Wait! Who Owns This?
Denika Blacklock
Originally published in Kanava Global Connection
‘Ownership’ is a big word in development. The
concept is meant to demonstrate that development organizations are accountable
to beneficiary governments and communities, and that beneficiaries drive the
design and implementation of development programs. Establishing ownership has
become a measure of donor success, and many a reporting officer has learned to
massage it subtly into reports. But it
is really difficult to make this idea work in practice.
In theory, ownership should result in the
sustainability of development program results. Increasingly, this is not the
case for a number of reasons.
First, if a development program targets
local governments or communities as the primary beneficiary, then that
beneficiary should drive the program. However, due to the structure of
development aid, it is usually an actor within the central government (such as
a ministry or specific department) who is the legal ‘owner’ of a project, with
final decision-making authority. This actor is largely absent from program
implementation, and decisions are thus made without taking into account local
realities – constraints, resources, history, cultural practices, etc. The
results are therefore a by-product of central decision making, and as the
program was never owned by the beneficiary to begin with, are unlikely to be
sustained once the program has phased-out. One option to ensure ownership at a
local level is to review how aid agreements are drafted, or set up a program
board/committee to allow for co-chairing by central AND local governments.
Second, even when the direct beneficiary of
a development program has a decision-making role in program implementation,
this does not always guarantee the sustainability of results. Significantly,
even if the intended results of a program are vetted and well-received by the
beneficiary, the beneficiary may be looking for gains beyond the specified
results. For example, significant resources are put towards community-based
infrastructure such as nursery schools, community centers, women’s associations,
local markets and small enterprises that also carry the promise of ongoing
benefits to a community. Thus, while the program results themselves are
positive, a second tier of engagement by the development partner may be
required to foster continued ownership. This does not need to be monetary; such
a practice would contradict the concept of increasing resilience and reducing
aid dependence. Practical examples of second tier engagement such as linking
small enterprises with regional or national markets, creating partnerships with
other women’s organizations globally, or providing access to scholarships and
learning opportunities can facilitate opportunities for continued local
ownership long after a development initiative has operationally closed.
Lastly, there will always be an issue of an
alignment of priorities. Local governments and communities prioritize
development initiatives through community discussions and planning processes,
while donors and development organizations have larger agendas with specific
priorities and goals. While these priorities sometimes align easily, more often
than not the priorities of the beneficiary must be altered to meet the
requirements of donors or align with international agendas. But if the
objectives of the program do not explicitly respond to beneficiary priorities
and are not grounded in beneficiary experiences and knowledge, beneficiary ownership
of the program will be superficial at best. Fortunately, donors and development
agencies are increasingly implementing more flexible funding arrangements,
which allow for better-targeted, more locally-responsive development programs.
The challenge is to ensure that sufficient time and human resources are
committed so that beneficiary knowledge is incorporated into the design and
implementation of activities, and that the intended results of a project are
appropriate for the local context, and not just for a broader agenda.
Many established practices governing how
development programs are implemented present hurdles to true beneficiary
ownership of the initiatives. However, as noted above, not all hurdles are
insurmountable. A little innovation and ingenuity can go a long way to
facilitating the sustainability of results and fostering longer-term impacts.
It’s a matter of looking more closely at what ownership means in a given
context and how it is being hindered, and doing more than paying it lip-service
as a concept in proposals and progress reports.
Comments
Post a Comment