Development projects have since the 1950s claimed that they will deliver various socio-economic benefits to local communities. However, they have frequently failed to deliver promised benefits and sometimes even caused negative socio-economic effects instead.
Research shows that too little understanding of and attention to local contexts in project design and implementation are key reasons behind this fact.
Furthermore, the degree of risks that projects involve for local communities are rarely fully considered. Many projects have been shown to involve much larger risks for local farmers than for the donor/project proponent, the government or other actors with much more resources and influence.
Click on the arrow below each question to read about more concrete examples of problems that can happen.
Questions to askIs it clearly shown that expected local benefits from the project are based on needs actually expressed by the local communities, and taking into consideration that different groups within the community may have different needs?
For example, if a group of hunter-gatherers will have the forest in which they hunt protected from grazing and cutting of trees – is it discussed how local herders in need of grazing land or those using trees for building or firewood will be affected?
Is it described how expected socio-economic benefits are assessed in relation to risks or negative consequences?
For example, is the trade-off between earning income by cutting trees and selling them vs. leaving them to grow and absorb carbon discussed? How is the frequent need for emergency cash among people with little or no economic buffer dealt with if they, for example, are restricted from collecting wood for fast cash incomes?
How is it ensured that the influx of money from the project to communities does not cause or increase inequalities or cause debt?
For example, if project money is used to set up a school fee fund or hospital fund – how will equal access to the money be ensured? If a project contributes to building a new building such as a school block or clinic, each household may be asked to contribute by the community leadership to cover parts of the construction costs. It is common in rural areas in many countries that households are expected to contribute to common buildings, and poor households are usually expected to contribute the same amount as rich and may become indebted.
For project evaluation, is there a description of how people will be selected for evaluation to ensure a representative sample? Is there a strategy for obtaining the views of the most marginalized groups too? Is there a description of how it will be verified that positive changes in local lives are actually due to the project?
It is usually easy to find a local elite that is happy with most projects. The marginalized groups are harder to find, and may often not even understand that there is a project happening or what it means. If projects do their own evaluations, it is tempting to stop evaluating after getting positive replies from community elites. It is also tempting to downplay views from marginalized groups as these may be fewer than majority views. This is why independent evaluations play a key role.
Does the project proponent tackle different risks by simply referring to following standards, laws or guidelines, without explaining how those guidelines or laws will reduce risk in that particular context?
For example, many countries have relaxed laws about impacts on local populations. Guards guarding plantations may be allowed to shoot at local people who venture into a tree plantation. Simply referring to following local laws or regulations may not ensure that people are treated in ways that buyers of offsets would expect.
Warning signsBenefits are linked to different conditions, indicating that persons who expect gains will risk missing out unless they find ways to claim that the conditions were indeed met.
For example conditions could be that participants need to be property owners and/or with secure land access, trees have to grow at a certain speed, or remain standing for 20 years. Conditions always present a stress and a risk of exclusion, which invites deceptive practices. They must be very carefully considered and fair to people participating.
Project proponents describe sweeping win-win scenarios where projects come with no or very few risks of having negative impacts.
This is common in development projects and research has shown that situations are very rarely so simple. Using such descriptions indicate a too simplistic understanding of local situations and is likely setting the project up for failure.
Large cash payments to individuals are planned in order to convince them to join the programme.
If it is a useful project that is adapted to people’s ongoing livelihoods, it will often pick up through no or smaller incentives such as simple equipment or free training, and then spread organically. Large payments to certain individuals in a community are likely to cause jealousy, accusations of corruption and various other local conflicts.
Evaluations will only look at quantitative measures (such as number of trees planted or number of farmers enrolled) and not investigate impacts based on interviews with different groups in the local community about how they experience the benefits and challenges with the project.
Such figures frequently hide local concerns and especially from marginal groups who may need to be actively sought up and interviewed by staff trained for this purpose.
Flora Hajdu
Researcher at the Department of Urban and Rural Development; Division of Rural Development
Telephone: +4618672162
E-mail: flora.hajdu@slu.se
Linda Engström
Researcher at the Department of Urban and Rural Development; Division of Rural Development
Telephone: +4618672641
E-mail: linda.engstrom@slu.se