Theory in Practice

I rarely comment publically on Myanmar (who knows, I may want to take a job there someday) but the events of the last few weeks have brought me to the point where I’m willing to burn some bridges because it’s the right thing to do. Because with all of the horrific stuff going on in the world (in South Sudan, in CAR, in Nigeria, in Syria, in Iraq… the list feels endless at the moment) I often feel too powerless to do anything. Because I’m just one person, right? I mean, how far can my voice actually carry? At some point there is a breaking point, however, that prods you into action, and I know my writing is my voice. In theory, does it do much? Who can really say. In practice (in keeping with the title of this Journal)… we have to try, or risk sacrificing our own morals and slippery grasp on humanity.

I’ve spent years harking on about the need to ensure that development projects are designing indicators that are collecting the most necessary data as opposed to interesting data. My mantra, drilled into the heads of many colleagues over the years, has been ‘what do you need to know to know if you are making progress’. Big on SMART indicators, and keeping the process as efficient as possible (know that monitoring is the least favourite activity of a majority of development practitioners) – it’s what I did.

The SDGs: Leave No One Behind!! Laudable. Critical. And already failing at the first hiccup. The recent SDG Index and Dashboard effectively aimed to establish a baseline for SDG indicators in all countries. A lot of data is needed (because there are A LOT of indicators - but that’s another subject). There is significant pressure on national (and subnational) governments to deliver the data to prove they are committed to change and sustainable development.

Post-conflict governing is never easy. But there is a sense of hope, until there isn’t. Dear ‘Government’, Long after the war ended, I came back. I was excited - to see change and hope and a vision for the future. The changes I have witnessed, however, are very disillusioning... I see your flags and I see your posters and I see your many dilapidated cars and trucks roaming the streets carrying idle men, smoking, waving flags and looking smug. And I wonder, who do you think you are?

It’s full speed ahead on building capacity for resilience to climate change and other shocks like earthquakes and droughts and flooding. It’s the thing that everyone (ie: the development community and donors) wants to be good at, known for. Because of course. Of course no one in a country vulnerable to climate change, on the forefront of climate change like small island states (SIDS), could possibly build resilience on their own, or have a concept of what it means. Of course not, because they haven’t projectized it, aren’t carrying a logframe full of indicators of their success and targets for themselves, their family, their community in their back pocket.

If you have 30 minutes to spare, you need to read an article by Matt Kennard and Claire Provost in Mail&Guardian Afric a. It’s long, but well worth your time, particularly if you’re on the fence about private sector financing of international development. Yes, development organizations need more money if the SDGs are to be achieved, and there is certainly space for the private sector to play a role. The question is, what role?

Value for money. Somewhere someone got this confused with aid effectiveness and the results have been disastrous. Where aid effectiveness asks if the money spent is resulting in effective, sustainable change, value for money looks at how much you can get for each dollar spent. While efficiency is important (not hiring six consultants where one will do), efficiency and value for money are not the same thing, and this is causing big problems in the world of development. As I discussed in a previous article, donors are saying one thing (‘our focus is to reach the poorest, the most vulnerable’) and doing another (demanding value for money, restricting development work to the easy stuff), focusing on the safest, easiest-to-reach communities because it is cheaper and demonstrates quicker results. The real result? More and more people are left behind.