Accelerated Development: Who Benefits?
Denika
Blacklock Karim
The modern human
development paradigm, with its focus on growth and modern lifestyles, has been
introduced as a standard against which the development level of a local community
is measured in stages. This paradigm has produced a sense of urgency, whereby
development needs to be accelerated as though the speeding up of the
development process will decrease inequality gaps faster and produce a sense of
social harmony, alleviating conflict and allowing us to categorize social
injustice as a characteristic of a ‘bygone’ era rather than the present one.
‘Accelerated
development’[1]
has become a watch word, particularly in relation to development programmes targeting
indigenous communities and least developed countries. We fear that some groups would
be ‘left behind’ and being accused of ‘not doing enough.’ Thus, development
programmes have begun focussing not only on the key human development related
activities such as improving the quality and effectiveness of education and
health care services and supporting sustainable livelihoods and local economy,
but also on trying to figure out how to make these processes take place faster.
The development paradigm where ‘accelerated development’ has become a perceived
‘key to success’, in turn, perceives indigenous communities and least developed
countries as the target rather than the drivers of development.
What are the
repercussions of this concept? Is anyone truly benefitting from accelerated
development? We must ask: by accelerating development, what concessions are
being made in practice?
Concession
1: Absorption Capacities
How
much information, and how quickly, can an individual with secondary or basic
university education absorb that information? This is a critical question. Although
it is the responsibility of the groups or individuals who are delivering
training or other capacity building activities to ‘get it right’ in terms of
the particular cultural/geographic/historical context, there is more often than
not a gap in how capacity building is undertaken versus the optimal approach in
that context. Beneficiaries cannot ‘drive’ development if they are learning
through an approach that is at odds with traditional approaches to learning in
their community. The sustainability of any development outcome relies heavily
on the ability of the ‘beneficiaries,’ particularly those in local government,
to be able to retain and consistently and effectively utilize information
gained through capacity building programmes, that is, to take what they have
learned and ‘get it right’ in a very short time frame. There is little room for
learning-while-doing. UNDP[2] has
listed the key functional capacities necessary for effective and sustainable
local development:
·
Capacities to facilitate participatory
planning through dialogue and priority-setting
·
Capacities to gather, disaggregate, and
analyse data for planning purposes
· Capacities to
undertake integrated planning and budgeting.
·
Capacities for networking, with voice and
knowledge, to link local development processes to national strategies and
finance.
·
Legal and administrative knowledge to
implement and monitor decentralized fiscal and competencies handed to
sub-national levels.
·
Capacities to mobilise resources, including
the networking and risk management skills.
·
Capacities for effective and efficient project
management.
·
Capacities for effective service delivery.
·
Capacities to monitor and review progress.
When
we view these capacities in the context of least developed countries, they
strike as a significant amount of information to absorb, on top of the
technical skills and knowledge necessary in particular sectors, such as the environment,
health care, and economic development. Furthermore, this is a significant
amount of information to absorb and apply effectively for individuals without
significant levels of education. In areas where access to higher levels of
education has been limited, or where the quality of education has been
sub-standard, this is a lot of pressure to place on the individuals who will be
the recipients of capacity building, generally local government and local NGO
staff members. Some capacity building programmes put their primary focus not on
delivering information, but on the application of that information. Even then,
it is a learned process, and information will always be missed or forgotten. In
my own extensive experience in delivering training programmes and undertaking
capacity building through mentoring and coaching processes, even the most
promising individuals were incapable of retaining all of the information
provided in the short term, let alone applying it consistently and effectively.
For
example, in the highlands of Papua, in Indonesia, the literacy rate amongst
village leaders in indigenous communities averages around 50 percent.[3] With
such low literacy rates, how conceivable is it that village leaders would be
able to learn quickly and retain all that they have learned? How much
information can they be realistically expected to absorb, and then implement
transparently and accountably, while achieving the standards of efficiency and
effectiveness necessary for ‘accelerated development’ to happen? If we took a
step back, we should also ask ourselves how much of the information presented
in the two- and three-day trainings that we, as development professionals,
attend, do we retain and then use effectively and efficiently?
Concession
2: Local Wisdom
The
‘acceleration’ concept leaves little room for taking the necessary time to
learn about the local communities, their traditional governance and
decision-making structures, and about local wisdom gained over generations,
upon which entire communities and societies function. Have we taken the time to
learn and appreciate how the community defines progress, and understand the
vision that community leaders (and members) have for the next 10, 20 or even 50
years?
Is it possible
to ‘accelerate’ development in communities or countries where the processes
through which development programmes are being implemented are imported or have
little credibility with the intended beneficiaries? How can such initiatives become
locally owned, and therefore their results sustainable? Perhaps more
importantly, can the results of such programmes be sustainable if they are not
grounded in local custom, practice and understanding? How can beneficiaries
possibly be the drivers of development in their communities in such situations?
Effectiveness and sustainability necessitate time, for the beneficiaries to
understand and appreciate the intended outcomes of our development programmes, and
to focus on achieving these outcomes using existing systems and processes to
the greatest extent possible. This, in itself, is not a process that can or will
happen quickly.
For example, the
approach to governance among Papua’s indigenous communities —and quite possibly
their understanding of ‘development’— would appear to be at odds with the
generic governance and service delivery programmes implemented by foreign
donors, international organisations and NGOs. The impact of the work undertaken
in the province over the past decade has not been sustainable, which suggests
that ‘successful’ approaches to project implementation elsewhere in Indonesia
and internationally need to be reconsidered in Papua. Development programmes
would be better guided by principles that are culturally and
conflict-sensitive, which should assist in defining an approach to development
in Papua that responds to local understandings of development and
‘modernisation’[4],
thus ensuring relevance to the local community.
