Organizing regionally for natural resource management in Australia: reflections on agency and government. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 8:259–277 Moore SA, Severn RC, Millar R (2006) A conceptual model of community capacity for biodiversity conservation outcomes. Geographical Research 44(4):361–371 Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (2002) Framework for the extension of the natural heritage trust. Environment Australia & Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Australia, Canberra Natural Resources Commission (2005) Standard for quality natural resource management. Natural Resources Commission, Sydney Paton S, Curtis A, McDonald GT, Woods M (2004) Regional natural resource management: is it sustainable? Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 11(4):259–267 Porritt J (2007) Capitalism as if the world matters. Earthscan, London Ribot JC (2002) Democratic decentralization of natural resources: institutionalizing popular participation. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC Robins L (2007a) Major paradigm shifts in NRM in Australia. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 7:300–311 Robins L (2007b) Capacity-building for natural resource management: lessons from the health sector. EcoHealth 4:247–263 Robins L (2007c) Enabling regional NRM Boards: a discussion paper on capacity building options. Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, Canberra Robins L (2008) An outsider’s view: examining risk and emergency management for lessons on capacity building for the natural resources sector. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 15:16–30 Robins L, Dovers S (2007a) NRM regions in Australia: the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots.’ Geographical Research 45:273–290

123

846 Robins L, Dovers S (2007b) Community NRM Boards of management: are they up to the task? Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 14:111–122 Sinclair Knight Merz (2006) Evaluation of salinity outcomes of regional investment: final report. Prepared for department of the environment and heritage and department of agriculture, fisheries and forestry. Sinclair Knight Merz, Bendigo, Victoria Steering Committee to Australian Governments (1999) Managing natural resources in rural Australia for a sustainable future: a discussion paper for developing a national policy. Steering Committee to Australian Governments, Canberra

123

Environmental Management (2008) 42:833–846 Steering Committee to Australian Governments (2000) Report to Australian Governments on the public response to managing natural resources in rural Australia for a sustainable future: a discussion paper for developing a national policy. Steering Committee to Australian Governments, Canberra WalterTurnbull (2005) Evaluation of current governance arrangements to support regional investment under the NHT and NAP. Departments of Environment and Heritage and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra