…or lessons on some of the kinds that do (sometimes)

PHOTO: M Walls. Erigavo, Sanaag

Somalia is the focus of a fair bit of attention at the moment with the London Conference taking place on 23rd February building on security concerns, piracy and the ongoing humanitarian crisis.

Somaliland too has been attracting a bit of interest in the UK media lately, but sadly it’s often been a case of using the most simplistic of understandings to construct an argument which is itself superficial and very possibly damaging. Back in September 2009, when Somaliland was in the midst of a fairly serious political crisis, the satirical magazine Private Eye jumped on the bandwagon and used an almost comically one-sided version of the facts to complain about ‘clumsy donors’ who, they claimed, had more or less single-handedly messed up a voter registration system (Private Eye, 2009). In mid-2011, the Daily Mail, Economist and Guardian Poverty Matters blog all published pieces that similarly used an incomplete view of Somaliland as a basis for the claim that development assistance is failing (Baobab blog, 2011; Birrell, 2011; Eubank, 2011a). For them, the fact that Somaliland remains internationally unrecognised as a country, and has received less donor assistance to support their development than the Transitional Federal Government (or TFG) in Somalia proves that less aid is intrinsically better than more. After all, Somaliland is a stable, albeit unrecognised, country that holds credible elections and enjoys a booming economy, at least in the capital city of Hargeisa. Whereas Somalia is a failed state, and the  TFG is massively corrupt, largely collectively incompetent and doesn’t enjoy respect from very many Somalis at all.

On the surface, one can understand headline writers succumbing to the temptation to grab the easy one-liner about donors messing up development, and then hanging a whole story off it.

The surge of interest in 2011 came from a paper written a few months earlier by a PhD candidate at Stanford University, Nicholas Eubank (2011b). Eubank’s paper was fairly thoughtful, though he did make a few errors. For example, he claimed that Somaliland “has never been eligible for foreign assistance”. It is true that, because they are unrecognised, they long received relatively less aid than Somalia, and a higher proportion of what they did receive has been channelled through civil society. However, Somaliland has always received some external donor assistance, and in recent years the amount has grown rapidly.

However, while I don’t agree with all the detail or all of his conclusions, Eubank does offer the common-sense argument that aid needs to remain proportionate to overall recipient government finances, and sufficiently low for the recipient state to remain largely reliant on the collection of taxes from their own population if they are to consolidate their position as a legitimate national authority. Notwithstanding his error regarding Somaliland’s eligibility for aid, Eubank’s point is that, for a number of years, relatively little donor aid was channelled through the Somaliland government. Through the critical seven years from the start of 1991 (the end of the northern war), that meant that the process of establishing a government was indeed reliant on local and diaspora resources. That’s a valid, if not exactly new, observation, and one that should be useful. I’ve argued much the same myself elsewhere.

It’s a pity, though, that common sense can so easily be misrepresented that it no longer offers a useful contribution to the debate on aid effectiveness, and instead becomes a polemic. This example is interesting partly because it was Eubank himself that wrote the Guardian piece. And where in his original paper he was fairly cautious with his language, once he was writing for the more popular platform offered by a major media outlet, he too fell prey to the sensational headline. Instead of explaining a complex picture in sufficient detail, he used a single example from 1992 in which the Somaliland government had had to negotiate with local clans for access to tax revenues from the port to support the broad claim that, “[a]s a result of these negotiations over tax revenue, Somaliland has become an exceptional democracy” (Eubank, 2011a). He forgets to mention that the negotiations actually caused a war and brought the government down. That conflict did contribute to stability in the end, but it was a circuitous process and could have gone either way. The detail is rather important, and it is a gross oversimplification to claim that it was all down to a lack of aid!

