Figured it’s time I add a note about development…
As a social enterprise, IDE uses market-based principles to promote micro-irrigation technologies to small-scale farmers in Zambia. Emblazoned boldly on their advocacy materials is the motto, “Fighting Poverty with Profit”.
Over the last few months I have become increasingly convinced that this sort of model— one that includes both heavy hands-on support in the initial phases of technology adoption as well as a concrete exit strategy for non-profit assistance—really does provide a sensible alternative to more traditional development projects. Since treadle pumps are bought and not given, farmers are more likely to take ownership of the technology, more invested in following-though with maintenance, and more likely to use the technology effectively. And thus more likely to realize income gains. After using the treadle pump for a few years, farmers should save enough to buy a better technology, diversify their crops, expand the area under cultivation, and begin to climb the economic ladder.
In a hugely aid-dependant country, the social enterprise model is attractive in terms of sustainability. But the credit and market resources that have been critical to the success of treadle pump projects in Asia are largely absent in Africa, and present a significant challenge to scaling up. Moreover, the market-driven social enterprise approach is not inherently pro-poor. Some natural selection occurs (as wealthier farmers are able to afford pricier technologies), but even projects that include additional support do not purposefully target the worst-off—including women—who have not fully benefitted from current projects.
In the field the other day a very bold, very active older widow named Annie put a strong voice behind complaints that riddle the study of international development. She emphasized that for years, people in Katuba have seen project after project after project. It would be unfair to say that nothing has changed. Those who have been able to get access to loans—and yes, to treadle pumps, which have been a deciding factor—have been able to improve their living conditions considerably. The problem, she said, is that those people are most likely not to be the least well-off (i.e. wives, AIDS orphans, widows, the extremely poor), they have usually been those who are already in a position of relative advantage (if still, by all standards, ‘poor’).
This came up again in a conversation with IDE’s country director. IDE has been gradually expanding its reach in Zambia for about a decade now, and I asked him how they choose a new project site. He said that they followed the water. They went where groundwater was plentiful and relatively easy to access. Which, given that design and function of a treadle pump, is a completely logical answer.
The problem—as Jarrod Diamond, Jeffrey Sachs, and numerous others might be quick to point out—is that the people who live where the water is are most often not the worst off. The poorest regions of the country tend to be those that are the most remote and unable to tap Zambia’s substantial groundwater resources.
IDE seems to accept this. They seem to have made a sort of compromise that says, “OK, this isn’t a perfect solution, but…it is making a difference for someone.” In a country where 80% of the population lives on less than $2 dollars a day (UNDP, 2009) this isn’t necessarily a bad thing: their projects are having a significant impact. But they can do better. If they explicitly adopt a pro-poor attitude even within their existing sites, there is great potential to build market participation of the worst-off, including women. If they do not, not only do they miss a key opportunity to reach those is most need of assistance, but they risk widening already sizable gender and poverty gaps. A healthy dose of idealism could go a long way.
References
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). (2009). Statistics. Human Development Report 2009. Accessed online at: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/161.html on October 10, 2009.
Ubuntu 