This post, written by Class of 2017 student Sarah Fowlkes, was originally published on OurValues.org and republished here with permission.
In America, we are often bombarded with campaigns from non-profit organizations asking for donations to help with some dire cause in Africa. Many of these organizations are doing a lot of good, but there are a number of projects that seem promising from the outside, but actually have unintended negative consequences.
Consider Malaria, a deadly disease transmitted by mosquitos. Nearly half the world is at risk for Malaria, leading to about 600,000 deaths annually, according to the World Health Organization. About 90% of these cases occur in Africa, particularly in low-income communities. There are several organizations that donate pesticide-treated nets to help with the prevention of Malaria. In general, this seems like a very logical, low-cost, effective solution to a big problem. However, these organizations are offering a widespread solution to a problem without realizing that, in many parts of Africa, the nets aren’t being used in the intended way.
Studies now are showing that the nets are not always used to protect family members from Malaria—and, instead, they’re being turned into fishing nets in some parts of the continent. These African communities are more concerned with not being able to put food on their tables, a daily problem they can actually see, than the potential problem of Malaria, which is much less tangible. The treated nets are detrimental to the environment, because they are leading to overfishing and toxic pesticides in the drinking water.
In a recent New York Times article, Jeffrey Gettleman, the East Africa Bureau Chief for the Times and a Pulitzer Prize winner, reported:
One of the few detailed studies on the issue showed that in several villages along Lake Tanganyika, an essential body of water shared by four East African nations, 87.2 percent of households used mosquito nets to fish. When that study was presented at a malaria conference last year, the reception, according to some of those in attendance, was decidedly cool.
“People are very defensive about this topic,” said Amy Lehman, an American physician and the founder of the Lake Tanganyika Floating Health Clinic, which conducted the study. “The narrative has always been, ‘Spend $10 on a net and save a life,’ and that’s a very compelling narrative. But what if that net is distributed in a waterside, food-insecure area where maybe you won’t be affecting the malaria rate at all and you might actually be hurting the environment? It’s a lose-lose. And that’s not a very neat story to tell.”
In that region of Africa, Gettleman is pointing to a solution—provided with the best of intentions by donors far from Africa—that is doing more harm than good in those particular communities. Anti-Malaria nets may be effective on other regions, but the single-solution program sending these nets far and wide hasn’t taken into account Africa’s enormous diversity. The nets don’t seem to be a good idea in poor communities where fishing is an important and vitally needed resource. Obviously, more studies and debate will follow this report from Lake Tanganyika.
There is also the problem of development without follow-up.
Large non-profit and government organizations create multi-million-dollar projects that build infrastructure such as wells and pipes. Access to clean water is a significant problem in the developing world. More than 1.1 billion people live without access to clean water, and 3.4 million people die every year due to complications from unclean water. There are hundreds of organizations that build wells and pipes to help alleviate this problem—but very few who teach community members how to maintain the infrastructure. The result is within a few months or years, the water systems are not working. The community once helped by the project is back to square one.
The problem is that international organizations often research the significant problems plaguing Africa and create their own solutions from thousands of miles away.
These organizations need much more community buy-in and ownership in order for these projects to be sustainable. Communities working with organizations will understand how the projects need to be maintained, and can communicate follow-up needs to organizations.
Development in Africa needs to be a conversation, not a mandate. There needs to be a solid relationship between the development organizations and those they intend to help in order to establish sustainable projects with significant impact.
– See more at: http://www.readthespirit.com/ourvalues/series/5-myths-about-africa/#sthash.L7QIbJqc.dpuf
Responses