So what is actually happening in Somaliland with donor money? Well, lots in fact, and plenty of it provides lessons for better and worse on just how aid can work. I’ll offer a couple of examples from my experience to illustrate what I feel are positive instances. My own involvement is mostly on the political side, so I’ve had a particularly good opportunity to get a sense of Eubank’s argument about state legitimacy. One part of my work in the past few years, has been to help to coordinate international election observation missions. I helped with logistical planning for the 2005 parliamentary elections, then took a role as one of the three-person coordinating team for the 2010 presidential election. I’m hoping to play a similar role in 2012, when important local elections are scheduled. The core of the coordination budget is covered by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with DFID showing signs of also taking an interest in the future.

Often, election observation or monitoring is handled by a multilateral agency such as the European Union, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Council of Europe or the African Union, or a large international NGO such as the US-based Carter Centre or National Endowment for Democracy. It’s unusual for a small, ad-hoc group to take on that responsibility, but it’s a fact of Somaliland’s non-recognition that a partnership between DPU and the NGO Progressio have taken that role in this case. In Somaliland, the US state-funded group International Republican Institute also sends a smaller group of observers for a few days most elections.

Our job is essentially to coordinate a diverse group of international observers who are not affiliated to IRI. For the 2010 election, we had enough money to cover the costs of a core team of about 15 people, and a further 44 observers who were funded by their own organisations (or indeed from their own pockets). In the end, our group of 59 international observers were drawn from 16 countries, and included 40% diaspora Somalis. Our job was to arrange transport and deployment, formal accreditation, security, and to maintain regular contact with the National Electoral Commission, who issued the original invitation.

It’s a relatively modest intervention in financial terms, but we feel that this kind of donor-financed assistance helps to support local institutions in a way that builds both the credibility and accountability of the state rather than diminishing it. It’s important too that, in my experience, international observers are genuinely welcomed in most areas, and the elections are widely seen as a meaningful exercise in political decision-making.

Another area that can help to support development comes in the form of research. Again, an example from my own involvement. I was recently lucky enough to be awarded some money to spend about ten days in Hargeisa interviewing a range of men and women about women’s political participation in Somaliland. Over the years since 1991, this has become a sensitive topic, generating significant debate and motivating some of the best run civil society organisations to lobby for greater women’s involvement in politics. In fact, only two women sit in the lower house of Parliament, from a total of 82. In the upper house or Guurti there is only one woman from 82 members. This is a long-standing problem, but it’s become much more urgent because women’s role in Somali society has been shifting significantly as a result of environmental change (making pastoralism more marginal as a livelihood strategy) and conflict which have together driven rapid sedentarisation and urbanisation and the movement of many (particularly male) household members overseas to find work. Women have consequently assumed greater responsibility for household livelihoods in very different circumstances, yet their political participation has remained constrained by the overwhelmingly patriarchal political system. The research was a chance to better understand the social circumstances that perpetuate that situation. In the medium term, we hope that this greater understanding will better inform policy from both the Somaliland government and local civil society and donors and intrenational NGOs.

As long as aid is helping countries to deal with real issues, as well as allowing outsiders to better understand the circumstances that prevent people fairly influencing the issues that affect them then it is probably doing some good. But of course, Eubank is also quite right: it will inevitably distort societies if aid overwhelms existing capacity. The tricky bit is that learning how to balance those factors is a slow and difficult process that requires long-term commitment and patience. Not nearly as attractive as a snappy headline!

References

Is the professional world of development planning shrinking, or expanding?
Given current and future urban and global challenges, what are the key capacities of a development practitioner?

On the first evening of December students from the six MSc programmes at the Development Planning Unit (DPU), University College London (UCL), engaged in a dialogue with their course directors. The theme debated was challenges and opportunities for careers in development planning. The session involved a discussion of what constitutes the field of development planning, elaborations on scenarios for the practice vis-à-vis current and future challenges, and concrete recommendations for development planning students during and after completion of their MSc.