Another example
comes from the Solomon Islands. Law and justice programmes have a difficult
time gaining traction at the community level, not because people are not
interested, but because communities are more comfortable with their traditional
customary justice practices —they are cheaper, faster, more accessible and
better understood (because they are often more relevant to specific community
contexts than formal law) by community members. Efforts are made at the
community level to implement formal law, however it is often a lack of
understanding that results in weak implementation, with customary law filling
the gaps. One problem is that formal law and customary ‘laws’ (which differ
across the archipelago) are rarely compatible. For example, issues such as
sexual violence are more often than not dealt with through customary practice
rather than formal law for the reasons mentioned above. In these instances,
given the increasing exposure that younger generations have to information
related to, for example, the rights and experiences of women and girls in other
communities or countries, it is possible, and even likely, to presume more interest
in understanding how women and girls may benefit under formal law. What is
needed is a process by which formal law can accommodate relevant traditions
(such as the application of justice by the village elder, under the guidance of
the local prosecutor). This will be a very long and complex process, precluding
ideas of ‘accelerated’ justice programmes. In the long term, however, we may be
able to witness sustainable change in the position and rights of women and
girls.
Concession
3: Sustainability… and good governance
In the context of this essay, when development practitioners engage with
stakeholders and broader beneficiary groups, and with indigenous communities and
in least developed countries, assumptions are made on existing but weak
institutions and capacities to implement good governance. Baseline studies are
undertaken, information is collected and analysed (sometimes, this analysis
depends on who is analyzing, or how the data is going to be used during the
life of the project). However, we often use the results of baseline studies to
assist in target setting within a predefined time frame rather than devoting
time to understanding whether the targets can be sustained once they have been
achieved, and concurrently, whether improvements in good governance will be
sustained. It is not a question of whether the beneficiaries of a project are
genuine in their commitment; it is related to a combination of Concessions 1
and 2 above: once a project has been ‘completed’ (i.e. targets achieved) and
technical advisory support is withdrawn, can the beneficiaries continue what
has been started with the same intensity? Further, local wisdom and traditions
will weigh heavily; without ‘balance’ from foreign technical advisors (not
necessarily foreign nationals, but from other regions in the country) tradition
and belief can begin to have more significant influence.
This is by no means a criticism of tradition and local belief, but rather
an example to demonstrate that ‘accelerating’ development does not allow for
new ideas and practices to trickle down to the most grass roots levels.
Sustainable change takes time – far more time than the average development
project cycle. Accelerated development is potentially less likely to be
sustainable than projects that last for 4 or 5 years and that go through many
phases – sometimes totaling 15 or 20 years of implementation.
A Nice Idea… but Would the Opposite be Better?
Accelerated development is a genuine attempt to close human development
gaps sooner rather than later. Amongst others, one of its aims is to
demonstrate commitment to social fairness and equality of opportunities by
national governments, donor agencies and international organizations alike.
Where the theory falls short, however, is in its forgoing three aspects
that are crucial to ensure that development is locally owned, sensitive to
community aspirations and culture, and accountable. Practitioners’ main shortcoming
lies in failing to go back to the site of the interventions, three or even five
years later, to assess whether or not the changes that were effected have been
sustained. In all fairness, this is a rare occurrence regardless of whether a development
initiative has fallen under an ‘accelerated’ programme or not.
Thus, what if development strategies focused on ‘decelerating’[5]
development, that is, on slowing down the processes that are crucial for
achieving the overall purpose of development. Communities need to be able to
identify the path they want to take, and to follow that path based on their
traditions and local wisdom at a pace that they are comfortable with, to
continue along that path after outside support has concluded. Sustainability
and good governance rest heavily on the capacity of the community to conceptualize
and generate new ideas and act on them (i.e. driving them) rather than on absorbing
foreign ideas and skills. Communities need to feel confident and comfortable
implementing activities, to ensure that they can achieve their goals. Sustainable
development, therefore, is about the right pace, the
right amount of information, the applicable policies and local ownership. Decelerated development —development at a slower pace, delivering
smaller amounts of information over longer periods of time and through
culturally–sensitive approaches— could be more effective in the long term. But
it will be a tough sell to policy makers and donors alike.
[1] Accelerated
Development is a concept conceived by the UN Development Group with the aim or
improving progress on achieving Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targets by
2015. See the following links on the
approach (www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview/mdg_goals/acceleration_framework/) and process (www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/presscenter/speeches/2012/01/31/helen-clark-making-the-un-s-operational-activity-work-for-accelerated-development-quadrennial-comprehensive-policy-review-/)
[3] Denika Blacklock Karim (2012): Whose
development? The Need for Conflict-Sensitive Development in Papua, Indonesia,
Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 7:1, p. 98
[4] As it is
often independent consultants and experts who ‘fly in and out’ to delivery
various capacity building activities, it is thus unquestionably important that
the staff of the NGOs or organizations implementing a project to understand the
local culture to the extent possible as an ‘outsider’ and work closely with
consultants and experts to tailor trainings and other capacity building
activities to traditional learning approaches, and account for cultural
context.
[5]Credit for this idea goes to Mr. Edd
Wright, conceived during a mission to prepare for an ‘accelerated development’
programme for Papua, Indonesia in 2009. He rightly pointed out that our
understanding of ‘accelerated’, compared to that of the many indigenous
communities in the province, was likely far apart on the spectrum. Many
continue nomadic and hunter-gatherer traditions, while cash economies and
formal education were only introduced in the early 1990s.
Comments
Post a Comment