Global Leadership Training Programme in Africa 2015
2014
Activity Report of Field ResearchCommunity-level Capacity Assessment
for Sustainable Development in Rural Africa
Yasuko Kusakari1

Affiliation in Japan:

Doctoral student at Graduate Program in Sustainability
Science - Global Leadership Initiative (GPSS-GLI),
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences,
The University of Tokyo

Host University in Malawi:

University of Malawi Centre for Social Research

Period of field research:

12 August-27 September 2015

<A Note of Caution >The objective of this report is NOT to publish as “a research paper” but as “an activity report” to show andshare what you experienced and learnt from field research activities through the GLTP. The report consistsof three main parts as below;
I. Summary
II. Research Activity
III. Reflection to GLTP

<Technical instruction>
The report should be written in English, except Japanese summary, following the outline shown below. Notethat this report will be shown to the public through UNU-IAS’s website after the final presentation planned inJune 2016. The number of words should be 3,000-5,000 words, excluding notes, references and appendix.
Font size should be 11 point for the text and 12 point (in bold letters) for headings. Necessary footnotes
should be denoted in the text by consecutive superscript letters. The footnotes should be typed single
spaced, and in smaller type size (9 pt.), at the foot of the page in which they are mentioned, and separated
from the main text by a one line space.

1

Ph.D. Student, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Host University: University of Malawi,
Chancellor College (Center for Social Research), Malawi, 26 July – 27 September, 2015
1

I. Summary
English Summary (1 page)
Despite the large amount of funding and various development interventions over the past decades,
extreme poverty, one of key challenges in Africa, has not been abated significantly. To tackle
multi-dimensional challenges in rural Africa, past development programs led by central
governments or external organizations alone have clearly shown their limitations. Consequently,
local capacity development deserves more attention than ever as a means of reducing poverty andpromoting sustainable development. However, despite frequent reference to the term “capacity”,
its meaning, critical aspects of capacity and how those should be measured often remain vague.
Against this backdrop, undertaking a critical assessment is indispensable to examine roles of local
capacity and explore effective and efficient approaches to capacity development for ensuring
sustainable development outcomes in the long term in rural Africa.
This report describes an overview of the field research conducted in Malawi in August-September
2015 with support from the United Nations University Global Leadership Training Program in Africa(GLTP) as well as The University of Tokyo Graduate Program in Sustainability Science – Global
Leadership Initiative (GPSS-GLI) Travel Funding and discusses preliminary findings from the fieldresearch. This research, entitled “Community-level Capacity Assessment for Sustainable
Development in Rural Africa”, aimed to develop a capacity assessment framework that can: 1)
measure levels of capacity, 2) analyze linkages between local capacity and sustainable
development, and 3) identify capacity assets and capacity gaps at the community level forrecommending feasible capacity development approaches and contributing to long-termsustainable development in rural Africa. Major data collection methods adopted include:community entries and identification of various community leaders, key informant interviews(traditional leaders, Government officials, NGOs, UN & bilateral agencies), Focus Group
Discussions: FGDs (men, women, development leaders) for assessing capacity and sustainability ofdevelopment outcomes, individual interviews for cross-checking with FGDs, and observations.
Through the field research, capacity assessment tools (incl. key dimensions of core capacities,
specific indicators and questions, translation guide into local language Chichewa) have beendeveloped and data on core capacities and sustainability of development outcomes have beencollected. Key dimensions and specific indicators for capacity assessment have been specified in
the areas of 5 core capacities namely 1) asset management and financial viability; 2) vulnerability
management; 3) mutual accountability; 4) engagement; and 5) leadership and ownership.
The capacity assessment revealed that there are numerous differences in levels of capacity invarious dimensions — even among communities with similar histories of external development
project support. Preliminary findings clearly indicate that, aside from development interventions byexternal organizations, other critical capacity factors have been contributing to performance ofdevelopment leaders, leading to different levels of sustainability of development outcomes.
It is considered that communities with higher capacity tend to manage processes of development—both management of development activities supported by external organizations and self-help
efforts including communal labor— and these result in higher likelihood of sustaining development
outcomes, not only during such development initiatives but also after completing projects or any
other communal labor/ self-help efforts.
The field research concluded that key dimensions of core capacities identified are useful and valid
perspectives to assess capacity at the community level in rural communities in Malawi. I intend tocomplete data analysis for writing my doctoral dissertation and developing a capacity assessment
framework which will be applicable in rural Africa.

2

Japanese Summary (1 page)

