A ripple in development? - Channel Research

of universities and institutions excelling in related fields remained
under-utilised.
Evidence we collected indicate that programmes capacity development
implemented in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Maldives tends to be
of a technical nature, while higher end training, and links to the well
developed tertiary education systems, are rare. The evaluation and
monitoring capacities within various organisations were not fully used
for strategy development or management of humanitarian actions. Few
evaluations or activities are used to develop skills within the local partners
for impact performance standards, or monitoring methods. In all
three countries, there are few efforts to work with students, researchers
and teachers of local universities. When it is done, it is in the rehabilitation
phase, and remains a small portion of capacity building activities
(we indicated how this has even affected our evaluation, whereby personnel
trained for the LRRD1 survey had been lost by the time of
LRRD2).
With the exception of some successful examples, existing capacities
were often bypassed or taken advantage of for use at higher costs (as
consultants to international agencies) for a short time. The lead evaluator
of the 2006 TEC report on local capacities pointed out that this
“plunder” was damaging to the humanitarian response, the sector, and
also to the ongoing development process as the job market was distorted
or altered.
Capacity building offers more dimension and opportunity than is
often assumed. In Sri Lanka, JICA found that using local capacity
required long-term step-by-step planning and wide but output specific
consultation, for which its officials said there was no time for that in
early phase.
It has not been easy to build on local capacities in Maldives. Local
organisations had little experience working with the government. As
such, the capabilities of local civil society were often unapparent to
organisations arriving to provide support. Yet Care Society was able
and willing to work with the government to deliver as well as join in
policy dialogues in some cases by stretching their schedules and mandate.
In the absence of outside support, many enterprising individuals
rebuilt their self-run businesses to sell products and services as a matter
of priority. Small traders and labourers took recovery and reconstruction
as an opportunity to manage a livelihood providing contracting
services to NGOs and recovering families alike. As mentioned in Chapter
3 of this report, the quantitative survey indicates that affected households
work with friends and family to create jobs, while aid programmes
were not named as being the main sources of opportunities. Markets,
both, local and social, play key role in recovery but are little understood
by the humanitarian system.
104