5 well-intentioned development initiatives that kinda f*cked up
NGOs, social businesses and governments often work on projects that they believe will better the lives of disadvantaged communities. However, despite the best of intentions, these projects don’t always succeed. Implementors may make mistakes, such as failing to engage the target community or taking into considering the local context, or they may just be derailed by bad luck. These cases are useful to visit so that we can learn how to avoid common pitfalls
Without further ado, here are development initiatives that had all the best intentions, but failed to meet their objective.
1. The Turkana Fish Factory in Kenya
In the 1980s, the Norwegian government funded the construction of a fish-freezing factory next to Lake Turkana, Kenya. This lake was full of fish that were not being utilised by the local people. This region had few economic opportunities for the local farmers, who were largely poor. Hence, it didn’t sound like a bad idea to re-educate and train the local people in capturing and processing fish from the lake.
However, about $150 million in factory building and development later, the project was abandoned.
What went wrong?
The Norwegian government had failed to take into consideration a multitude of factors, which would have become obvious if they had engaged the local communities to understand their needs and culture. The people of the region did not eat fish. In fact, they believed that only the most desperate people should fish. Fishing was not acceptable in their culture. Hence, no one wanted to fish.
Another issue was the lack of infrastructure around this very remote region, such as proper roads and electricity. This made transportation and generator-based electricity very inefficient and expensive. The Norwegian government may have been better off investing in these infrastructure needs rather than the factory, so that local business could operate better.
2. PlayPumps
PlayPumps is one of the best-known examples of development initiatives gone wrong. PlayPumps attempted to solve two major problems in Africa: firstly, village hand pumps for water used by local women were difficult to operate, and were often far from the village. Secondly, children did not have playgrounds.
PlayPumps consisted of merry-go-rounds for children to play on. They were installed in villages with boreholes into groundwater. The turning motion of the PlayPumps would pump up water into storage. This gave children something to play on, and women easy access to water. They also intended to put advertisements on the play pumps to partially fund them.
Although the PlayPump initially had some success, within a few years it was clear it was not a solution that could be widely used. Hundreds of the PlayPumps needed repair, and reports found that in many villages children did not play on them regularly, and women were turning the Pumps themselves. This was much harder than using the original hand pumps. In one community, adults were paying children to play on the Pump. The NGO in charge, PlayPumps International, shut down operations in 2010. Millions of dollars went to waste.
What went wrong?
Firstly, the Pumps were very expensive, costing $14,000, which was many times more expensive than a standard hand pump. This cost was also not being subsidised by the ad revenue, as a UNICEF report found that 75% of Pumps did not have advertisements — they were not considered an attractive advertising space. They were financially unsustainable.
There were also many issues with the actual technology. The Pumps were not as efficient as first described. In fact, one report estimated that in order for the Pumps to produce the minimum required amount of water for a village, children would have to be playing on it an impossible 27 hours a day. Furthermore, 25% of them needed repair within two years and the organisation did not have the resources to do this, often taking months to arrive.
The last issue came from the fact that children just simply did not want to play on them in most villages. Children eventually became bored of the new equipment. Furthermore, the PlayPump was hard to play on, as it didn’t spin freely like a real merry-go-round, and was tiring to children.
PlayPump International needed to, again, better involve the community in the design of the Pump, taking into consideration natural reduction in use. They also needed to ensure better quality of their product.
3. Millenium Villages Development Project
The Millennium Development Project ran from 2005 to 2015 and aimed to work with specific African villages and help elevate them out of poverty. These villages received targeted attention in a range of domains, including education, agriculture and health. Overall, $120 million was spent on the project.
However, evaluations found that the projects were not as impactful as first advertised. There were no improvements in child mortality and income, and there was great variation between the villages in terms of how useful the interventions were. The lack of proper data collection also makes it difficult to know what the actual effects were in many of the villages.
What went wrong?
