Who is asking for capacity-building? Reflection on the Myanmar context

The concept of localisation, which gained prominence with the Grand Bargain agreement from the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016, has been evolving over the past decade. This approach emphasises the importance of local actors in humanitarian aid, striving for practical frameworks and realistic methodologies. In countries like Myanmar, where international aid plays a crucial role, localisation is familiar to some of the local communities. Drawing from practical experience with local aid groups, this discussion aims to reinforce better practices and explore the nuances of capacity-building and -strengthening for local support organisations and community members.

The practical implementation of localisation often varies widely depending on who is involved, leading to significant differences on the ground. One key area of discussion is the role of capacity-building or -strengthening for local support organisations, including individual community members. Many efforts are being made in this regard, prompting the question: why is there a need to improve the capacity of local support organisations and individuals? The need to improve and strengthen capacity may be perceived as implying a lack of capacity among the locals, which has sparked considerable debate. While this is a complex issue, it is crucial to address it without straying from the primary intention. Focusing on capacity-building or -strengthening, there is a significant emphasis on demand-driven approaches. International humanitarian aid organisations are seemingly tailoring their capacity-building initiatives based on the needs expressed by local groups.

Aligning efforts with genuine needs and demands

A critical question arises from this: ‘On whose demand are we building or strengthening capacity?’ Or put another way, who exactly is asking for this capacity-building? This question is at the heart of ensuring that capacity-building efforts are genuinely aligned with the needs and demands of local communities. Based on experiences on the ground, it is evident that many are developing demand-driven capacity-building strategies based on their own agenda. However, it is crucial to scrutinise whether these initiatives are truly driven by local demands or if they are influenced by outside agendas.

First, capacity-building/-strengthening programmes are often shaped by the requirements of donors, United Nations (UN) agencies and international intermediary organisations. These programmes prioritise compliance with financial, auditing and project management standards. More recently, additional requirements such as child protection and protection against sexual exploitation and abuse have also become mandatory. While these requirements are important, they are often externally imposed, leaving local groups with no choice but to comply, regardless of their own priorities.

Instead, capacity-building/-strengthening should be based on the actual needs of local groups, which can be multi-faceted. Local organisations frequently seek guidance from their more experienced peers to meet donor requirements. However, smaller organisations often request support based on their perception of donor expectations, which may not always align with their practical needs. Conversely, some organisations with more experience are better able to identify and articulate their own needs. To enhance the effectiveness of capacity-building, donors, UN agencies and international intermediary organisations should support local aid groups in developing skills to reflect on their own needs and those of their communities. This approach would ensure that capacity-building is more relevant and tailored to the actual requirements of local organisations.

This speaks to the concept of community demand, as defined within the framework of the Grand Bargain. This approach emphasises the community’s ability to self-reflect and identify their own needs for improving their resilience and response capacity. Appeals based on community demand are often directed to local support groups that are close to the community, and occasionally to donors, UN agencies and international organisations. In such situations, it is crucial to systematically encourage local support groups to strengthen the necessary capacity to meet these community-driven demands. Building this capacity not only enhances the ability of local groups to respond effectively but also fosters greater community trust and cooperation. To ensure the community’s voice is heard, and their needs are addressed, local support groups should receive robust support in developing the necessary skills and resources. For example, enhancing networking capacities can enable local support groups to better coordinate and cover community needs.

Adapting to rapidly changing environments

Finally, it is important to highlight contextual demand, which refers to the capacity to adapt to rapidly changing environments. Sudden changes such as war, civil conflicts, or emergency situations often result in unforeseen needs that require swift responses to alleviate human suffering. For instance, in a country like Myanmar, the situation is constantly evolving. While local responders can analyse the overall situation, there is often a lack of capacity and resources to provide the necessary support to affected communities. Additionally, local responders may have a development mindset but lack an understanding of international humanitarian rules and regulations when responding to emergencies. Given these challenges, it is crucial for donors and international intermediary organisations to prioritise discussions and provide encouragement to ensure local communities and responders develop the necessary skill sets. This process should be conducted with mutual respect and flexibility, allowing adjustments based on local systems. This approach will help to build the capacity of local responders and enable them to effectively address the needs of their communities in rapidly changing situations.

The capacity-building and -strengthening of local responders is fundamental. Evidence has shown that this approach is beneficial in many aspects. However, defining the demand must be done with care, to prioritise the needs of the community and local support groups. The situation is often complicated and unstable, especially in conflict-affected settings. Donors, UN agencies and intermediary international organisations should also consider supporting the capacities necessary for the survival of local support groups, rather than always aiming for their development and growth. Local aid organisations operating in areas with heavy fighting or under military control, like in Myanmar, face enormous pressure and have limited functional space. For these groups, the emphasis should be on developing the capabilities and resources necessary for their continued survival.

In summary, demand-driven capacity-building and -strengthening should exist as a process and method that is discussed and deciphered by all concerned stakeholders. At the same time, while using the principle of improving and strengthening capacity based on demand, donors, UN agencies and international organisations should be careful to avoid spending excessive time on compliance demands.

Si Thu Htin Aung is a Fund Coordinator at SWISSAID in Myanmar