Is piloting development project ethical?
In my first year at school studying science and technology the concept of piloting was extensively applied to the point of abuse. A good number of development project in Africa, particularly Zambia, emerged from pilot initiatives, many have remained pilots while numerous simply ended as pilots. But when so much money is expended on testing development theories on real and desperate people, those most affected begin to whisper...
Look out for the whispers on this blog
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Development for Who
Some time back I wrote and shared a small article entitled "The donor's foot print" with one of my oldest and most active online community in Zambia, the ebrain forum of Zambia. this article was inspired by my own personal experiences working in development programmes all over Africa. The main objective of the article was to try and highlight how glossy and misplaced most donor supported development solution are. I attempted to do this by painting a somewhat graphics reality of the trails left behind by donor programmes. It seems at that time my audience who are mainly local friends, colleagues enjoyed the article because they could very well relate to it.
In my later years working with same programmes but more and more with outsiders, I have found my ideas more and more challenged; and that is not very surprising at all! The development field is a battle ground for both ideas and resources. As the gap between the rich and poor widens, the space for genuine dialogue between those with resources (especially financial resources) and those without, shrinking. Desperation and punishing circumstances forces disadvataged communities into submission while those with resources continue defining and refining terms. With so many in poverty, so are are appeals for help. And frankly only those with appealing cases get the help. The tragedy is that out of desperation, people tend to doctor facts- this is the greatest tragedy in the development field. having worked as media, ICT4D, and more recently in Human development, I have a unique insight into the realm of communication for development. The article I referred to earlier is a clear indictment for development actors and one which many a development agent would rather ignore.
I live and work in Lusaka, the capital of Zambia. Like many cities, Lusaka is fairly well organised and developed. People here are educated, they work, own decent homes and have access to some modern social services. But Lusaka is also home to many development agencies. While most development work takes place away from Lusaka, you don't have to travel far to get a sense of who is who in development. Development agencies love visibility and are certainly obsessed with extravagance. Their choice of vehicles, offices and technology is impressive and quite characteristic. Away in rural areas, and in contrast, people are less educated, no income, poor infrastructure and virtually no social services- here development agencies thrive! They are territorial and strictly focused on their mission. Driving to one of these remote areas, one rainy season, the sight of 4x4 tyre marks on the rugged roads is all one needed to confirm the presence of development agents. The roads are small, actually footpaths, and as you approach the main residential areas, grass has overgrown and partially covered the roads. I am on evaluation mission, and my first task was to locate the project. After a lot of help I finally manage to locate their offices or should I say what used to be their offices. It is a dilapidated council building bearing all signs of neglect. However two rooms appeared intact and large donor logos posted on doors and broken window panes are unmistakable. The surrounding is littered with empty plastic bags of donated foods and several empty boxes bearing logos and names of the donors. Inside one of the rooms two personal computers covered in dusty plastic protectors have remained unused two years after programme ended. The inside walls are decorated with calendars, work flow charts and timeline schedules. Stacks of reports, manuals and reference materials have been piled away to make room for seating. Here locals including children recognise and associate the logos more to help than anything else. Such is the extent of the impression that some families even named their children after the development agency. None in the community can operate the computer nor interpret the many maps and reports left behind. This is a typical development trail.
In my later years working with same programmes but more and more with outsiders, I have found my ideas more and more challenged; and that is not very surprising at all! The development field is a battle ground for both ideas and resources. As the gap between the rich and poor widens, the space for genuine dialogue between those with resources (especially financial resources) and those without, shrinking. Desperation and punishing circumstances forces disadvataged communities into submission while those with resources continue defining and refining terms. With so many in poverty, so are are appeals for help. And frankly only those with appealing cases get the help. The tragedy is that out of desperation, people tend to doctor facts- this is the greatest tragedy in the development field. having worked as media, ICT4D, and more recently in Human development, I have a unique insight into the realm of communication for development. The article I referred to earlier is a clear indictment for development actors and one which many a development agent would rather ignore.
I live and work in Lusaka, the capital of Zambia. Like many cities, Lusaka is fairly well organised and developed. People here are educated, they work, own decent homes and have access to some modern social services. But Lusaka is also home to many development agencies. While most development work takes place away from Lusaka, you don't have to travel far to get a sense of who is who in development. Development agencies love visibility and are certainly obsessed with extravagance. Their choice of vehicles, offices and technology is impressive and quite characteristic. Away in rural areas, and in contrast, people are less educated, no income, poor infrastructure and virtually no social services- here development agencies thrive! They are territorial and strictly focused on their mission. Driving to one of these remote areas, one rainy season, the sight of 4x4 tyre marks on the rugged roads is all one needed to confirm the presence of development agents. The roads are small, actually footpaths, and as you approach the main residential areas, grass has overgrown and partially covered the roads. I am on evaluation mission, and my first task was to locate the project. After a lot of help I finally manage to locate their offices or should I say what used to be their offices. It is a dilapidated council building bearing all signs of neglect. However two rooms appeared intact and large donor logos posted on doors and broken window panes are unmistakable. The surrounding is littered with empty plastic bags of donated foods and several empty boxes bearing logos and names of the donors. Inside one of the rooms two personal computers covered in dusty plastic protectors have remained unused two years after programme ended. The inside walls are decorated with calendars, work flow charts and timeline schedules. Stacks of reports, manuals and reference materials have been piled away to make room for seating. Here locals including children recognise and associate the logos more to help than anything else. Such is the extent of the impression that some families even named their children after the development agency. None in the community can operate the computer nor interpret the many maps and reports left behind. This is a typical development trail.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
.jpg)