要旨
近年のアフリカにおける多額の援助および様々な開発の取り組みにもかかわらず、貧困は未だにア
フリカの大きな課題のひとつであり、状況はあまり大きな改善を見せていない。アフリカの農村地域
における多面的な課題を解決していくには、中央政府や援助機関だけが中心になって開発を牽引しようとするのではなく、住民をはじめ地域の関係者がより重要な役割を担う必要性が高いと認識されるようになってきた。その中で、「ローカル・キャパシティ」が貧困削減および持続可能な開発を推進する上で重要な手段として考えられるようになった。しかしながら、「キャパシティ」という言葉の意味や、どのような側面が重要であるかということ、そしてどのように測定すべきかについては、曖昧であることが多い。そのためにも、キャパシティをいかに捉え、評価し、向上させていくかについて掘り下げて検討することは、非常に重要な一歩であると考えられる。
このレポートは、マラウイで 2015 年 8〜9 月に実施したフィールド調査の実施概要をまとめたものである。このフィールド調査は、国連大学アフリカでのグローバル人材育成プログラム（GLTP）および東京大学サステイナビリティ学グローバルリーダー養成大学院プログラム（GPSS-GLI）の支援を得て実施した。これは博士課程の研究「アフリカの農村地域における持続可能な開発のためのキャパシ
ティ・アセスメント」の一環で行ったフィールド調査である。この研究は、1) キャパシティの測定、
2) ローカル・キャパシティと持続可能な開発の関係性の分析、3) コミュニティにおけるキャパシティ
の顕在性及び潜在性の評価、の 3 点を通して、アフリカの農村開発におけるキャパシティ開発および持続可能な開発の促進に寄与することを目的としている。フィールド調査で使用したデータ収集手法
は、コミュニティエントリー、キーインフォーマント・インタビュー、個人インタビュー、フォーカ
ス・グループ議論（各調査コミュニティの男性、女性、開発リーダー）、観察である。
フィールド調査を通して、キャパシティ・アセスメントのツール（主要なキャパシティの詳細、指標、質問、主要な用語を現地語チチェワに翻訳した翻訳ガイド）を作成することができ、キャパシテ
ィ及び持続可能な開発に係るデータの収集も行うことができた。キャパシティに関しては、1) アセッ
ト管理と
管理 、2)
性管理能 、3)的アカウンタビリティ、4) エン ー メント（ きみ）能 、5) リーダーシップと ーナーシップ、の 5 側面の評価を行った。
キャパシティ・アセスメントを通して、 じような開発支援のを持つコミュニティ でもキャパシティの いが様々な側面において らかになった。これにより、の開発機関による支援のやそのだけでなく、それ れのコミュニティが持つ様々な要 がキャパシティにしている
ことが える。
に、各コミュニティのキャパシティが、開発の状 及びその持続可能性と 関を持つことが 認された。これは、キャパシティ・レ ルの高いコミュニティは、の開発支援及び
助の開発の取り組みのにおいて、その開発プロセスを的に管理する能 があり、さらにはの支援がした も 分た で取り組みを 続・向上していくことにより けているからであると考えられる。
フィールド調査を通して、上 のコア・キャパシティはマラウイの農村コミュニティにおけるキャパシティを評価する上でつ的であることが 認され、それらのキャパシティが開発の持続可能性に寄与するものであると 論 けられた。分析は、博士論 及び関連論 のと実 的なキャパシティ・アセスメントのツール作成に 用する。

資金 力 脆弱
力 相互
込 力
オ
同
違
明
無
種類
ぞ
伺
同時
確
ベ
自 努力
双方
外部
終了 後 自 ち
継記
有効且 効果
確
結 づ
結果
活

ゲ ジ

歴史
外部
因
態
効果
文

間
影響

外部

巻

有

相

力
長

文 執筆

践

3

II. Research Activity
1. Introduction
Despite the large amount of funding and various development interventions over the past decades,
extreme poverty, one of key challenges in Africa, has not been abated significantly (Moyo 2009;
Makuwira 2013). To tackle multi-dimensional challenges in rural Africa, past development
programs led by central governments or external organizations alone have clearly shown theirlimitations (Land et al. 2015). Consequently, local capacity development deserves more attention
than ever as a means of reducing poverty and promoting sustainable development (OECD 2006;
UNDP 2008; Land et al. 2015). However, despite frequent reference to the term “capacity”, its
meaning, critical aspects of capacity and how those should be measured often remain vague.
Furthermore, there is no framework or practical tools for assessing local capacity, particularly at
the community level in the context of rural Africa, while there are some tools that could be used atorganizational or institutional level (e.g., UNDP 2008; McKinsey & Company 2013). Undertaking a
critical assessment is therefore indispensable to examine roles of local capacity and explore
effective and efficient approaches to capacity development for ensuring sustainable development
outcomes in the long term in rural Africa.
Against this backdrop, I undertook field research in Malawi from August 12 to September 27, 2015,
with partial support from the United Nations University Global Leadership Training Program in
Africa (GLTP) as well as The University of Tokyo Graduate Program in Sustainability Science –Global Leadership Initiative (GPSS-GLI) Travel Funding2. This research, entitled “Community-Level
Capacity Assessment for Sustainable Development in Rural Africa”, aimed to develop a capacity
assessment framework that can: 1) measure levels of capacity, 2) analyze linkages between local
capacity and sustainable development, and 3) identify capacity assets and capacity gaps at thecommunity level for recommending feasible capacity development approaches and contributing tolong-term sustainable development in rural Africa.
This field research was conducted as part of my Ph.D. research at GPSS-GLI from 2014 to 2017.
This Ph.D. research examines two study sites, i.e., Mulanje District of Malawi and Wa West Districtof Ghana, for learning from two study sites with quite different contexts in terms of geographical,
agro-ecological and socio-economic characteristics as well as developing a capacity assessment
framework (incl. key dimensions of core capacities, specific indicators and questions, assessment
tools such as focus group discussion guidelines and translation guide in local languages), which
will be applicable in rural communities with different contexts in various African countries. This
report summarizes an overview of the field research undertaken in the Mulanje District of Malawi
in August-September 2015 and presents key preliminary findings through the field research as a
post-field research reporting to GLTP.

2

GPSS-GLI travel funding supported me in transport costs for fieldwork in rural communities in the Mulanje District andhonorarium for research assistants, while UNU-GLTP provided me with support in airfares for international flights (Accra-NairobiLilongwe and Lilongwe-Addis Ababa-Narita), domestic transport costs mainly for long-distance bus fares between Lilongwe andBlantyre, accommodation, per diem, and travel insurance.

