The S-word
My trip to Ambo was memorable for reasons other than the toilet situation (fortunately!) I went to observe a training of our partners in proposal writing, and that day's session focused on gender sensitivity and sustainability in project design.Sustainability: a loaded word in the development field. The Holy Grail, if you will. Something everyone is supposed to be striving for but something that the very infrastructure of development and aid prevents, despite itself. It's like spitting into the Atlantic to raise the water level; futile, yes, but you know that if you don't spit into the Atlantic, the water level will drop.
Part of the reason I'm out here is to try to make some sense of the concept and implementation of "development", and whether my professional life meaningfully fits into this paradigm. There are lots of things that it's nice to believe about working in this field--that you are doing "good," that every little bit helps, etc. etc.--but that doesn't mean much when we are talking about, on an societal level, self-perpetuating and exponentially increasing gross injustice and inequality, and on a personal level, a lifetime of investment in what is a continually frustrating and depressing field (although certainly not without its high points.) I believe in spending my energy working to make life better for those who are most in need of it, one way or another, but this is a difficult path to tread honestly.
Lots of people here view NGOs and foreign aid interventions as simply a continuation of colonialism and foreign control. And, while I don't agree that our intentions are such, nor the result of our work so biased (in general), there is a level of truth in that accusation. Particularly as major donors like the US further restrict funds and grantee qualifications, while simultaneously taking credit for all good developments and throwing responsibility for handling unsavory elements of society back onto recipient governments and other donors (further responsibility paradoxes can be seen in a recent article in the NYTimes, on the UN blaming the US for the condom shortage in Uganda.) Money, however altruistically intended, never comes without the attending restrictions of power and politics. The question is, is it worth it?
In terms of family planning in Oromia (where the average woman bears EIGHT CHILDREN), long term sustainability is an unrealistic expectation without the qualifier of "with government oversight and support." Currently, the government alone cannot ensure a constant supply of contraceptives, sufficient trained health personnel, adequate facilities, and create and sustain demand for family planning in any of its regions. They have us and several other NGOs working to help in this, and while we are certainly making a difference, sustainability is a major question mark. Family planning does not render much profit and will never be a big private sector service; therefore, it requires intervention beyond the "free market." Bear in mind this complicated challenge is just around family planning, one of the easier health services to deliver, compared to, say, emergency OB/GYN services. Optimistically speaking, government health service "covers" 62% of the country. The real figure it probably more like 40% of the people have (or are aware of) access to any kind of health services.
Anyway, our partners were discussing this and the moderator seemed a bit stumped, because the hope and assumption is that these development activities will, eventually, be self-sustaining, and the truth is, many of them won't ever be, and aren't even in "developed" countries. Putting much burden on unstable governments is clearly not a good way to go; so the next step is relying on donors and NGOs. Which brings us back to square one, and, I believe, the need for a new approach to development as a whole.
posted by Margot @ 6:38 AM
<< Home