Today.Az » Analytics » A Radical Rethink: Aligning People’s and Donors’ Priorities
19 November 2014 [13:09] - Today.Az
Dr. Yossef
Ben-Meir is
president of the
High Atlas
Foundation and a
sociologist.
With the enormous
diversity of social
contexts where
development
interventions take
place, one might
imagine it would be
extremely difficult to
identify a single rule
of thumb that enables
the best possibility
for project success,
or sustainability.
However, global
experiences since the
aftermath of WWII and
the implementation of
the Marshall Plan do
in fact point to an
identifiable quality –
as essential as
finance – that must be
present in order for
development
initiatives to endure.
I refer to the
participation of the
intended beneficiaries
in all aspects and
phases of the project
cycle, from inception
to evaluation, to the
point where it is in
fact they, rather than
any outside agencies,
who dictate the path
of a project.
Concomitant with this,
sustainable
development across
nations and the globe
can only be realized
where donors align
their priorities
squarely with the
self-determined
priorities of the
people.
Bridging the
gap - theory and
practice
The path to the
acceptance of the
participatory approach
to development was
forged, through trial
and error, over
several decades until
the 1990s, when its
global recognition by
development
practitioners became
well-established.
Possessing this
theoretical knowledge
is, however,
unfortunately not the
same as achieving
broad participation of
local people in the
design and management
of projects that are
intended to benefit
them.
Participation requires
facilitation, meaning
that, in order for
inclusive local
development planning
to occur, a third
party coordinator is
necessary – one who
applies interactive
activities that enable
participants to assess
their needs and
prioritize the changes
they seek.
Facilitators therefore
need to work and live
among the people,
transferring the
essential skills so
that communities
themselves can
maintain the project
development momentum.
Unfortunately, the
vast majority of
development agencies
do not have the human
resources and the
absolute commitment
needed in order to
achieve this vital,
constant proximity to
needy communities, who
are often to be found
in the most remote
locations.
Genuine participation
on the ground does not
unfold without at
least initial
support. Too often
there remains a tragic
gap between what
donors to development
are willing to fund
and the projects that
communities identify
as most important to
them.
This gap accounts for
much project failure
and can be bridged by
donors supporting the
application of proven
participatory planning
methods as well as
being prepared to
embrace the
possibility of a range
of project types
(agricultural, health,
education) emerging
from the local
dialogue process.
Case studies
Examples of successes
– and of the opposite
– can be found at the
national and
international level.
In the High Atlas
mountain region of
Morocco, the typical
donor solution is
tourist-related, based
on the thousands of
hikers and general
visitors each year who
seek to behold the
most awesome peaks in
North Africa. Yet,
after hundreds of
meetings among
communities of the
region, not a single
one identified tourism
as a priority project
area. This is because
tourism typically
benefits a few
households out of
many, the pattern
being to stop in one
village along a line
of ten that may exist
in a valley and, in
that single location,
enjoying a meal or an
overnight stay. On
the other hand, all
communities identify
clean drinking water,
irrigation and women
and youth enterprises
as top priorities
because these will
benefit every
household in a given
village and every
village in the valley.
For a short period
during the 1990s there
existed opportunities
for Israeli-Moroccan
development
collaboration. What a
tragedy it was that
the sole project that
both included
government-to-government
cooperation and met
local villagers’
self-described needs,
namely an irrigation
project including the
installation of
pressure-drip systems,
was denied funding by
USAID’s Middle East
Regional Cooperation
program, since it did
not involve joint
technological
development.
Where there is an
opportunity for
Israeli-Palestinian
shared effort to
implement local
projects of whatever
type, that are
determined by local
Palestinians, that
opportunity should not
pass because it may
not fit within the
strict donor
guidelines of what
they think local
people might need.
At a time now of
Shi’ite and Sunni
major escalation of
distrust and violence,
the international
community should fund
any and every
initiative that
involves their joint
collaboration in order
to achieve the
development goals of
the people.
Particularly in the
context of the Arab
Spring, the
affirmation that
people experience as
the democratic
planning of local
development
progresses, would have
a stabilizing effect,
both in political and
social terms.
In Ferguson, Missouri,
and other U.S.
counties with
especially divided
social groups, local
people would do well
to create businesses
and human service
initiatives that cross
ethnic and faith-based
communities, whose
scope the
beneficiaries
themselves should
determine. In this
case contributing
donors would be
funding the basis for
empowerment, peace and
prosperity, all at
once.
The radical
conclusion, therefore,
is that a partial
‘rewriting of the
rules’ is necessary to
rectify the disconnect
that can exist between
donor requirements and
the popular will. At
times this would send
strong messages that
cross political
divisions while,
fundamentally,
ensuring project
success and genuine
social justice.
|
|