Introduction

C. Jacobs¹

International actors usually have a strong presence in fragile and conflict- affected countries, reflected in the presence of both humanitarian actors and development agencies.

Many internationally funded projects and programmes aim at capacity development of local civil society. Capacity development was one of three main priority result areas of MFS II, the 2011-2015 grant framework of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs for Dutch NGOs.² Its successor, the current policy and grant framework titled Dialogue and Dissent: Strategic partnerships for lobbying and advocacy has an even stronger focus on “strengthening CSO's capacity for lobbying and advocacy,” as this role is seen to be “essential for holding policymakers and companies to account” (Government of the Netherlands 2014, 2). But what is actually done in practice to strengthen the capacity of civil society actors? And can it be expected that these capacity development interventions make CSOs better equipped to fulfil their societal role? Such questions are particularly important in developing countries where it is not self-evident that basic services are provided by the state and where a wide range of non-state actors take up the provision of services, including healthcare, education, but also justice and security (cf.

This chapter explores the capacity development support provided by Dutch NGOs to Congolese civil society organisations between 2011-2015. Based on an impact evaluation commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the chapter explores the capacity of 19 Congolese CSOs and the contribution of Dutch donors to this capacity.³ Geographically, the focus of this paper is on the eastern part of the DRC. This is the country's region that receives the bulk of aid. Data were collected between 2012 and early 2015. The chapter explicitly does not cover various types of bilateral cooperation that exist between the Netherlands and DRC.⁴

The following section provides a brief overview of literature on capacity development: what is it and how can it be measured? What is particular about capacity development in humanitarian and fragile settings? The next section describes the methodology used for data collection and analysis.

Capacity development

Capacity development has been around as one of the objectives of development agencies for several decades (Hailey and James 2003). In a survey carried out by INTRAC in 1994 among representatives of Northern NGOs (n=101), 93% of respondents indicated that their agency worked on capacity-building with their partners (James 1994). More recently, capacity development still receives lots of attention: Goal 17 of the SDGs specifically addresses capacity building.⁵ Organisational capacity development has been an explicit aim of development policy in several Northern countries. Academic papers that look at capacity development in fragile states usually provide rather general accounts of capacity but often lack a more detailed analysis of concrete capacity development efforts directed towards civil society (cf. Brinkerhoff 2010).

There is increasing attention on the complexity ofcapacity development in evaluations.⁶ Yet there is no clear agreement among scholars and practitioners on what capacity and capacity development actually entail, and much less so on how to measure it (Eade 1997; Bolger 2000; Morgan 2006; Fowler and Ubels 2010; Huyse et al. 2012). Roughly, two different views on capacity development can be distinguished; it can be seen as a process, leading, for instance, to better education services, more empowered citizens, or higher agricultural production. As such, the process can be seen as a means to achieve a certain end. Capacity development can also be seen as an objective in itself (Bolger 2000; Eade 1997).

To allow enough attention on the capacity of organisations in a complex setting, Potter and Brough (2004) emphasise the importance of looking beyond the provision of training as this is often the most typical capacity development effort undertaken and evaluated. Indeed, training is often a relatively tangible activity to monitor. The challenge here is to measure the impact a training has in its aftermath. This chapter looks not only at what is actually done but also at how staff members perceive their progress in terms of capacity, and how they experience donor interventions.

Fragility and a lack of capacity go hand in hand (Brinkerhoff 2010). Capacity development in fragile states meets different challenges and is characterised by different approaches than capacity development in more stable countries, amongst others because there is a lack of trust and limited social capital, but also because timeframes in fragile states tend to be shorter (Brinkerhoff 2010). DRC is one of the countries that typically ranks high on fragility characteristics. Humanitarian assistance has been prominent in the east of the DRC for some decades, resulting in a comportment among the population that people refer to as l^,esprit d’attentisme (a wait-and-see spirit). Within humanitarian contexts capacity development often receives limited attention. At the same time, the east of the Congo receives high amounts of development funding. As long as humanitarian and development organisations operate in the same setting, it is difficult to transition from the short-term humanitarian approach to a more sustainable approach. However, a longer-term approach is necessary for organisations to develop their capacities, and to enable them to take over some of the roles that are currently fulfilled by humanitarian actors. This chapter shows that there is considerable tension between the different objectives that emanate from the different fields with humanitarians being much less concerned about capacity development than development actors.