A resonant view amongst panel members was that the professional world of development planning is increasingly competitive, and that is shrinking, at least in the most conventional areas of practice. Adriana Allen, Director of the MSc in Environment and Sustainable Development, and Camilo Boano, Director of the MSc in Building and Urban Design in Development, suggested that the field might be expanding, particularly if we think laterally and out of the box. DPU’s Director and Director of the MSc in Urban Development Planning, Caren Levy, pointed out that precisely because of realities of globalisation, governance, and the very nature and complexity of urban and global challenges, conventional professions need to be challenged, and shifted towards more strategic and innovative approaches for transformative change. One example of where such approaches are needed is in professionals’ engagement with urban informality, largely neglected in urban planning despite an urgent need to recognise it and work with it. Another reflection was the fact that communities across the world are no longer passive recipients, but on the contrary, they are increasingly articulate and mobilised, and very often ordinary women and men are at the centre of transformative change. The capacity to listen to the range of different voices was raised as a crucial skill for development planners.

What are the contributions of the DPU in the education of development planners? Panel members expressed that, rather than focusing on what the (job) market demands, the programmes are shaped and reformulated with a commitment towards building a visionary, strategic and long-term perspective. While the courses might have a different ‘entry point’ to development planning, they all have an explicit objective of contributing to the development of reflective practitioners, who are able to constantly question their assumptions, what they know and what they don’t know. As highlighted by Le-Yin Zhang, Director of the MSc in Urban Economic Development, another increasingly relevant aspect is the internationalisation of students and of academic bodies, who are also engaged in research, training and advisory services around the world.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9oMdHOMlqs&w=600&h=337]

Going back to key competencies for the practice, the capacity to critically engage with reality was highlighted by Caren Levy, stating that a wider understanding of complexity is highly valued by organisations, as it can help them constantly reflect on what they do and how they do it. She also expressed how crucial the capacity to communicate is, highlighting spoken interventions, oral presentations and writing as key skills to apply in professional life beyond the MSc.

Patrice North, co-Director of the MSc in Social Development Practice and Michael Walls, Director of the MSc in Development Administration and Planning, recommended students to think strategically about the dissertation (and to that effect, on the selection of each piece of coursework). For many, the dissertation has become the stepping stone for either studying a PhD or for exploring a future area of work. Also, as reminded by Michael Walls, the value of the overseas field trip itself shouldn’t be underestimated: it is the prime practical experience of the courses, experience that can also be reflected in a CV. Moreover, for some, such as the Alumni behind the recently created initiative Travolution.org, the fieldwork can become an important source of inspiration to pursue new independent endeavours. Further building experience, for example by volunteering or doing internships (when possible and affordable), may generate opportunities in a network-based environment. However, as put by Michael Walls, networking is an active process that needs to be utilised effectively. It is also important to simultaneously think of geographies, themes and organisations of interest. Also essential, panellists agreed, is to think what is important to one self. It might be an uncertain work future, but as Adriana Allen reminded students, it is important to keep things in perspective, and to think of our situation in relation to that of others. (After all, isn’t thinking of others a key engine in planning for socially just sustainable development?).

Responding to a student’s (great) question on what is advised not to do, there was some wisdom to offer: don’t panic, don’t become captivated with what seems to be mainstream, don’t knock on all the same doors as everyone else, don’t be flippant when you apply and take every opportunity (and organisation) seriously; target your CVs and cover letters rather than sending ineffective applications and, above all, don’t lie: being truthful about personal objectives and capacities may be the more effective way to develop the career you want. All these aspects might seem basic and derived from common sense, but, as DPU scholars – also employers – seem to agree, they are not always that common.

Were you present in the session and didn’t find the space to ask your questions? Are you an ex-DPU student and want to add your bit of advice departing from your own experience? Are you part of the development planning network and want to add your thoughts to this (herein abridged) discussion? You are welcome to write your comments.

Post written by: Tina Maria Ziegler. DPU alumna 2009

The UNEP recently published “Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication – A synthesis for policy makers” and this is just one of many publications, about this alleged solution to most – if not even all – of our global problems.