One of the major issues was that farmers were encouraged to replace their traditional crops with crops that were popular in developed countries, such as pineapples and ginger. However, the feasibility of this was not considered — the African market was not developed, and it eventually proved too expensive to ship to developed countries. There was a supply, but no buyers.
Secondly, many of the changes were introduced too quickly to be sustainable. A more maintainable approach would have been to involve local policymakers and government officials, so that they could and continue supporting these villages once funding ran out.
Lastly, without proper data collection, the project was never able to prove that it was making a change, throwing distrust in the project and leading to its closure.
4. The Gyandoot Program, India
The Gyandoot Program was run in India and aimed to provide better access to Government services to rural people. For this, they provided access to free phones and computer kiosk services. This service has been running since 2000. However, recent analysis has shown that the service is poorly utilised, and is not reaching the poorest and people who need it the most.
What went wrong?
Firstly, the telephones and computers are often inoperable due to inconsistent electricity and poor connectivity to the Internet. Almost half of all surveyed computer kiosks were not manned by an operator and were closed, and hence they were not being maintained and were not accessible.
Many of the remote kiosks also do not have consistent operating hours, as the operators (who require at least 10 years of schooling and hence are likely to be living in more urban areas) do not find it worth travelling far distances to the kiosks regularly given their low level of pay. The correct incentives have not been designed to ensure that kiosks are operationalised and managed as required.
Lastly, the most vulnerable people — the poor and women — are not being reached. Firstly, many poor people do not know of the service’s existence. Secondly, women are culturally discouraged from leaving their homes and engage in public outings, so are not comfortable visiting the centres. It is clear that there has been little community participation and ownership with poorer communities groups in the design and implementation of this service, as the services are not tailored to meet the needs of those who need it most.
5. 1 Million T-Shirts
This is one of the most infamous examples of foolhardy helping, which showed that good intentions are not enough to make an impact — aid requires consideration and understanding of the people who want to help.
One shirt-manufacturing company decided to send all of their spare shirts to Africa. The idea was to provide free clothing to people who needed it most. In the end, however, the shirts were never sent due to the backlash and criticism received about the poor plan.
What could go wrong?
Firstly, flooding local markets with thousands of free shirts would have meant that small local clothing businesses would lose business. This could have disastrous implications for local economies, and likely would have done much more harm than good.
Secondly, lack of t-shirts is not really a pressing issue in Africa, something the organisation didn’t know as the founder had never been to Africa or had ever worked in foreign development. Rather, he was influenced by the view of Africa he saw in the mass media.
Common Themes
So what are the key lessons here? If you were to look at implementing an intervention aimed at helping people, ensure you consider the following:
- Engagement with the people you want to help — It’s surprising how little this is done. For an intervention to be sustainable it needs to be co-designed with the population. Furthermore, aid programs are more sustainable if the local people are engaged with its running and take ownership of it. Engagement also ensures that you take into consideration their context and needs, rather than making false assumptions.
- Scale-up considerations — Design of interventions should include an understanding of whether they can be scaled up to other contexts and settings cost-effectively, and what the differences in context are. This requires working with a range of stakeholders and taking change slowly.
- Sustainability — Interventions need to be able to last over time and on their own, and this often includes developing a funding model that ensures its survival, such as using fees or seeking government support.
- Considerations of Context — it’s essential that as the intervention is designed, you think of the practicalities. Does it have the right infrastructure to work? What are potential barriers to operation? What supports are required? Also, the effects of the intervention on other groups and in the broader society should be considered.
- Incentives and people management — The people who will operate the intervention need to be provided for, and the right incentives developed to ensure they display the required behaviours.
Conclusion
It’s important to note that failures aren’t always a bad thing — they are opportunities to learn. However, these examples show that before large monetary commitments can be made to projects, they need to be trialled and tested in collaboration with the target population. Furthermore, the complexity and number of considerations should not be underestimated. They need to be carefully assessed for their long-term viability.
Originally published at impactinformed.net on April 8, 2018.