42. Study Area
2.1. Overview of Mulanje District
The field research was conducted in the Mulanje District in the Southern
Region of Malawi, approximately 415 kilometers from Lilongwe, the capital
city of Malawi (Mulanje
Mulanje District Council 2013, p. 1). The Mulanje District isbordered by Phalombe District to the North
North-East, Tyolo and Chiradzulu
Districts to the West, Zomba District to the North, and Republic ofMozambique to the South-East.
East. The total area for the District is 2
2,056 square
kilometers, i.e., 2.2 percent of the total area for Malawi (ibid.).
The District is named after the highest mountain in Malawi as well as Central
Africa, known as Mount Mulanje, Mulanje Mountain, or the Mulanje Massif.
The Mulanje Massif is a huge, isolated blblock of mountains of more than 640
square kilometers with the highest point called Sapitwa at 3,002 meters
above sea level (Eastwood 1988, p. 13).
The climate is tropical and falls into two seasons, i.e., wet season (normallyfrom November to April) and dryy season (normally from May to October);however, it has been noted that the wet period is becoming shorter as part
Map 1: Location of
Mulanje Districtof climate change effects (Mulanje
Mulanje District Council 2013, p. 1). The majority
in Malawi
of workforce in economically active age groups is engaged in rrain-fed
farming activities, mainly during the wet season.
Due to the heavy rain since the beginning of January 2015, Malawi was hit by the severe flooding,which is said to be the worst since its independence in 1964 (United Nations Disaster Assessment
and Coordination: UNDAC 2015, p. 4-5).
4 5). A total of 15 Districts across the country, mainly Southern
Districts, have been affected in various sectors ranging from crop farming, livestockltoinfrastructure such as roads, bridges and dwellings submerged and destroyed (ibid.). It isestimated that this flooding affected 1.1 million people including 104 fatalities, 172 missing people
and 336,053 displaced people in Malawi (ibid.).
Mulanjelanje was one of the most severely affected districts in this disaster. Furthermore, heavy rainsin Mwanza and Mulanje Districts in February 2015 led to secondary flooding in the districts in theLower Shire River Valley (Department of Disaster Management Affairs: DoDMA & United Nations
Office of the Resident Coordinator 2015). It is reported that many blamed deforestation forworsening the deadly floods in Malawi (FloodList 20152015a, 2015b).
). While the Mulanje District hasabundant and diversified natural reso
resources
urces including forests, it has been encountering
deforestation due to forest reserve encroachment, charcoal burning, firewood collection, persistent
bushfires, illegal harvesting of endemic spices such as Mulanje cider, among others (Mulanje(
District Council 2013, pp. 23-27).
27). Thus deterioration of its ecosystem has been increasingly
exacerbating the magnitude of disasters and cl
climate change effects in the Mulanje District andsurrounding areas.

Mount Mulanje

Bushfire in Mount
ount Mulanje

2.2. Administrative Structures and Village Development Committees (VDCs)
The Mulanje District is divided into the subadministrative structures at levels of Traditional Table 1: Breakdown of ADC and VDC by TA
TA
ADC
No. ofNo. of
Authority (TA), Area Development Committees (ADC),
VDCs
villages
and Village Development Committees (VDC) as shown
Chikumbu
15
82
in Table 1. In Malawi, VDC used to be established at Chikumbu
MabukaChinyama
522
the village level. However, there has been a
Milonde14
82
transition, as an institution at the village level is now
Mimosa932
called Village Committee (VC), while a VDC, which is Juma
Namphungo
888
now established at a higher level in the local Nkanda
Kmwendo326
Chambe9107
government structure, oversees several VCs. In the852case of the Mulanje District, each VDC oversees nearly Mthiramanja Mthiramanja
Njema
Njema
8
55
7 VCs (6.91) on average. However, the name of a
Total
79
546
village-level committee (supposedly VC) is still called
Source: 2012 VAP exercise in Mulanje District
as VDC in some villages in practice as of AugustCouncil Socio Economic Profile (Mulanje
September 2015.
District Council 2013, p. 4)
In this report, a committee at village level will be called
Village Committee (VC), regardless of how it is called for the sake of harmonization.
VC members are elected by its community members every 3 years and expected to facilitate
development activities, both self-help efforts and through coordination with the District Council
and other key stakeholders. Normally each VC has 10 members (both men and women) including
a chairperson, vice chairperson, secretary and members; and they are expected to work closelywith their Village Head (V.H.), who is a traditional leader of their community, as well as otherordinary community members.

2.3. Study Communities Selection Framework
Community selection was done through the following stages: 1) development of study community
selection criteria; 2) identification of potential study communities based on criteria; 3) field visits
to potential study communities identified based on information from district key stakeholders
during the preliminary survey in February 2015; and 4) selection of study communities based on
the criteria in August 2015.
2.3.1. Development of Study Community Selection Criteria
Criteria set for study community selection are as follows:
1) Distribution of administrative areas [Traditional Authorities (TAs); Area Development
Committees (ADCs); Group Village Heads (GVHs)]
2) Developmental project history [types of external projects & self-help]
In this selection, “External Project” refers to an initiative supported: i) by external/ internationalorganizations (UN agencies, bilateral agencies, international NGOs); ii) for integrated sustainable
rural development (not single-sector); and iii) with capacity development components. According
to types of developmental project history, communities are grouped into the following 3
categories:
Category A:
Category B:
Category C:

Community which has both already-ended-project(s) and ongoing project(s)Community which has already-ended-project(s) but no ongoing project(s)Community which has never had any project both in the past and at present

62.3.2. Field visits to potential study communities during the preliminary survey
During the preliminary survey conducted in February 2015, I first collected information oncommunities which could potentially fall under the afore-listed 3 categories from various key
stakeholders – ranging from Mulanje District Council (mainly officials at Community Development,
Environment, and Administration), Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO), and United Nations,which have already-ended projects/ ongoing projects in the District (Names of organizations arelisted in Section 2.3.3.). While 6 communities were to be selected for data collection, a total of 14
communities have been identified through the process and I visited these 14 communities incompany with a Community Development Assistant (CDA), a governmental field worker working
with people in rural communities in the District. On the occasion of the visit to these communities
during the preliminary survey, I interacted with Village Heads (V.H.) and development leaders(mostly VC members) in each community to obtain basic information on the community and its
development efforts.
2.3.3. Selection of Study Communities
Based on the information on the 14 potential study communities as well as the selection criteria
set earlier, a total of 6 communities in the Mulanje District have been selected for further datacollection as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Matrix of Study Community Selection
Category

External Project
Previous Ongoing

✔✔
✔

A(

): Community which has both alreadyended-projects and ongoing project(s)B ( —): Community which have alreadyended-project(s) but no ongoing project(s)C (— —): Community which has never had
project both in the past and at present

Total# of potential# of selected
Selectedcommunities
study communities communities
visited (Feb 2015)(Aug 2015)