Although the term itself does not necessarily imply the social side of economics or development, Green Economy is defined as ‘key theme in the context of sustainable development and poverty reduction’ (UNEP, 2011). This new economic concept claims to be central to poverty alleviation; creates jobs and enhances social equity; recognises the value of, and invests in nature capital; substitutes renewable energy and low-carbon technologies; promotes enhanced resource and energy efficiency; delivers more sustainable urban living and low-carbon mobility; and grows faster than a Brown Economy over time whilst at the same time maintaining and restoring natural capital (ibid). It seems to be the Swiss army knife of sustainable development. However, at the same time this concept also seems to have a quite high potential to become the new buzzword in development likely to succeed the expressionless heritage of sustainability, by pretending to tackle all current global problems and crises without suggesting a fundamental change in economic mainstream ideology.

UNEPs publication states that, “although the causes of these crises vary, at a fundamental level they all share a common feature: the gross misallocation of capital” (p. 1). However, the theory of Green Economy does not seem to challenge the economic concept which reinforces this misallocation. The basis of the Green Economy concept is: fuelling economic growth whilst generating employment and eliminating poverty (ibid). This shows a fundamental believe in the trickle-down theory. Yet, a theory which hardly materialises to truly reach the poor and underprivileged, but usually reinforces the hegemony of superior transnational companies and imperialising governments. I doubt that in the future the installation of solar panels will eradicate extreme poverty just because it was one of the mechanisms of Green Economy.

And doesn’t it seem like an oxymoron to speak about fuelling growth in a world with finite resources? As stated in UNEPs publication the basis for Green Economy are renewable energies and resource efficiency, however, without compromising the current way of production and consumption. The paradox of being more material efficient in producing so called gadgets which are designed to break after two years in order to make more profit by feeding the demand side is simply not tackled by the principles of Green Economy. I sentimentally think back to my former professor for electrical engineering, who opened his first lecture with following statement: “Truly clean electricity is electricity we never used”. Although so simple and trivial when heard, I still find this quote an eye opener. And a good basis for a real change. In my point of view efficiency is not about more efficient products, but about less consumption. This cannot be achieved by clinging onto the capitalist feedback loop of demand-production-consumption.

All I read so far about Green Economy really makes my ‘greening’ alarm bells ring. Actually the expression of ‘greening’ processes and mechanisms is even used quite regularly in this context and I truly hope that this does not imply approaching a rather superficial change of irrelevant economic processes, only to appear more sustainable or responsible and to resell an economic system, which was not successful to tackle poverty and resource exploitation in the past, but to change substantial underlying principles to pursue equity and resource efficiency. However, there is a long way to go. I am in doubt how far this new concept will be of help. I guess I should keep reading about Green Economy, since hope springs eternally.

Reference: UNEP, 2011, Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication – A Synthesis for Policy Makers, www.unep.org/greeneconomy

Image Credits: Image via Yeşil Ekonomi Konferansı, http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/can-green-new-deal-boost-turkey-economy.php

Dear Michael,

Thank you for organizing the JICA (Japanese International Cooperation Agency) event here at the DPU on Friday March 18, where we heard from JICA’s UK office and a representative from Malawi ministry of trade and industry about JICA’s One Village One Product (OVOP) framework and the initiatives taking place in Malawi. The session generated a lot of interesting discussions and reflections. It was very good to hear a market oriented approach that is actually focusing on small and medium enterprises, rather than large scale infrastructural development, which we see having little impact on the lives of the poor. So it was encouraging to hear about JICA’s prioritization of building the capacity of local producers in coming up with products that can be commercialized not only locally but also in international markets. Also it was interesting to hear about the strong emphasis on cooperatives as means to bridge economic productivity with social empowerment. These trends [I feel] are much welcome in the field of development as means to enhance the ability of marginalized groups in also getting the benefits from global markets.

