Rethinking Capacity Building

In the last twenty years, the mining industry has made marked efforts to improve its reputation in regard to its social performance. These efforts have been expressed in the 9th ICMM (International Council on Mining and Metals) principle as a commitment to contribute to the social, economic and institutional development of the local communities. Towards this goal, which has been increasingly highlighted because of its importance for sustainable development, a number of practices and methods have been developed. The international development literature describing these practices is full of so-called development buzzwords, such as stake-holder participation, empowerment, capacity building. This paper argues that none of these development catchwords are neutral, but contain assumptions based on a specific view of development. Since capacity building is a central task in development, the paper focuses on this concept and takes a critical look at the assumptions that underlie this concept and influence strategies employed by the mineral sector. It suggests that the notion of capacity building in some earlier approaches implies a set of asymmetric power relationships between developed and developing countries where capacity is transferred from the developed countries to the developing ones. The developing countries are seen as passive recipients while the experts, i.e. the developed countries through their mining companies ultimately control the capacity-building process. The paper also points out that the mainstream capacity development approach has been based on the assumption that local or indigenous communities are mainly made up of needs and capacity gaps. The goal of development projects should then be to address these needs, which are perceived and prioritized by the ?experts?. Critiques of this development model suggest that in order for the mining industry to embrace more successful and sustainable practices, it should rethink the notion of capacity building. It should move towards alternative approaches that see it as a two-way learning process which will serve to enhance not only the capacities of the communities, but also of the development practitioners and which will build on the strengths of the community, and move away from attitudes of superiority and practices of dependence.