✔

✔

6

2

✔

—

4

2

—

—

4

2

14

6

M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6

Distribution of Administrative Areas
Selected 6 communities/ 6 VCs belong to 2 different TAs (Mabuka, Nkanda), 4 different ADCs
(Milonde, Mimosa, Chinyama, Kamwendo), and 6 different Group Village Heads (GVHs). Actualnames of communities are not used in this report due to sensitive nature of the informationcollected and the author considers that they are not necessarily needed to be specified in thisreport. Therefore, 6 communities will be described in code from M1 to M6. In the same reason, 6
GVHs are not listed above.
Developmental Project History
When examining Category A (2 communities with both already-ended and ongoing external
development projects) and Category B (2 communities with already-ended projects but no ongoingproject), communities with similar types of projects have been carefully selected. Some common
projects in these 4 communities include: Oxfam (Shire Highlands Sustainable Livelihoods
Program3), Africare, Church Action in Relief and Development (CARD), Adventist Development andRelief Agency (ADRA), and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)’s Africa Adaptation
Programme (AAP). As for Category C, both communities have never had any external projects,
except the 2015 flood support (short-term interventions for humanitarian support in response to
the severe flood) as those 2 were also severely affected communities like most communities in theDistrict including 4 communities in other 2 Categories.

3

Oxfam implemented the Shire Highlands Sustainable Livelihoods Program (SHSLP) from May 2001 to April 2007 in
3 districts mainly in the Mulanje District.
7

3. Methodology
3.1. Overview of Field Research Methods
I conducted the field research in Malawi from August 12 to September 27, 2015.
2015 The 46-day
fieldwork consisted of 3 key research activities: 1) meeting
meetingss with key stakeholders at the national
government, United Nations, bilateral institutions, nonnon-governmental
governmental organizations, and Universityof Malawi including my local supervisor; 2) workshop on community
community-level
level capacity assessment andtranslation guide withh key stakeholders in the Mulanje District; and 3) field research in the Mulanje
District (Key stakeholders are listed as part of “Acknowledgement”” at the end of this report).
report3.2. Field Data Collection Methods
Data collection methods adopted in the field research are as follows:a) Community entries and key informant interviews
mainly with Village Heads (V.H.) and chairpersons Table 3: Number of participants of FGDs
Men
Women
VC
Total
of Village Committees (VCs)
14
20
11
45
M1
b) Individual interviews (50 interviews in total; 12 in15
21
2
38
M2
depth interviews and 38 concise interviews) for
10
15
9
34
M3
cross-checking
checking with Focus Group Discussions
17
23
(4)
44
M4
(FGDs)4
13
43
10
66
M5
c) Two rounds of FGDs with 3 focus groups in each
9
26
9
44
M6
community: 1) Male community members who are
78
148
45
271
VDC: Village Development Committee
not VC members; 2) Female community members
The number in brackets (VC(V in M4) shows thewho are not VC
C members; and 3) VC members
number of former
mer members of VDC interviewed as itd) Observations
had been disbanded (Apr 2015) and V
VC did not exist
as at the time of field research (Aug-Sep
(Aug
2015)

The total number of FGD participants is shown in Table 3. The first round of FGDs
FGD included
assessment of development outcomes
utcomes as well as 2 core capacities, i.e., “asset management andfinancial viability” and “vulnerability management”, while the second round of FGDs
FGD looked into 3other core capacities, i.e., “mutual accountability”, “engagement” and “leadership and owner
ownership”.
One of two CDAs always accompanied me particularly for mobilization of community members,
joint facilitation of data collection, and interpretation in local language Chichewa.

FGD with women

4

Interview

Supplementary interviews have been conducted in M4 community due to “conflict” situations and nonnon-existence of VC as
elaborated in Section 4.2.5. in this report. In
n addition to eight (8) concise individualiinterviews, I also had a group interview wi
withfour (4) former members of VC
C which have been disbanded in M4 community.

4. Research Findings
4.1. Finalization of capacity assessment tools
Through a wide range of literature review and interviews/ consultations with various stakeholders
in both Malawi and Ghana, I have finalized a capacity assessment framework with the following 5
core capacities. Specific indicators and questions as well as translation guide into local language
Chichewa have been also developed.
Table 4: List of 5 core capacities and indicators
Core Capacity
Indicator
1.1. Natural/ Social/ Cultural/ Physical assets for economic activities/ development in general
1. Asset
1.2. Key physical asset (1): Potable water facilities
Management
1.3. Key physical asset (2): Irrigation facilities for dry season farmingand Financial
1.4. Financial viability
Viability
2.1. Disaster management (preventive, early warning, coping, recovery)
2. Vulnerability
2.2. Management of other vulnerability issues
Management
3.1. Meeting mechanism
3. Mutual
3.2. Information sharing mechanism
Accountability
4. Engagement

5. Leadershipand Ownership

3.3.
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
4.5.
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.

Transparency
Inclusion of all groups in meetings
Inclusion of all groups in community activities
Gender in decision-making and leadership
Participation in developing action plans
Proactive engagement of external stakeholders
Individual motivation and commitment to development as leader
Work relationship with other types of leaders
Visioning and shared vision
Scoring of performance of development leaders
Contributions to achieving concrete development outcomes
Encouraging and inspiring community members to participate in development
processes
5.5. Ownership
Ownership in projects supported by external organizations
Ownership in self-help efforts

In order to analyze linkages between local capacity and sustainability of development outcomes, awide range of developmental issues (from multi-sectoral perspectives) with a long span ofdevelopment trends (from chronological perspectives) have been examined.
4.2. Level of Capacity
Based on the afore-listed core capacities, specific indicators have been adopted for assessing
capacity of development leaders in each study community.
4.2.1. Asset Management and Financial Viability
General Discussions on Community Assets
Through general discussions on community assets (e.g., natural, social, cultural, physical assets),the following aspects have been examined: 1) how each focus group in respective communities
has identified and been aware of their assets which can contribute to socio-economic
developmental activities; and 2) how their assets have been managed from the past and present
and how they foresee availability of assets in the future by examining perceptions of changing
availability of each asset and reasons for changes.

