MINE – YOURS – ITS – HERS – HIS – OURS – THEIRS – WHOSE PROJECT???

Many would argue that who owns what in development is a key aspect, if not the aspect, to a project’s or program’s success.

And so a person’s choice word choice when describing their work or do-gooder endeavor can actually reveal quite a lot.

Some may think I’m just being fussy about semantics. They’ll argue that that well done is more important than well said. They’ll point to the fact that international assistance is constantly riddled with phrases and jargon that are eventually forgotten or rendered meaningless. But it’s deeper than that and I’m not talking nouns and acronyms.

I’m talking about possessive adjectives. MINE – YOURS – ITS – HERS – HIS – OURS – THEIRS – WHOSE.

Let’s be honest. How many of you, when talking to a friend, another NGO colleague, or donor refers to “our program” in [insert Country X or District Y or Village Z]?

But let me ask you something – Do you live in Country X or District Y or Village Z?

If you don’t, that should be your first clue that “my project” or “our program” is not the phrase for you to use. Here’s some others.

When people from your community are knocking on your door for help and you are working day and night to help fulfill their self-identified needs, then yes, by all means, lay your claim.

When you are coming up with the ideas and steps forward, based on a collective process to generate solutions to shared problems with your neighbors’ and fellow community members, then yes, “our project” is appropriate.

When you are implementing a project and it’s not just a job or a hobby, it is a matter of life and personal responsibility to people you face every day, go ahead, “our project” can be yours.

When you can identify with the people you’re serving to such an extent that you feel an obligation to be directly accountable to them in a tangible rather than an abstract way, the program is truly “yours.”

Essentially, unless you’re on the ground, doing the work with and on behalf of your own community on a daily basis, I believe a program cannot and should not ever be considered “yours,” grammatically or otherwise. Without this awareness, “our project” can be dismissive and disrespectful to local activists and grassroots leaders.

Every aid worker probably has their own bugaboos. ( These come and go as the aid lexicon shifts and changes with the latest development trend. There was a time near the turn of this century when I felt as if I had to discuss the definition of CABA (children affected by AIDS) then later OVC (orphans and vulnerable children) in one more stakeholder meeting, I would literally pitch a fit like a three-year-old.

But this “our project” issue for me has never left. When I was with [insert US-based, corporate aid agency here], though we claimed to work in partnership with local implementing organizations, all the programs were conceived of and spoken of as “ours.” This always struck me as extremely hypocritical, and frankly counter-productive to sound and proven principles of assets-based, community-driven development.

What made them our programs? The fact that we wrote the proposals? (Eh hum, in consultation with our partners of course.) Or were they our programs because, through our funding of local partners, we ultimately controlled how each cent was spent? Or because we were supposedly the ones who had to be accountable to Funding agency

How is community ownership possible under such circumstances? Local partners and communities didn’t have a chance to make the projects theirs. If a project is considered to be someone else’s, and your sense of agency and autonomy are clearly not on their radar, why would you even bother?

Similarly, I hear “our project” used just as egregiously and social enterprise folks. How many times have I had to endure hearing all about “our project” ? As I nod and listen, I’m silently thinking to myself that the fact that this project is “yours,” will more than likely contribute to its downfall.

In the keystone survey 2010,INGO Survey initiative to measure the performance of northern NGOs, local organizations sent a clear message. They do not want to be treated as sub-contractors, carrying out international agencies’ projects and priorities. Rather they want help from aid agencies to become independent and influential organizations in their own right, enabling them to respond flexibly to local people’s needs.

When are we going to realize that participation is not just a nice-to-have in this work? Nor is it even enough.

To bring about real change, we need to be talking ownership.

And not our own.

Source:howmatters.org

“FARMERS ARE OWNER OF LANDS, BUT OTHERS RULE THEM”

In Recent years, thousands of farmers in India have committed suicide because their dignity is violated. Farmers are the most dignified people in the world. They produce with their mind, soul and body. A farmer would rather defend this dignity with his death than lose it through the dehumanization that comes with loss of control of production methods and the loss of food sovereignty. Climate change and economic policies are adversely impacting the food sovereignty of millions of people and both need to be combated. They both take away a basic human right – the right to adequate food. There are two immediate concerns in the context of the possible consequences of global warming and changing weather patterns. The first is the increasing number of natural disasters. The second is the issue of food sovereignty. Food sovereignty indicates the ability and power of a country or community to control and manage its own sources and modes of food production. Food sovereignty involves the right of people and the community over land, water and forests which would enable them to control the sources and means of production. There is a decrease in food production in many countries, particularly among small and marginal farmers. This has to do with both the changing weather pattern and the takeover of agriculture by corporate monopolies and rich countries. We are seeing a repetition of colonial sins with the way food is produced and distributed today. Some of the new “revolutions” to combat climate change and promote food security are manifestations of this new colonialism. Millions of hectares of land have been taken over by rich companies and rich countries at the cost of small and marginal farmers and food sovereignty of the community. The adverse impacts of climate change on ecosystems also affect sovereignty over food production. First, because life cannot adapt as quickly as the climate is changing. We are experiencing unprecedented natural disasters. Secondly, migration from rural to urban areas increases due to lack of water, natural disasters and the non-viability of small and medium farming. The urban poor across the world are environmental, economic and social refugees. The urban-centric, energy-intensive economic growth model induces rural to urban migration, which has reached unprecedented levels, and further accentuates the high carbon-emitting economic growth model. This, on the one hand, affects food production and the viability of sustainable agriculture in rural areas, and on the other hand increases human density in urban areas to unprecedented levels, with consequent pressure on environmental resources, demand for water and resultant pollution etc. Food sovereignty of nations and people can only be realized by strengthening sustainable agriculture and protecting the right of small and marginal farmers to live in dignity. Governments must protect this without compromising the climate and environment. The struggles for justice and human rights have to be at every level. A person’s right to food is non-negotiable. The adverse impact of climate change and corporatization of agriculture undermines our right to food. We need to ask hard questions about the nature of consumption and the nature of the economic growth model. Climate change is an issue of justice, as is food rights. A call to act for justice -- ecological, economic and social -- should precede the technical negotiations on climate change. If human dignity is rooted in divinity, and the idea of divinity is rooted in our search for the truth, then the truth is that there is something terribly wrong and immoral in the way we exploit the beauty and bounty of the earth and all that makes it a sustainable habitat for millions of living species. Such a truth should help us to be free -- free to imagine different choices of life, consumption and living.