[ad_1]
The Sustainable Development Goals – a set of 17 globally agreed targets for the year 2030 – are clearly listed and seem easy to adhere to. However, development planning and the implementation of development projects is never straightforward.
Compromises between the 17 goals must be considered. The pursuit of one goal can negatively affect the achievement of another. For example, increased income for farmers can lead to unaffordable food for the urban poor. How should development actors decide on priorities and how should they manage these compromises?
Because the goals are so broad and multidimensional, many development agencies focus on specific niches – such as wildlife conservation – that they are passionate about or think they can contribute the most. Politicians must prioritize available funds and often choose high profile and high profile mega-projects such as highways, railways or airports.
As a result, the extent of the aspirations of local populations, as beneficiaries of the envisaged development, is rarely taken into account. People who implement projects often fail to consider all the consequences of their actions.
Read more: With construction on hiatus, let’s rethink road and rail projects to protect people and nature
In our study, we reflected on the aspirations of both ends of the spectrum. “Top-down visions for development” are defined by politicians, technocrats and other development planners in accordance with the Sustainable Development Goals. At the other end of the spectrum, communities on the ground also have their own aspirations for the future. Using several examples from Africa, we have found that these aspirations may not always align and are sometimes in conflict.
We concluded that development goals need to be contextualized. They need to be grounded in a solid understanding of how people live and, more importantly, how they would like to live.
Mismatched aspirations
To alleviate poverty, one of the main goals, governments often pursue infrastructure projects to connect people and attract private sector investment to previously hard-to-reach places. These affect entire communities and cannot be fully tailored to each individual’s vision for the future.
In Kenya, for example, a new railway line is crossing pastures and forcing pastoral communities to adopt sedentary lifestyles. As this keeps livestock from wandering, pastoralists have to purchase animal feed, which affects their livelihoods.
Likewise, roads are intended to support market links for remote rural farms to improve their income opportunities. The roads seem to keep this promise, benefiting both the richest and poorest households.
But the roads are not good for everyone. Connecting communities to roads can fundamentally affect their preferred livelihoods, values and knowledge. For example, some groups in the arid areas of northern Kenya have seen their pastoral lifestyles restricted as previously communal rangelands have fragmented and become a contested resource for private use. Some have abandoned their traditional way of life, leaving them worried about the future.
The problems become even more complex when the development objectives pursued are aimed at results that do not directly benefit people. For example, wildlife conservation is a component of SDG 15 which focuses on the protection, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems. As much as the conservation of wildlife is necessary on a global scale, it often provokes conflicts with local communities. Attempts have been made to mitigate these effects and generate local support. One example is the wildlife corridor in the Kilombero Valley in Tanzania. He sought to create new farming systems that allowed the movement of wildlife along with agriculture.
However, he failed to deliver on the field. The lack of recognition of local power relations and exploitation by certain groups increased tensions and undermined the project. This has led to a decline in support for the project over time.
The Kavango-Zambezi Transboundary Conservation Area, in the case of northeastern Namibia, faces similar challenges. It was designed to combine nature conservation and rural development. Investments in infrastructure have been made to connect to the global tourism industry valued at more than US $ 9 trillion and enable communities to benefit more from wildlife tourism.
But this top-down view has so far helped very few residents. Payments for conservation management or salaries for the few low-paying jobs left the local population disillusioned. Companies outside the conserved region found themselves with the bulk of the added value created.
Align goals
It is clear from these examples that planners need to consider how their aspirations match the aspirations of their target populations. Working towards a common aspiration involves negotiating compromises and non-dogmatic approaches that allow localized compromises.
To navigate, it is important to consider the aspirations of each. Development planners need to make sure they have all the information they need. This includes data, such as economic statistics on GDP and employment. But, because these are more readily available, they need to make sure that they don’t have undue influence.
The voices, aspirations and dreams of people – less easily accessible – must be taken just as seriously. For example, in arid north Kenya, the Turkana County Integrated Development Plan incorporates a distinct understanding of how various sector plans influence each other. It also incorporates the views of communities not only for planning but also for monitoring progress.
It shows how well thought out engagement processes can bridge this gap by allowing people’s voices to be heard and incorporated into planning and action.
Kai Mausch has received funding from several organizations that fund international agricultural research.
David Harris has received funding from several organizations that fund international agricultural research.
Javier Revilla Diez receives funding from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Science Foundation).
By Kai Mausch, Senior Economist, World Agroforestry (ICRAF) and
David Harris, Honorary Lecturer, Bangor University and
Javier Revilla Diez, professor, University of Cologne
Source link