But at the same time, the talk has also stimulated a series of thoughts in relation to such market oriented approaches to poverty reduction. Firstly, I wonder: what is the ability of such projects to actually reach the poorest? As Caren Levy commented, little was said about who are the poor, and their social-political and economic disparities. Such understanding in terms of the characteristics of the poor would allow us to see more clearly who are being benefited by the OVOP framework. For example we see that often the poorest do not sell to formal markets nor engage in export oriented activities [as it is emphasized by the project], but rather interact in dynamic informal markets. So, if we are to support the poorest, shouldn’t we first consolidate the internal production and enhance the benefits that can be reached through such existing market paths rather than substitute it towards one that is beyond the control of local markets?

This reflection leads me to my second point: what is the sustainability of such initiative? Maybe we manage to create a demand in the international market for a certain “ethnic” product (i.e. banana wine).  However the crucial question is how do we sustain that demand? The international market is full of barriers and protectionism. Competition is far from fair. Once the niche for a product is proven to be successful, it is easy for stronger market players to reproduce it in large amounts and at cheaper cost crushing this way our OVOP producers. I was talking with professor in development economics in the University of Florence, Mario Biggeri, about this and he says that the problem is that agencies are not prepared to act globally to address some of the root causes of unjust global competition, such as subsidies and loose working conditions regulations in some other countries (i.e. China). Biggeri mentioned also that such framework to synergize efforts in one town or a cluster towards the production of a competitive product has also been applied in Italy, China and Vietnam. However, the sustainability of the strategy relied not only on an export oriented approach but on its focus [at least initially] towards internal consumption, for markets that already existed in local contexts. This goes back to my first point, that instead of focusing on export-market only, maybe in the case of Malawi it would be more sustainable to start focusing also on existing demand in the local context and then move to the export oriented strategy.

Such export-oriented focus is actually dictated by the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS), where the OVOP initiative is actually embedded into. This raises my final concern: Are OVOP and MGDS working in similar directions of poverty reduction or leading to contradictory efforts? Does the MGDS, as many other similar plans, involve a reduction of public expenditure into social welfare, hoping that private sectors will come in with investments that will generate improvements? If so, as private investments are not pumping in, the poor, in the meantime are left with inadequate access to basic services. In such context, how can the poor be expected to invest in setting up competitive business, if they have to probably pay a considerable amount of money for informal waste collection, water supply, sanitation facilities and private education? As demonstrated by series of studies, for the livelihoods of the poorest to be improved, often is much more effective to focus on better access to assets [human, social, financial, physical, political and natural], rather than merely target the setting up of entrepreneurial activities. Based on this discussion, Biggeri showed me the following Italian cartoon that actually relates a lot to these points.

For me the main issue here relates to this idea that somehow working with the capacity of the poor the conditions that generates poverty can be overcome. Through training, skills and access to finance the poor are expected to get themselves out of poverty. However as we often see, and as argued by Mario Biggeri, the barriers for moving out of poverty go beyond the capacity of the poor. It involves collective action in a local and global scale, addressing politically crucial issues related to subsidies on the one side (north countries) and exploitative working conditions on the other, trade relations and protectionism of certain markets while opening the borders of others.

(for more on this check out Oxfam 2004 report on ‘Trading our rights’).

Micahel, it would be great to hear your thoughts on this.

Best wishes,

Alex Frediani

Post written by: Nawale Abdous, DPU alumna 2009

I read a lot about the 2009 World Habitat Award laureate Caprichando a Morada before visiting and facilitating the International Study Visit on the various sites of the project. Nothing I read about family agriculture made me understand what its stands for as strongly as when I met the young social project planners of the COOPERHAF team in Chapecó. Young and idealistic –yes. But also strongly grounded to their land and background.

