Showing results

These are thoughts that resulted from requests that have been made recently to the programme I work for to show tangible, visible results from our work. The tax-payer is getting more and more critical: “Is the money we contribute really being used well? Is development work even worth the money at all? After all, what has been achieved in all these years?” Apart from whether or not development cooperation is the right approach (which is an entire discussion in itself), I applaud this development of citizens becoming more outspoken, and indeed think it is pertinent to account for the money (whether public or private) received. However, in our efforts to do so, my feeling is that we end up trying to satisfy what the public wants to see rather than showing what is really being done. How come? I’ll try to explain this in the well-known comparison with supplying fish/teaching how to fish. I am aware that it inevitably is a simplified image of reality, and I invite all of you to share your thoughts as well – especially if (where) you disagree.

In “early days”, development cooperation is ‘simple’: if [fill out inhabitants of a continent of your choice] are hungry, they are sent fish. [The implementing agency makes sure the fish arrives, the hungry people eat, and the donor shows that he donated [this much] fish.] However, the problem is only solved as long as the fish lasts. Moreover, because of the provision of free fish, local fishermen are completely pushed out of the market, hence also becoming dependent on the food aid.

In an effort to solve this problem, the fish is bought locally. [The implementing agency looks for where to buy the fish and then provides it; the people eat, and the donor shows that he supplied [this much] sustainable fish.] The fish may be sustainable (at least from a socio-economic point of view), the help still is not. Once the fish is eaten, people grow hungry yet again.

Somewhere on the way, the concept of participation is born. Rather than giving people what we think they need or telling them what to do, maybe we can ask them? Maybe they don’t even like fish? And rather than things going one way – the donor gives, the poor people receive – why not include them in the entire planning, execution and evaluation cycle? So, it is thought, let’s train people so that they themselves know how to fish. Then they can sustain themselves. [The implementing agency organizes trainings, the people acquire fishing skills and the donor shows the public how many people are trained. Even though a lot of money is spent on food and drinks for during the training, the public can see the direct impact of what happened to his money.] However, working in a developing country, where life is much more momentary, people come and go. Therefore, trainings always need to be repeated.

Why not train local people to give the training? After all, the objective of help is to make ourselves superfluous. And now that we are doing that, let’s also train trainers of trainers – aka ToTs. Then the entire process will be in local hands. [The implementing agency organizes trainings for trainers and for ToTs. Now local people can teach each other how to fish. The donor shows how the number of trainings can now increase exponentially, as every trainer potentially can train so many others. However, it is not as easy to show the direct impact on the poor people anymore.] But although people have learned how to train others, the whole organization around the trainings has not been covered.

What is needed is building capacity at the organizational level: managing the trainings as well as the human and financial resources. [The implementing agency, apart from organizing workshops on organizational development, also offers technical assistance in building day-to-day organizational skills. The partner organization adopts all the different mechanisms offered by the different donors, often ending up with a very bureaucratic system. The donor can show some graphs to demonstrate the changes, but the public gets impatient: where is the impact? Can we not just give mosquito nets or shoes or medication? That seems to be so much easier AND effective.] Unfortunately, with so many people that now know how to fish, fish stocks are depleting rapidly and biodiversity is in danger.

There is need for a more holistic approach, sensitizing people on environmental degradation, and “changing their behaviour”. [The implementing agency implements communication and sensitization campaign and, starts up pilot projects (for scaling up later) on how to change behaviour. The people listen, participate, and may or may not change their behaviour. The donor can show how many events have been organized, but it has difficulty showing the real impact. How to prove that people changed their behaviour? Baseline studies are organized to show the differences between “before” and “after”. But was it because of the actions of the implementing agency that people changed their behaviour?] And with all the work at organizational level done, there is still no real direction on where the organization wants/will need to be in x many years.

That is where the strategic level comes in: analysing the current situation and the upcoming trends, developing a vision, a long-term strategy, and setting objectives. [The implementing agency sits together with the organization. Rather than steering the process, they play the role of catalysts; provide different perspectives and options; offer their expertise when requested. The counterpart is now in charge, although may still end up trying to surmise what the donor might want him to do/decide so that he will get the badly needed funds. As for the donor, it now becomes basically impossible to show what has been achieved because of his help, since he can no longer take credit for the results. After all, decisions are now taken by the partner organisation and so can no longer be directly attributed to the input of the donor.] Yet, with all the work done and money spent, it still seems that as soon as the source of the money dries up, so vanishes the impact of all the efforts done. How to make people feel ownership for the actions, interventions, strategies developed? Participation is certainly key, but I do believe so is being able to work long-term. Which means: guaranteed, extended, harmonized and aligned cooperation instead of trendy, competitive, one-off interventions. So what will be the next step?

A lot of the work being done through the decentralization programme for which I work is at organizational and strategic level: assisting in the elaboration of 5-year strategic plans at district or provincial level; empowering citizens to participate in the annual budget planning; helping in the development of a monitoring system for the execution of those plans; assisting in the organization of the land register; etc. But if journalists come over for a visit, they do not want to be shown those boring plans. They want to hear how their (and their countrymen’s) money is changing the life of the woman living in the tiny hut; and take some pictures of happy little children (preferably in ragged clothes). So the pressure is on to give them what they want. Admittedly, a small part (not necessarily money-wise!) of the programme (and of other programmes by my organization) consists of buying new equipment, building schools, hydro-power installations etc. So that is where the journalists will be taken, and those are the stories and photos that they will show once they have returned. But would it not be better to convey what we are really doing, even if the story and the pictures will not be as exciting?

A poll recently held on this blog showed a (not very) considerable number of people who prefer to read this blog in English. As this might be a subject specifically of their interest, I decided to write this post in English. I did it for you! (Ignoring the fact that English is the best language in which to write development cooperation terminology – I may or may not have used this website.)