9All focus groups in M1 and M3 communities easily
listed various types of assets within the community,
while others had difficulties in identifying ththem. In
particular, M6 community was unable to list any
single asset and kept complaining that they havenothing aside from problems.
lems. Not only types ofassets but also the number of assets which each
community can identify clearly show their respective
attitudes towards asset management.

Table 5:: # of assets identified by focus groups
Men
Women
VC
Average
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6

5
2
4
N/A
3
1

5
1
3
5
3
1

5
4
5
N/A
2
1

5.0
2.3
4.0

5.0*
2.7
1.0

The discussion also went through the sustainability of each asset they identified, by examining theabundance/ scarcity of respective assets in the past (25 years ago), present
present (2015), and projectionin the future (25 years from the time the research was conducted).

Local natural swimming pool

Grass from Mount Mulanje for making brooms

Key physical Asset:: Potable water facilities
When it comes to communal assets which most community members use in their community,
water facilities particularly boreholes is one of the most common types of assets in many parts ofrural Africa. Therefore the way each community manages their primary water source was
examined as it reveals their capacity in the area of asset ma
management to some extent. Table 6 is asummary of key elements of management of primary water source facilities.
Table 6: Overview of management of primary water source facilities
Primary water Proportion
sourceof user
HHLDs#
functioning# notfunctioning%
functioning

Water source
functionality
score

Quality
average

Reliability/
availability
average

Quality +Reliability
total score

4.33

M1

Piped water

95%

Many

0

100%

5.00

5.00

3.67

M2

Boreholes

75%

5

0

100%

5.00

4.50

4.00

4.25

M3

Boreholes

75%

4

1

80%

4.00

4.67

5.00

4.83

M4

Piped water

70%

14

3

82%

4.12

5.00

3.00

4.00

M5

Boreholes

100%

2

1

67%

3.33

5.00

4.67

4.83

M6

Boreholes

100%

3

0

100%

5.00

3.50

4.67

4.08

4.2.2. Vulnerability Management
Various effects of global climate changes have been observed in various forms including heavier,more frequent precipitation, an increase in the number of areas affected by droughts, a greaternumber of tropical cyclones forming with higher intensity, and sea-level rising, among others (TheIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: IPCC 2007, Kusakari et al. 2014). Rural communities
in Africa where most farming households practice rain-fed farming is one of societies which aremost vulnerable to such vulnerabilities. Therefore the assessment of capacity for vulnerability
management examined mainly the areas of disaster management. Also, discussions on other typesof vulnerabilities and how they cope with external factors/ threats have been facilitated as part ofassessment of vulnerability management.
Disaster management
First, each focus group discussed and identified common disasters in their respective communities
and ranked their major disasters in terms of which ones are most common to them as shown in
Table 7.
Table 7: Ranking of major disasters
M1

M2

M3

M4
M5

M6

Group
Men
Women
VC
Men
Women
VC
Men
Women
VC
Women
Men
Women
VC
Men
Women
VC

#1
Heavy rains/ floods
Strong wind
Strong wind
Drought
Unpredictable rains
Flood
Strong wind
Strong wind
Strong wind
Drought
Heavy rains
Drought
Heavy rains
Erratic rainfall
Drought/erratic rain
Drought#2
Drought
Heavy rains
Heavy rains
Unpredictable rains
Heavy rains
Drought
Heavy rains
FloodsHeavy rains/ floods
Floods/ heavy rains
Erratic rainfalls
Erratic rainfalls
Erratic rainfalls
Drought
Heavy rains/floods
Floods#3Strong wind
Drought
Drought
Strong wind
Drought
Bushfire
FloodsDrought
Drought
Unpredictable rains
Strong wind
Strong wind
Strong wind
Heavy rains
Strong wind
Strong wind

#4

#5

Banana diseases
Heavy rains
Strong wind
Storm
Unpredictable rains
Bushfire
Bushfire
Strong wind

Unpredictable rains
Bushfire

Unpredictable rains
Unpredictable rains
Bushfire

Heavy rains
Wind

Based on the common disasters, each focus group assessed their measures/ mechanisms/
strategies for disaster management at different stages of disaster, namely: a) preventive
measures, b) early warning mechanisms, c) coping strategies, and d) recovery measures.
All focus groups in M1 community have same or similar perceptions about major disasters which
affect their community, with the strong wind as the most common disaster in their community,
followed by heavy rains/ floods and drought. In the events of heavy rains, women consider theirearly warning mechanisms (Village Head and community members notify other community
members through phone or visiting neighbors) and coping strategies (move safer places awayfrom river side) effective, while other measures are considered less effective by all focus groups(e.g., planting cassava to cope with drought and strong winds, external support from some NGOs
which tend to go to “wrong people” and not go to truly affected people). Furthermore, there aremany areas where community members do not have any measures/ mechanisms/ strategies for
managing disasters.

11

As for M2 community, there was very little agreement in ranking of commcommonon disasters
disasters. Men
indicated some effective early warning mechanisms by using their traditional knowledge, e.g., topredict rains through observations
vations of winds which blow from the North to the South (5 points on a
1-5
5 scale), clouds (4 points) and local birds with red heads and shoulders (3 points) as well as topredict strong wind by observing wheal winds locally called “nali pempe” or “kavuluvulu” inChichewa. Women also consider that making fire belt (“bandamani” in Chichewa) is effective as
their preventive measure against bushfire
bushfire.. While there were also a few measures with lesseffectiveness, there was no effective disaster management measure for the common disasters.
In M3 community, there was a very unified view of most common disasters among all focu
focus
groups. As for disaster management, women indicated that planting trees, e.g., mahogany (“bawa”
in Chichewa), bluegum and mango trees, are very effective for preventing effects of both strong
winds and floods as well as for recovering from unpredictable rainfalls as they have realized that“trees can bring more rains”. VC members also have been practicing various types of disastermanagement measures (65% of slots for all potential measures questioned during FGDs),
although the effectiveness of measures varies
varies. Planting
lanting of trees was one of major strategies they
adopted for managing disasters including strong winds, floods, and droughts.
In M4,
4, M5 and M6 communities, there were very limited disaster management measures,
especially early warning mechanisms which did not exist in any of these three communities; and avery few measures identified were also considered ineffective.

