Drawing from the experience of managing a small development project in Burkina Faso, MSC Development Studies alum Mayliss François, reflects on what went wrong, why it happened, and most importantly, who is responsible for changing the status quo.

It started rather well: a call for proposals open to small starting organisations with a well-thought-out theme: economic and cultural inclusion aimed at a better governance. Moreover, it didn’t require the usual 20% counterpart funding often expected in such projects.

However, here we are, at the end of the project: exhausted, on bad terms with our partners and suppliers, with no accounting trace of the project for future references, having gained no visibility, extremely frustrated and still having to check every couple of days that the grantor does indeed pay what’s due. We have a feeling of being used for a purpose, not ours.

What happened?

As soon as our project was announced as pre-selected, things took a less promising turn than the call had initially led us to expect:

• Co-creating sessions that devolve into tailoring our project to fit their criteria rather than genuine collaboration.
• Capacity building efforts focused solely on aligning with donor processes, offering no support to local organisations in meeting their own national legal requirements.
• “In-Kind subsidies” that provide no direct funding to local organisations but instead place them in the middle, managing donor demands, delayed payments and “hand to mouth” suppliers.
• Facing the risk of legal fraud, even crossing the line, by receiving signed contracts missing the required annexes such as the budget.
  Being required to submit reports on activities that had not even begun.
• Pressure to exclude the neediest beneficiaries, such as prisoners and refugees, because they lack ID papers and therefore cannot be included in the project’s metrics.

This project was financed through a USAID-funded program. If you want to know more about the faults of USAID, you can look at this excellent report by Unlock Aid. However, the above patterns are not a rare occurrence in the development sector.

What pushes good intentioned programs to be so neglectful of field realities and of real impact?

First, I will say there was mistrust both from the donor and the implementing consulting company towards local organisation. Why the mistrust? Probably by fear of fraud, of corruption, of bad management. Paradoxically, the heavy, strict, ill-adapted rules and procedures push the local organisation to commit fraud.

Second, it seems that importance is given to the demands of the donors rather than the needs of the field or even the legal national requirement. For a simple reason, if the donors’ demands are not fulfilled, he might stop providing money in grants and attractive salaries. However, the donor demands have been formulated far from the field and lack deep knowledge of local needs and ways of doing.

Finally, I would point to the lack of feedback loops. During this project, I tried, several times to notify the national team of the difficulties without much noticeable changes. Culturally, in Burkina Faso, ‘the boss is always right,’ which makes it difficult to provide honest feedback to a superior without risking blame. So, the national team of the consultancy firm is not giving feedback, and their Washington-based head office is not asking for any, as in the States, it is much more common to provide feedback and it is part of your job to signal any difficulties encountered. Without feedback loops, there can’t be any learning and improvement.

Shared responsibilities to do better

So, how do we go from here? How can we do better for the benefit of the people on the field foremost, and for a better more profound impact? Something everyone involved is responsible for.

First, the donors themselves have a duty to know better and to adapt to the needs of the field they want to work with. From co-build intervention strategies with the field-based organisations to working on giving trust again (as trust-based philanthropy does), donors can build long term relations with the field-based organisations, developing real empowerment programs including on processes that respond to the national legal context and the need of those local organisations.

The international consultancy firm, which receives most of the financial aid, must develop a deeper understanding of its fields of intervention. Sending QWERTY keyboards to their French-speaking national team is just one example of the disconnect. The national team was as confused by their procedures as anyone else. It is the responsibility of the head office to address such issues, which requires better intercultural understanding. If you are working internationally, it is essential to educate yourself and your staff on collaborating effectively with intercultural teams and settings. Failing to do so could lead to dissatisfaction, poor internal communication, and overall disappointing outcomes. The head offices of international organisations are responsible for establishing meaningful feedback and learning loops to bridge these gaps and ensure smoother operations.

Meanwhile, their national and local teams have a significant responsibility to provide accurate reporting. Local and national colleagues should not be treated as mere tokens but been given the rightful place to be able to speak up of their local needs and contribute the richness of their diverse perspective. They should not be one-way translators from the donors demands to the field.

As people with strong educational background, with financial means and strong safety nets, people working in national offices should take the courage and have the integrity to fulfil their role as true two-way bridges between cultures.

Finally, we should not forget the responsibility of the local, field-based associations. Even though they are dependent on foreign financing, they have the biggest responsibility: saying “no” to unreasonable, unsuitable, and overly complicated grants. Burkina Faso means “the country of people of integrity”. Having integrity is refusing financial aid if it doesn’t fit the needs of the field, if it pushes you to commit fraud, or if it places you in difficult position with your own partners. The local organisations have a duty to build their management and administrative capacities. Furthermore, they must abandon a culture of dependence and avoid compromising their core mission: to create a positive impact on society.

It is only if all actors start to flag the wrongdoing of the sector that it can become what it means to be: a sector thriving for the betterment of the world, enriched, and strengthened by the wealth of its diversity.

The views expressed in this post are those of the author and in no way reflect those of the International Development LSE blog or the London School of Economics and Political Science.

This article was first published on mallouauburkina.com.

Featured image credit: Mayliss François via mallouauburkina.com