In December 2004, the Foundation published the third in the series of its Occasional Papers. Occasional Paper No. 3 presents a Summary of a Report of a Study on Reconstruction and Capacity Building efforts in four Post-conflict African Countries, namely, Mozambique, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Uganda. The main objective of the study is to draw lessons that could provide a guide to policies, strategies and instruments for post-conflict capacity-building initiatives by the Foundation. The four country studies highlighted the fact that the root causes of conflicts are different in different countries at different times and that they require context-specific approaches to bring countries back onto the path of peace and development.

The four studies that were conducted by Prof. Severine Rugumamu, Member of ACBF TAP-NET on National Parliaments and Parliamentary Institutions and a Professor of Political Science at the University of Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania and Dr. Osman Gbla, a Senior Lecturer at the University of Fourah Bay University, Sierra Leone noted that the ability to prevent conflict is a function of the level of understanding of the dynamics of conflicts, the underlying stakes and appropriateness of tools to address them. The special needs of societies emerging from the traumas of conflicts have shortened the development planning cycle in such a way as to demand more flexibility of programs and resources and greater responsiveness to emergencies that have up to now been handled only through humanitarian and relief assistance.

While acknowledging that interventions in post-conflict societies are a special case, most donors in the four country studies seemed to have been more comfortable with planning and undertaking reconstruction projects based on “conventional models” of development rather than adopting approaches that responded to the peculiar exigencies of the moment. The ponderous procurement procedures, which, while designed for maximum transparency under normal conditions, do not lend themselves to the conditions of post-conflict emergency situations.

In post-conflict reconstruction, peace and security are essential for sustainable development. Broad-based development, important in its own right, also contributes to sustainable peace. The centrality of the peace objective implies one important corollary: the importance of appreciating the political environment and sensitivities of capacity building interventions.

Capacity building, being a means to an end in a long development process, should be integrated as fully as possible in national development policies, plans and strategies. In this regard, the development objective in post-conflict reconstruction process must be clearly defined, institutional and human resource development needs mapped out, and the capacity building strategy clearly articulated.

Beneficiary participation in decisions concerning capacity development would be critical in every capacity building initiative. Participation is a process by which individuals, organizations and communities assume responsibility for their own welfare and that of the community, and develop the capacity to contribute to their own and their community’s development. Active participation of people in defining their real needs tends to raise their esteem, mobilize their social energies and help them to shape their social and economic destiny. The four country studies demonstrated how institutionally-weakened post-conflict governments and societies failed to rise to the occasion to effectively participate in matters pertaining to the identification, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of capacity building interventions.

The four studies found that effective and efficient coordination of efforts or lack of it makes a significant difference in post-conflict reconstruction and capacity building. Massive and urgent needs of the immediate post-conflict situations together with the presence of many donors eager to provide support, and each with its own agenda, presents a scenario which demands effective and efficient donor coordination.

Capacity building, the studies argued, should be defined and interpreted in the context of broader national development goals and objectives. The four studies demonstrated that donor-driven technical assistance programs tend to be designed and implemented in isolation, without being guided by an explicit national policy framework or strategy.

Thus, a major challenge to reconstruction and capacity building efforts is for post-conflict countries to be supported in the identification, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programs that seek to rebuild requisite human and institutional capacities to regenerate growth and development, reduce social inequalities and poverty.

Based on the foregoing, and other findings, the studies presented several recommendations that could form the basis for developing a framework for a better focus on post conflict reconstruction and capacity building. Among these are the need to:

Thus, from the study of the four countries, it is evident that the attainment of peace is a long term process that requires a good understanding of the root causes of a conflict, while effective reconstruction requires policies, programs, strategies and instruments for building/rebuilding human and institutional capacity.

For a complimentary copy of the Occasional Paper, you could forward a request to the following address:

Executive Secretary
The African Capacity Building Foundation
P.O. Box 1562
Harare
Zimbabwe
Fax: 263-4-702915, 792894
Email: root@ACBF-pact.org