One of evacuation tentss in which victims of
the severe flood in 2015 reside

A message at Mulanje Bus Depot
Depot:— "Forest is a source of our life"

4.2.3. Mutual Accountability
Meeting mechanisms
Through focus group discussions and observations, it has been assessedd that how each
community organizes Village Committee (VC) meetings and community plenary meetings.
meetings Some of
key dimensions assessed
sessed are summarized in Table 8:Table 8: Assessment of meeting mechanisms
VC meetings

Community meetings
Score of freq.

Minutes ofmeetings

1/quarter (3 months)

3

No

1

No general meeting, only sector
meetings (mostly HSA5), NGOs

1No

2/mo ; Sun 2pm every two weeks– all VC, Men & Women aware

5

2/mo, every other week of VC
meetings, all aware and attend

5

Yes

M4

VC not existing now (disbanded
by V.H in April 2015 – conflict)

1

3

No

M5

2/mo by VC & women, while men
not aware4

1/wk for nursery school meetings,
1/mo environmental meetings +3/yr general meetings

5

No

M6

VC said every month but men &women not aware

2

1/yr or none

1

No

Comm.

Frequency

Score of freq.

M1

2/month by VC and men, while
women not aware

4

M2

VC not functioning

M3

Scale:

Frequency

1. Less than once per a half-year 2. Less than 1/qtr. but at least once per a half-year but at least once per a half-year
3. Once per quarter 4. Less than once a month and more than twice a month 5. More than once per month[With inclusion of awareness of all focus groups and their agreement/ disagreement]

Information sharing mechanisms
It has been found that it is not common for community members to share information on
development from ordinary community members to leaders (incl. V.H. and VC) in all the study
communities. Therefore, this research focuses on comparison in terms of the information flowfrom VC to community members in each community.

4.2.4. Engagement
Another core capacity examined is engagement, i.e., how VC engages community members andother external stakeholders in development processes proactively and effectively. This corecapacity is being analyzed in the following key dimensions: 1) inclusion of all groups in meetings;
2) inclusion of all groups in community activities; 3) gender in decision-making and leadership; 4)
participation in developing action plans; and 5) proactive engagement of external stakeholders.

4.2.5. Leadership and Ownership
Individual motivations and commitments to development as leaders
Individual motivations and commitments to development as leaders have been assessed throughdiscussions through questions about reasons for deciding to serve as development leaders of theircommunities; key qualities of development leaders and their self assessment of their performancebased on the key qualities which they consider as important; and wrap-up discussions on potential
areas for improving their capacity in all the five core capacities. While some VCs have elaborated
their motivations and commitments to development as leaders, others had passive motivations(e.g., VC members in M2 said they had become VC members because they had been elected byother community members).

5

HSA: Health Surveillance Assistant, field worker under the Ministry of Health13

Work relationship with other types of leaders
The research revealed that work relationship between Village Head (V.H.) and VC in M3 and M5
are very favorable as VC always consults with, and reports to, V.H. on all development issues andinitiatives and V.H. provides strong support and even participates in communal labor proactively.
On the contrary, there are a lot of issues and concerns over work relationship between V.H. and
VC in M4. It was found that, in M4, VC has been disbanded by the V.H. in April 2015 due to“conflict” (not violent conflict but sort of mistrust and leadership issues). When external
emergency support was provided to the community in response to the severe flood which hit
southern Malawi in January 2015, selection of beneficiaries and distribution of support items has
not been done properly due to the skewed intervention and unfair prioritization and decision
making by V.H., increasing mistrust in V.H. by development leaders and other community
members and negating local capacity and development outcomes. This case is also closely
associated with all of five core capacities (i.e., vulnerability management, asset management andfinancial viability, mutual accountability, engagement, and leadership and ownership). In M1, M2
and M6, some VC members and other community members have fear in V.H. and such
relationships may have affected development processes in these communities to some extent.
Visioning and shared vision
M3 is the only community which has developed its Village Action Plan and all focus groups (i.e.,
not only VC but also men and women) are aware of the plan as well as how the plan wasdeveloped. Although M5 does not have such a plan, all focus groups share the understanding
about development priorities of the community, through frequent community meetings, communal
labor and self-help efforts, e.g., ongoing construction of nursery school.
Self-assessment of Village Committee’s performance
For cross-examination of leadership, self-assessment of Village Committee (VC)’s performance wasalso facilitated as part of the FGDs. Each group assessed VC’s performance in the following twoareas: 1) how VC has been making contributions to achieving development of the community(concrete outcomes) and 2) how VC has been encouraging and inspiring community members toparticipate in development. Graph 1 shows the result of the self-assessment in each community.

M1

M2

Contributions to development outcomes

M3

M4

M5

VC

Women

Men

VC

Women

Men

Women

Men

VC

Women

Men

VC

Women

Men

VC

Women

Men

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

M6

Encouraging and inspiring community members

Graph 1: Self-assessment of Village Committee’s Performance in leading development in each community

14

4.3. Sustainability of Development Outcomes
While a wide range of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with 169 associated targets havebeen adopted at the UN General Assembly in September 2014, it is considered necessary forrearranging them in a focused and concise manner that enables the necessary global awarenessand implementation at the country level (UN General Assembly 2014, p. 19). Against such a
backdrop, the UN General Assembly (2014(2014, p. 45) proposed the integrated
egrated essential elements ofDignity, People, Prosperity, Planet, Justice and Partnership
Partnership. Considering the contexts of ruralcommunities in Africa, particularly Malawi and Ghana, specific aspects of sustainable development
have been grouped into 4 essential
al elements out of 6 as follows: i) “People” too ensure healthy
lives, knowledge and the inclusion of all peoples; ii) “Prosperity” to grow a strong, inclusive andtransformative economy; iii) “Ecosystems (Planet)” to protect our ecosystems for all societie
societies andour children; and iv) “Justice” to promote safe and peaceful societies and strong institutions —whereas “Dignity” and “Partnership” being considered cross
cross-cutting.
Based on specific indicators
rs under each essential element of sustainable development,
development how eachfocus group perceives the trend of their sustainable development in a long term – i.e., i) past (25years ago), ii) present, and iii) future ((25 years from now). In this report, two cases in two
different communities, namely M3 and M6, are selected
ted for differences being elaborated.

