Comments after a Phone Call with Canadian University Students

Jump to Comments

 I took a phone call with the University of Waterloo Chapter of Engineers Without Borders last week.  Here are some of the follow up questions they sent me and my responses.

Q- You mentioned that some NGOs do not have very effective or sustainable programs …

Effective and Sustainable Programs
The trouble with these ‘ill-fated programs’ usually comes from a disconnect between the implementation level and the policy level or donor level. The donor may not have provided enough guidance to the implementing NGO, by providing large, vague goals such as “promote small scale ruminant production” or they may have unrealistic conditions, such as demanding that money be spent by a certain date. A combination of these mistakes will create extra problems.

How do Frankenstein Projects come to Life?
All development programs are created out of the public’s desire to support tangible actions to resolve the inhumane global divide between rich and poor. This desire is backed by financial investment, and creates effective demand that the field of international development field has risen to fill. Intentions are generally good, but here are a few reasons why ‘bad’ projects may happen regardless:

- Objectives: The demand for change that this desire ‘to make a difference’ creates is ill-defined, and how to measure the success of a change is open to interpretation. The path to achieve poverty reduction is not simple or clear in reality, nor do developing countries have all the answers to address poverty in their own countries. I think a crowd of engineers should know what happens when the problem statement is poorly defined.

- Formulation: There is generally a lack of ‘good’ information in the hands of decisionmakers. A successful program often depends on identifying best practices in the field AND having expertise on the local context in order to adapt these best practices to field realities. It’s like rolling two dice and hoping for a ‘12′. Seriously, though, situations where both of these elements are strong are rare.

- Implementation: The gap between the program office and the field is expensive, and there are few incentives to fill it well because decision making power and accountability reside in the central office. Critical information from the field can not only potentially threaten the position of decisionmakers, but may demand changes to the program that will incur additional costs. The gap between central office and field is not only physical but cultural and involves unequal wealth and power relationships. These factors magnify costs in terms of resources and time.

- Feedback: If the potential alternative uses of donor support are not clear to the beneficiary, it is difficult for them to say what would be in their best interests. Beyond the power dynamic and a lack of ‘big picture’ reasoning, critical feedback is not a strong aspect of culture in Ghana in particular. These are just some of the reasons it is challenging for implementors to engage beneficiaries in providing meaningful feedback
Because of these and other factors, it is rare to find a project that doesn’t have some Frankenstien element hidden in a closet somewhere.

Q – The economist William Easterly, is strongly opposed to big, top-down, government / donor / UN plans for development. He claims they are not sufficiently responsive to concerns on the ground, and prefers
ground-up, small projects instead. Is there any presence of big, top-down plans in your work? Do they help (Provide guidance) or hinder? (Plans do not match reality)

Big Top Down Projects
MOFA is the implementing agency for many ‘big top down’ projects. They are very helpful to MOFA since their financial support allows MOFA’s programs to continue, and provide project money to be linked with beneficiary communities.

The aspects of their assistance that are a hindrance are the amount of reporting that MOFA needs to provide to them and the often unrealistic demands that they make on field staff given their skill set, limited time, and the complexity of
their work. Each large donor typically requests a quarterly report, which means that MOFA’s monitoring and evaluation office often works long days and weekends for at least two weeks around the end of the quarter trying to get it all done.
Donor money distorts the incentive system for employees. There is money for doing donor work, but not as much for working to complete the organization’s own strategic goals.

Some MOFA staff display low ownership for the results of their work because it is ‘for the development partners’. Other staff speak up against this attitude, but donors certainly contribute to its existence with unreasonable demands on staff for their project. MOFA staff are often not empowered to refuse and they are forced to sacrifice other priorities in order to do so.

From the perspective of MOFA, donor assistance is essential to realizing food security for rural populations and much more of a help than a hinderance.

Q- Do you have any idea on how accountability in development projects can be shifted from above (Donors) to below? (Farmers)

Shifting the Focus
Cultivation of a culture of appreciating feedback from the field in implementing agencies would help to shift accountability. Through my project EWB hopes to bring additional attention to the value of fieldwork experience in implementation of MOFA’s projects. More participation in field work by program managers and a more professional approach by field staff and volunteers would contribute greatly to changing this power dynamic.

Q- Finally, if you could go into a little more detail of your work …
Mini Job Description

On any day I could be:
- Travelling to the field with an extension agent to meet a farmers group
- running a workshop
- participating in farming activities and / or conducting informal interviews
- provide feedback on AEA’s extensions techniques
- Collecting market data with MOFA enumerators (statistical staff)
- Assisting in completing reporting with the district Information Officer
- When in the office i provide one on one computer training for small issues as they come up, but this is not usually a focus
- Reviewing proposals that extension agents have prepared for/with farmer groups
- In MOFA’s regional office in Bolgatanga reporting to the regional director and developing strategy
- Developing workshops and discussing progress of Agriculture as a BUsiness with my AEA project team
- On the phone or internet collaborating with my fellow LTOVS
- Visiting or calling JF Ryan to check on his progress and make decisions about his placement together
- Participating in a district staff meeting

Much love from Ghana!

Sarah

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized