Many rural communities in developing countries are now more familiar with external experts and consultants, who visit them to ask questions about their situation and go away never to be seen again.
By CHARLES DHEWA
Using consultants and external experts to gather information or conduct evaluations is not an entirely bad idea. Outsiders can sometimes better see what is hidden in local people’s plain sight.
Like a fish which does not see the water in which it is swimming, local people may no longer be conscious of their situation. However, from views recently gathered by eMKambo from smallholder farmers, traders and community leaders, organisations which use consultants and external experts to gather information or conduct evaluations may be blind to several downsides of this practice.
Instruments of social control
Besides undermining local people’s judgment, external consultants and experts are often used to assert social control in ways that do not recognise local people’s collective capacity to generate wisdom and value their resources.
The fact that much of the data collected by external experts and consultants does not come back to inform local institutions and decision-making implies people are left with no dependable sources of evidence. It becomes difficult to know what is real and what is not authentic.
Local people end up favouring facts that justify what they already know when alternative views could be more beneficial.
The use of external expertise without building local expertise also undermines people’s capacity to form bonds of common interest based on common experience.
In fact, the underlying message of such practices is that local people cannot trust themselves, but should follow experts in every aspect of their lives such as nutrition, food production, health, environmental management, income generation, education and many other aspects. Leaving everything to experts strengthens elite power and versions of meritocracy that make it hard for local people to gain control of their lives, individually and collectively. There are many cases where donor money is being used as an instrument of control and power.
Ideas and narratives that are funded receive saturated media coverage when superior local knowledge is barely mentioned.
A case for better ways of valuing local resources
Excessive dependence on experts also weakens local people’s capacity to value their resources without using money as the main proxy.
How can communities make collective decisions in valuing their commodities and natural resources when their sources of information remain fragmented irrespective of billions of dollars spent in their name? Farmers need to know the value of their commodities beyond money.
What is the true value of a crate of tomato or a goat if produced well? It is not enough to say it’s worth $8. What does a dollar mean in relation to potatoes, tomatoes, chickens, fruits, milk, goats, sheep, cattle and other assets?
The majority of developing countries currently don’t have models for understanding commodity values without using dollars and cents. However, nothing stops policymakers and development agents from considering other factors like nutrition, health, wealth creation potential, environmental contribution and multiple uses in valuing local resources before getting to dollars and cents.
What is the socio-economic value of a commodity before it is given a dollar value? What is its environmental value? Tobacco is valued in dollars and cents without considering environmental and other factors. Same with minerals. After taking all these factors into account, it should be possible to assign specific weights to commodities from which comprehensive valuation can be derived.
Supply and demand should not be used alone to determine the value of agricultural commodities. When there is a glut of tomatoes, for instance, it does not mean the nutritional value, taste and quality of the tomatoes would have gone down. The same amount of water, labour and inputs would have been used to produce it.
Where the monetary value of livestock on the market would have gone down due to over-supply, it does not mean a reduction in value because the cattle would have consumed the same grass, water, labour and other inputs as those fetching high prices during shortages.
Correct valuation will inform resource allocation
What is the value of an irrigation scheme in terms of land, water, soils, the environment, customers and other factors? Answering this question factually will reveal benefits and costs, taking into account people, animals, wildlife and other elements of the whole ecosystem in which the irrigation scheme is located.
Irrigation water, soil and labour have alternative uses. Correct valuation will show the extent to which resources are either being over-utilised or under-utilised for the sake of earning dollars.
When a government allocates budgetary resources to the Health ministry, it considers the importance of human life. The value of a good road network influences the size of budget allocated to the Transport ministry. Likewise, the value of agricultural commodities should influence budgetary allocations to the Agriculture ministry.
How do developing countries value investment opportunities, minerals, land and associated benefits? In the absence of smart valuation criteria, developing countries limit their valuation to money and equipment brought by investors yet these may constitute a small part of the value of resources. Investors end up assuming a big brother mind-set because they bring money and equipment.
firstname.lastname@example.org / email@example.com / firstname.lastname@example.org
Website: www.emkambo.co.zw / www.knowledgetransafrica.com
eMkambo Call Centre: 0771 859000-5/ 0716 331140-5 / 0739 866 343-6