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

PeopleProsperity

VDC

Men

FuturePresent

Past

FuturePresent

Past

FuturePresent

Past

Ecosystems
Justice

Women

Graph 2: Trend of sustainable development in four essential
elements perceived by all focus groups in M3 community

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Graph 3:: General trend of sustainable
development perceived in M3 community

PeopleProsperity

VDC

Men

FuturePresent

Past

FuturePresent

Past

FuturePresent

Past

Ecosystems
Justice

Women

Graph 4: Trend of sustainable development in four essential
elements perceived by all focus groups in M6 community

5. Discussions

Graph 5:: General trend of sustainable
development perceived in M6 community

5.1. Overall Capacity based on Capacity Assessment
The capacity assessment has affirmed that there are numerous differences in levels of capacity invarious dimensions despite similar histories of external development project support – i.e., M1 has
higher capacity than M2, M3 has higher capacity than M4, M5 has higher capacity than M6.
Table 9: Snapshot of capacity of development leaders in study communities in Mulanje District

A (++)
Project in the past& now

B (+-)
Project in the past
but now no project

C (--)
No project in thepast & now

Community

Previous External
Projects

Ongoing External
Projects

Self- Help

Level of capacity of VC basedon preliminary findings6

M1

+

+

MediumMedium (3)

M2

+

+

Low

Very low (1)

M3

+

N/A

High

Very High (5)

M4

+

N/A

Low

Not functioning (0)

M5

N/A

N/A

High

High (4)

M6

N/A

N/A

Low

Very low (1)Preliminary findings clearly indicate that, aside development interventions by externalorganizations, other critical capacity factors have contributed to performance of development
leaders, leading to different levels of sustainability of development outcomes. Communities withhigher capacity demonstrated good performance in most key dimensions of core capacities, whileothers with lower capacities showed gaps and challenges in some key dimensions of corecapacities. Also, the study has revealed correlations between the capacity assessment results andself-assessment of development leaders in each community.

5.2. Roles of “capacity” in sustainability of development outcomes
The study has also disclosed correlations between levels of capacities and sustainability ofdevelopment outcomes in each community. It was found that communities with higher capacities,
particularly M3 and M5, have yielded positive development outcomes, while those with lower
capacities, especially M2, M4, M6, have more challenges compared with others. It is consideredthat communities with higher capacity tend to manage processes of development —both
management of development activities supported by external organizations and self-help efforts
including communal labor— and these result in higher likelihood of sustaining development
outcomes, not only during external development interventions but also after completing projects
or any other self-help efforts including communal labor activities.

6

Further analysis on levels of capacity is being processed.
16

6. Conclusion
As discussed in this report, the field research concluded that key dimensions of core capacities
identified are useful and valid perspectives to assess capacity at the community level in ruralcommunities in Malawi and it also shows strong linkages between capacity and sustainability ofdevelopment outcomes. In the rest of my Ph.D. study, I will continue further analysis of each corecapacity in these 6 communities in the Mulanje District of Malawi, conduct similar field research in
the Wa West District of Ghana in February-March 2016, develop a comprehensive capacity
assessment framework which will be applicable in rural Africa (based on findings from both Malawi
and Ghana), and complete my doctoral dissertation as well as other articles which will be
submitted to peer review journals. Aside from the dissertation and academic articles, it is my hopethat I will share a practical output/ tool for capacity assessment with practitioners including
national and local governments and development partners as well as community members whoare interested in effective tools and means for assessing local capacity in rural Africa forcontributing to enhancing capacity and sustainability of development outcomes.

17

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the following individuals and institutions for their kind cooperation, support, advice andinformation provided throughout the research.

Financial and logistical support
GLTP: UNU-IAS – Dr. Osamu Saito, Dr. Natsuko Imai, Dr. Shuntaro Nozawa, Ms. Yuki Nakano, and all
supporting staff members and Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)
GPSS-GLI travel funding

Insights and cooperation from community members’ perspectives
All 6 communities who kindly accepted me and shared various types of information and insights throughout
the field research in the Mulanje District of Malawi

