Insight: International Donor Project

Early in my placement I had the opportunity to sit in on a meeting between a selection of farmers and a representative from a major international donor organization. The goal of this meeting was participation of the farmers.

Of course I came in rather skeptical having heard plenty about disconnects between the field and the donor level (EWB has an entire program to work on this in Western Africa!): excessive top-down demands, tied budgets and misguided priorities imposed on the "beneficiaries". Not to mention the stated goal of simply "participation" which smacks of the gratuitous and careless application common in the development sector of what can be a very good principle.

I have to admit that I’m tentatively pleased with how the donor has operated so far. However, the final returns to the co-op are yet to materialize and the project is to last several years yet so I reserve a final judgment. I’m sure the telling moment will be when implementation begins and we begin reporting back but unfortunately I won’t be able to follow that process.

The original applications were submitted by the management of the Co-op with support from the Union. As I understand it the application was mainly to express the general need and merit. It was subsequently accepted by donor which meant confirmed support to the tune of about $240 000.

Now all that was needed was participation from the beneficiaries. A cross-section of farmers from across the 18 Zones of the Co-op were gathered in our meeting hall and asked questions: What are the biggest problems in the Co-op? What are the biggest opportunities of the Co-op? (I got mention here!), Why are you deserving of the support? What are the goals of the Co-op? This discussion was rather disappointing and seemed to validate my concern for false participation. The support had already been confirmed and these questions had already been addressed in the original application. We were simply pretending that this information was new and relevant to the donor.

Next came an especially onerous process of participatory budgeting. (I tweeted about this fun activitiy.) There were too many people involved and it was extremely slow as we tried to look up exact costs. But, from fertilizer to pulping machines, panandi panandi (little by little) the farmers themselves identified how they wanted the funds to be allocated up to $240 000 or 33 million Malawi Kwatcha. This was carried through to be used in final technical arrangements between staff and donor. In this case it’s my view that the end justified the means. Pretty neat actually! No imposed priorities or ideas from the donor.

The following day I joined the staff for a follow up meeting with the donor rep. Here I was able to get a few more of my questions answered…

The support is allocated in two categories: 75% is pure grant and 25% is a loan. However we don’t repay the loan to the donor - it is actually termed a Community Reinvestment Grant and that 25% must be reinvested into the Misuku community after 3 years. Interestingly the loan is interest free though in this case I would say that’s a bad thing!

The donor is flexible on the budget as the actual sourcing and purchasing begins, allowing about +/- 15% on all line-items. The Union and donor will work in partnership on sourcing and base choices on both the farmer’s budget and quality of the items, not at all on the source. It appears there’s to be no tied aid here!

Now for reporting, always a burden from donors. This one didn’t disappoint. They are very strict about reporting, holding deadlines very hard. Each month 2 are required: one on financial progress and one field impacts. The Co-op management didn’t even bat an eye on this point but just nodded vigorously. They are at the mercy of the donor of course and can’t really put demands the other direction. At the time I thought this was particularly harsh on the part of the donor but having now spent a few months working here I feel that the reports will be valuable for accountability. The management and business practices of the Co-op aren’t particularly rigorous by western standards and these reports will serve to ensure good financial and impact management. I hope that it might also simply teach the staff by getting them to follow some rigorous yet (hopefully) reasonable procedures. Of course this also depends on the nature of the required reports – I’m imagining an ideal case for now!