So, I thought my next post should probably focus on Liberia and my experiences here. Fortunately I have no shortage of material based on the past week!
The plan was to leave for the field on Tuesday together with a team of my colleagues to conduct some monitoring and evaluation (M&E in development speak). A project supporting agricultural workers in the west of the country (many of whom had recently returned from refuge in Sierra Leone) had just completed the first phase of its activities and the idea was to go and talk to the beneficiaries and get feedback on how things could be improved in the second phase. This is something I really like about ActionAid. We go and ask the people we are supporting what they think of us and the different aspects of the projects. Admittedly I have limited experience of other development agencies but my impression is that this is quite a unique approach.
I got the impression they were expecting us at the first place. Shortly after we pulled up in our 4x4 we were greeted by a full on display of tribal dancing and singing by the village’s women. We all then assembled in the ‘village square’ (a sort of meeting area with a corrugated iron roof) and our local representative explained in the local language (Mende) why we were there. We were then introduced to the town chief, the imam (the region is predominantly Muslim), project chairman and chairwoman as well as the District Development Councillor (a position set up by the UN to co-ordinate local development initiatives).
Things felt, shall we say, slightly orchestrated at first. People expressed their thanks and unending gratitude to ActionAid for having come to their village to help them. Live chickens were even presented to us as a token of their appreciation. However, it was difficult to try and convince them to say anything critical which is really what we were looking for. I suppose one has to put oneself in their shoes. It’s a part of the culture here to be thankful when such help is received (rather than viewing it as an entitlement that should be provided by the state) and the village leaders saw the meeting as a PR exercise to make sure the cash flow didn’t stop.
One thing that was apparent from the outset is that it is the men who hold the positions of authority and do all the talking. We had constant problems with the designated interpreters as well. We would ask a question and the interpreter (normally a person of authority in the village and always a man) would just answer the question in English. We would then counter this by saying that he was supposed to interpret the question for the community, not simply answer himself!
However, as we progressed around the various communities we became more skilful at extracting the relevant information. One thorny issue which I was eager to unravel was how the project participants had been selected. 35 farmers from each of the communities were to be provided with training and inputs in order to start up agricultural activities. Since the majority of people living in these communities are involved in some sort of small scale agriculture I wanted to know how the selection process had been conducted and whether any conflicts had arisen as a result. The dialogue went something like this:
“We were told that 35 farmers were needed so we called everyone to a meeting and people put their names on a list.”
“OK, but there must have been more than 35 people that wanted to take part?” I replied.
“No, just 35, that was all we were allowed.”
“Yes but how did you eliminate the other people who wanted to take part?”
“Well, when we had 35 names we just stopped.”
“So it was first come first served?”
“Well… yes.”
“Is there anyone here who wanted to take part but couldn’t?” I asked. This was met with silence. When I pushed the point one woman raised her hand and piped up:
“Yeah, I waited all day and put my name down but when the final list was written my name wasn’t there.”
Clearly there is a need for greater transparency and fairness in selecting the farmers who take part. Obviously the best thing would be if everyone who wanted to take part could, but then the problem would just be externalised. How can we justify selecting certain communities in the area over others? This is an important consideration for any development intervention. The last thing we want to do is create conflict by offering help to some and not to others.
I thought it was a fruitful mission all in all. When a project doesn’t pass off perfectly (and how many ever really do?) it is interesting to find out why and take actions to improve things for the future. The beneficiaries are best placed to offer feedback but attention must be paid to making sure that the feedback gathered is representative of the community as a whole, not just those who talk the most.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
good post, thank you. Something I found, when doing M&E in Bo waterside (were you near there?) was the reluctance to criticise Save stemmed from the belief that I, as a white woman, was the direct source of the money, and that, as a white person, it would be in my power to allocate or retrieve it at will. Did you find that?
Yeah I did get that impression at first although I let my colleagues do most of the talking so hopefully I dispelled any such beliefs quite quickly!
I am however starting to resent slightly the gaping stares and cries of "why maa" whenever I arrive in a village. You almost wanna say "yeah I'm white, get over it already". I suppose it's a natural reaction though...
Post a Comment