Advisory and general support
Japan (advisory support)
My supervisors – Prof. Kazuhiko Takeuchi and Dr. Hirotaka Matsuda at the University of Tokyo
Mr. Kan Hiroshi Sato, Mr. Kiyoshi Shiratori, Mr. Kiyofumi Tanaka, Mr. Kazuhito Suga, and Ms. Mana Jingushi
National level in Malawi (meetings/ interviews/ advisory and logistical support)
My local supervisor – Prof. Blessings Chinsinga at the University of Malawi
Mr. John Makina, Country Director of Oxfam Malawi
Mr. Nisile Mwaisunga, UNU graduate/ Department of Environment
Dr. Ernest Misomali, Assistant Resident Representative – Capacity Development, United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) Malawi
Dr. Agnes Chimbiri, Assistant Resident Representative – Growth and MDGs, UNDP Malawi
Mr. Sothini Nyirenda, Programme Analyst – Climate Change, UNDP Malawi
Mr. Simekinala Kaluzi, Programme Officer of CONGOMA/ National Coordinator of Sustainable Devt. Goals(SDGs) consultations in Malawi, Council for Non-Governmental Organizations in Malawi (CONGOMA)
Mr. Jephter Mwanza, Programme Manager, Kalongolondo Programme (Community Based Monitoring) with
ActionAid, CONGOMA and PLAN
Mr. Kazuhiko Tokuhashi, Resident Representative, JICA Malawi Office
Ms. Kei Yoshimura, Project Formulation Advisor (Agriculture), JICA Malawi Office
Mr. Kohei Sakamoto, Head of Section/ First Secretary, Economy and Economic Cooperation Section, Embassyof Japan in Malawi
Local level in Mulanje District of Malawi
All community members in the six communities in the Mulanje District
Mr. Mafunga Jamu, Mr. Ian Thipa, and Mr. Henry Joseph, Mulanje District Community Development Office
Mr. HCK Gondwe and Mr. Suzgo Gondwe, Mulanje District Council
Mr. Elias Khozombwe, Regional Programme Funding Coordinator, Oxfam Southern Africa Regional
Management Centre [On mission in Mulanje from South Africa for flood recovery support]
Mr. Hyton Lefu, Programme Officer (Economic Justice), Oxfam Malawi Office [On mission in Mulanje from
Lilongwe]
Mr. Brian Kunkuwenzu, Emergency Food Security and Vulnerability Livelihoods (EFSVL)/ Disaster Risk
Reduction (DRR) officer, Oxfam Mulanje Office
Mr. Enford Kanyimbo, Mulanje District Agriculture Development Officer (DADO)
Ms. A. Makosama, Forester, Mulanje District Forest Office
Mr. Chikumbutso Kilembe, Manager, Enhancing Community Resilience Program (ECRP), CARD/Christian
Aid/ActAlliance
Mr. Brian Kunkuwenzu, Emergency Food Security and Vulnerability Livelihoods (EFSVL)/ Disaster Risk
Reduction (DRR) officer, Oxfam Mulanje Office
Mr. Tiyamike Goliati, Representative from Africare Mulanje Office
Mr. Ryo Sugawara and Mr. Toshimasa Miyake — JOCV volunteers in Mulanje District18

References
Eastwood, F. (1988). Guide to the Mulanje Massif. (3rd ed.). Johannesburg: Lorton Communications.
Department of Disaster Management Affairs (DoDMA) & United Nations Office of the Resident Coordinator.
(2015). Malawi: Floods Situation Report No. 11. (as of 2 March 2015)
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Malawi_Floods-DoDMA-UNRCO_Situation_Report-n_1102March2015.pdf
FloodList. (2015a). Malawi Floods and Deforestation. (6 February 2015)
http://floodlist.com/africa/deforestation-floods-malawi
FloodList. (2015b). Ten African Nations Aim to Restore 31 Million Hectares of Forest. (6 December 2015)
http://floodlist.com/africa/ten-african-nations-aim-to-restore-31-million-hectares-of-forest
IPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Eds. Core Writing Team, R.
K. Pachauri and A. Reisinger), Geneva: IPCC.
Kusakari, Y., Asubonteng, K.O., Jasaw, G.S., Dayour, F., Dzivenu, T., Lolig, V., Donkoh, S.A., Obeng, F.K.,
Gandaa, B., and Kranjac-Berisavljevic, G. (2014). Farmer-perceived effects of climate change on livelihoods
in Wa West District, Upper West Region of Ghana. Journal of Disaster Research Vol, 9(4).
Land, A., Greijn, H., Hauck, V and Ubels, J. (2015). Reflecting on 25 years of capacity development andemerging trends. Capacity Development beyond Aid. SNV The Hague and ECDPM Maastricht
OECD/DAC. (2006). The Challenge of Capacity Development: Working towards Good Practice.
Makuwira, J.J. (2013). Non-Governmental Development Organizations and the Poverty Reduction Agenda.
London: Routledge.
McKinsey & Company. (2013). The Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool (OCAT): 2.0.
http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/tools/OCAT/OCAT_brochure_v6.pdf
Moyo, D. (2009). Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is Another Way for Africa. London:
Penguin Books.
Mulanje District Council. (2013). Socio Economic Profile. Mulanje, Malawi: Mulanje District Council.
UNDP. (2008). Capacity Assessment Practice Note. New York: UNDP.
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/capacity-development/capacityassessment-practice-note/Capacity%20Assessment%20Practice%20Note.pdf
UNDAC. (2015). UNDAC Assessment Report Floods: Malawi
https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/system/files/documents/files/Malawi_UNDAC_Assessment_Repor
t_6Feb2015.pdf
UN General Assembly. (2014). The road to dignity by 2030: ending poverty, transforming all lives andprotecting the planet. Synthesis report of the Secretary-General on the post-2015 sustainable development
agenda. A/69/700. Available at: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp

19

III. Reflection to Global Leadership Training Programme in Africa(GLTP)
I applied for the Global Leadership Training Programme in Africa (GLTP) because I believed thatfieldwork would be critical for both my Ph.D. research and practical experiences for deepening myunderstanding and insights into local capacity in rural Africa, which is the core focus area in mycareer. I strongly believe that GLTP has contributed to enhancing my academic and managerial
competencies.
The data that GLTP enabled me to collect from the field will serve as an indispensable foundation
for my doctoral dissertation as well as other academic and professional outputs; and I sincerely
appreciate the support provided through GLTP.
This experience has spurred a shift from interactions with rural communities as practitioner tointensive six-week field research, bringing about deeper and richer insights. Increasing
opportunities to meet more key stakeholders also expanded social assets and networks.
I also appreciate the local supervisor system which has been supported by GLTP, as it provided
me with invaluable opportunities to receive insightful academic advice from my local supervisor,
Prof. Chinsinga. This system encouraged me for pursuing the research and enhanced quality offieldwork which has been made more relevant to the local contexts.
I believe that these experiences will contribute to improving my academic and professional
competencies in my future career as these are indispensable for the fieldwork in rural Africa,
which I wish to continue pursing. I hope other GLTP students in subsequent years will also havevery fruitful experiences in their fieldwork in Africa by optimizing this opportunity supported by
GLTP (incl. local supervisor system), enriching their networks in Africa and improving theircompetencies in their respective fields.

20