↑ Dia na Propriedade, celebrating Family Siebert’s new house (self-built)

Exploring the South of Brazil is a very different experience to visiting the luxuriously green Rio de Janeiro or the wild urban Saõ Paulo. Santa Catarina is a rough jewel in its own rights. Florianopolis is the wealthy model of colonial architecture crowned in the paradisiacal landscape that once was home of the noble savage and now the very sought after undiscovered vacation and surfing location. It is also the last bastion of the original Portuguese colonisation as fortresses stand elevated, previously preventing invasions by the Spanish and the Dutch. An hour by plane away from Florianopolis is Chapecó. The scene is more authentic and simple although the contrast between the European looking population is striking with the lavish abundance of sun and vegetation. Most dwellers are indeed direct descendants of Polish, Dutch and Italian settlers and since the creation of the town in the early 1900s, the historic bond is still palpable. Agricultural landscapes have also the same European geography in Santa Catarina, Parana and Rio Grande do Sul, drawn with the same hedges you would find in Germany.

One major difference though is the dilapidated state of the family farmers’ houses scattered in the green and prosperous scenery, often erected on a rudimentary wooden structure permeable to the winds and rains. Rural housing is not considered a priority anywhere in Latin America, anywhere at all –I shall say. Yet it is difficult to imagine a business doing well if the family lives in insalubrious conditions and vice versa. Family agriculture (agricultura familiar) is the predominant scheme of production in this Southern region but also in the North and North East of Brazil, the latest two being lands of the Agrarian Reform settlers and of fishermen. The family nucleon is the unit of production, both very solid as it lies on mutual aid and very vulnerable economically. Challenges for this production model are diverse according to the region. Whilst in the North, families are faced with huge distances to market their goods and rarefaction of available land to expand their production, in the South, commercialisation of products is undermined by the concurrence allowed through MERCOSUR. This is a hard context for families to retain their youth and prevent rural exodus.This is the context in which emerged COOPERHAF(Cooperative of Habitat for Family Farmers).  Their monstrous mobilisation work through which –unlike other Latin American cooperatives, they promoted legislatively and commercially a socially just model of house provision struck me. Mistrust, obstructive land policies, lack of funds, limited interaction between leadership and cooperative members are some of the many obstacles that prevent cooperatives to scale up innovative practices. The strength of COOPERHAF lies in its birth from the union movement FETRAF-SUL allowing its practice to be adopted to scale throughout the country in 13 states in the North East, North and South of Brazil. This alliance proved to be an alternative to urbanisation and retain the dynamism of the rural areas whilst employing various state designed tools from the federal programme Minha Casa Minha Vida. The passion and fellowship animating the movement come hand in hand with a strong, intelligent and very proactive leadership, bringing forward proposals to the government and bringing small but real changes in the lives of millions such as Hence, families join the programme for more than a house. Food security and self-consumption, access to credit and competitive and sustainable development of their properties are also part of COOPERHAF training to enhance their capability. But this is a movement and an approach that also faces difficulties in its scaling up perhaps less on the mobilisation side but more on the design that its technicians propose in terms of housing, particularly with indigenous populations in the North. Technical assistants are exploring various solutions in bio-construction and affordable passive housing elements that could be integrated to house designs offered to families but a consensus is hard to establish with private sector partners (especially local Caixa banks) willing to lend to families that only employ certified models. Providing housing solutions for indigenous populations is an equal challenge on which COOPERHAF is currently learning, having failed to accommodate viable solutions. Its technical arm COOPERTEC is leading on the sustainability of the models, trying to push forward the use of local materials and ancestral techniques.

COOPERHAF did not invent any design or material, but a social technology that organise and catalyses various sparks of energy into a very loud political machinery. It facilitates the relations between the state, the private banks, the syndicates and the farmer. It translates information and brings suitable packages to specific income levels. More than that, it keeps the stamina in the movement through a permanent dialogue and a constant innovation in how to use demagogic state programmes into real propositions and in such, changes the system from within. This is rural planning.

↑ The old and the new house, meters away from each other, a home made and home grown change for a new life