Excellent! - excellentdevelopment.com

Sustainable Development is the latest and greatest philosophy (and practise?) of International NGO’s and their donors. But what does this really mean to rural communities in semi-arid Africa?

Sustainable development means many things to many people but is most commonly defined in line with the Bruntland Report of 1987 as:

“… development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

In reality this often translates into fettering or limiting development in order to ensure that the environment is not degraded to a degree that inhibits its sustainability in the long-term. I would like to turn this on its head and challenge its direct applicability to semi-arid Africa. The logical starting point to the traditional approach to sustainable development is that the environment for development already exists – and that development needs to be controlled and limited to avoid unwanted impacts on the environment. This is certainly true for powerful economies with well established industries and intensive agriculture systems.

But what does it mean for subsistence farmers in semi-arid Africa? Farmers who struggle to make ends meet in marginal agricultural land, exacerbated by very uncertain rainfall that, at the best of times, results in ‘feast or famine’? What does it mean during the prolonged droughts, in a seven year cycle, that end with sustained rainfall and severe flooding and soil erosion?

Does the environment for ‘sustainable development choices’ exist for those people? For many, the only solution is temporary or permanent urban migration of the heads of households. This is often followed by the youth making similar choices in that their ‘sustainable development’ lies in permanent migration to the ‘greener grass’ of African cities and even careers in the ‘developed world’. For those communities, I would argue that considering ‘impacts on the environment’ is the last of their worries – because the chance of even considering the impacts of their ‘development activities’ does not exist. The ‘hole in their bucket’ is too large.

The answer doesn’t lie, initially, in ‘sustainable development’; it lies in the environment itself. They need to create an environment where sustainable development choices become a consideration over and above their day to day survival. How can we expect them to consider “compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” when they can not even meet their own needs today? That is a luxury they can only have when they can live to ‘see it through’, never mind ‘live to tell the tale’.

Our experiences in semi-arid Africa tell us something very different. Forget ‘sustainable development’ – the answer has to be environmental improvement – first and foremost. The answer for semi-arid rural Africa is the environment because this is the only way that development, sustainable or not, can happen. Both the debate and focus need to shift to truly address the needs of these communities. In ‘developed countries’ economic stability exists and the focus has to be on managing the environment to create a sustainable future. In semi-arid Africa, arguably the environment doesn’t even exist.

So what does this mean? As a grassroots NGO raising funds to enable communities in semi-arid Africa to firstly survive, then improve their water supplies, food production, health and incomes; we suffer the dichotomy of funding priorities, “that’s development not the environment” and vice-versa, ad nauseum.

There are, thankfully, many notable exceptions and we take our hats off to them – individuals and charitable trusts alike. The truth has to lie in both the environment and development – and in reality it is impossible to separate the two – only ignore the other. However, at best, most funding bodies seek through their criteria to differentiate between development and environmental activity as though they were independent activities. At worst, environmental activity isn’t seen as development at all.

Our experience tells us something very different. Environmental protection actually creates development in semi-arid rural Africa – and certainly creates the environment for that development to happen.

If farmers in semi-arid Africa can reduce soil erosion and conserve water they can create the environment for development. Building small-scale sand dams conserves water otherwise destined for the Indian Ocean. Terracing land not only keeps water in farmers’ fields to feed crops – but retains fertile top soil to further enhance food production capacity. Small-scale sand dams enable an environment to create tree nurseries during drought periods and the planting of seedlings when the rains do come. Trees not only further prevent soil erosion and enhance water conservation but they can provide fruit for people, fodder for animals and fertilisers for crops. The combination of trees for fuel wood and clean water from sand dams saves families hours a day in collection times. This enables children to go to school and women to spend more time on their farms. The dams enable vegetables to be grown – avoiding the need to spend cash on maintaining a balanced healthy diet for their families. The environment created enables farmers to create surplus crops to also enhance income generation. It’s only at this stage that ‘sustainable development’ becomes a choice.

It’s vital, of course, for sustainable development to play a part when these environmental conditions exist. Farmers need to manage their improved food production activities in a way that makes agriculture sustainable. They need to mix crops and limit the use of fertilisers and animal feeds by utilising the products of trees that they grow and animals they keep. Income opportunities developed from planting medicinal trees need to be managed sustainably. Fuel wood needs to be harvested sustainably rather than gathered by killing trees. Trees are a vital agent of development - 95% of rural energy needs are supplied by fuel wood. Not only that, but trees provide building materials, fruit, fodder, compost and medicines all developmental, all potentially sustainable.

But these are all future dilemmas. The challenge for development donors in Africa is here and now. Is environmental protection really development? Is conservation a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ or a ‘silk glove in an iron fist’ that can smash the true barriers to development in semi-arid rural Africa? If so, why is “conservation not really development” when conservation it is the foundation stone to sustainable development in semi-arid Africa?

Simon Maddrell, Excellent Development.

Post Script:
Since writing the article I've discovered a report on sustainability, the environment and development. For those interested in reading it - there is a link to the pdf report below.

---