The SG International Development Policy and the Malawi Growth
and Development Strategy
In order to understand the polices which govern the disbursement and management of international ‘development’ funding this chapter shall start with a brief summary of the main policy documents in Malawi and Scotland, along with a consideration of how they are applied to funding, and enacted upon organisations in Malawi and Scotland. In particular the SG’s policies on so called best practice in international ‘development’ and how it relates to Northern based institutions and practices where control and power is held by the donor, not the recipient of aid, will be given particular consideration.
In 2008the Scottish Government published an international ‘development’ policy (Appendix 1) which set out the programmes of work that would be included in the policy72. These are:
The Malawi Development Programme, with a minimum of £3 million ring-fenced each year and formal acknowledgement of the special relationship, and Co-operation Agreement, between the two countries.
The Sub-Saharan Africa Development Programme, which currently includes Zambia, Rwanda and Tanzania.
The South Asia Development Programme, which currently includes Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Indian States of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa. (SG, 2008) The policy also includes provision for international humanitarian assistance in the case of large scale disasters or emergencies, and provides funding to three networking organisations, believing that, through dissemination of information, the development of partnerships and sharing of resources and networking events, that both international development and social justice aims can be better met. These organisations are: the SMP, the Scottish Fair Trade Forum (SFTF) and NIDOS. The SG does not have a formal relationship with the MaSP, apart from through the SMP, although in practice members of the SG have attended MaSP events, and it is fair to say it is treated differently from other Malawian partners, as it represents a network, not just a single organisation. One project manager in Scotland (E2) noted that he felt that the
72 The SG is currently consulting on its current International development policy, with a view to producing a
169
MaSP should be treated as a separate programme of work for the SG, not just in practice, and that this fact should be formally acknowledged.
The aims of the SG policy are:
1. To enhance Scotland's contribution to the global fight against poverty through activity which is clearly designed to support the achievement of the MDGs and economic growth in developing countries.
2. To demonstrate Scotland's commitment to play its role in addressing the challenges faced by the developing world, recognising Scotland's identity as a responsible nation. (Scottish Government, 2008:1.1)
The UN agreed Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), along with Human Development Index (HDI) are also cited in the SG policy. However, such international measurements have been criticised for being unachievable, simplistic and not at all focused on national or local circumstances. Such statistical measurements should be used with caution for two main reasons; firstly, the measurements themselves were designed, and controlled, by Western capitalist economists based on Western ideals (Power, 2003); secondly, there is a concern that the gaps between rich and poor countries (and therefore people) identified by measurements like HDI are assumed to be accurate representations of the real world, when in fact they are economic and social models with a limited ability to give an accurate representation of that real world. The assumptions in the hierarchical lists that they generate, and the vast disparities they illustrate, may themselves be responsible for “reproducing and widening these gaps” (Rist, cited in Power, 2003:3).
Table 4 below shows an HDI comparison table of selected countries at the top and bottom of HDI rankings in 2014 (UNDP, 2016) with Malawi and the UK highlighted. The SG is not alone in using such measures to identify where, and how, to spend international development funding. These measurements are the basis of a global ranking system updated annually (UNDP, 2011), and Northern based international institutions and donors base crucial decisions about aid and poverty reduction programmes on progress towards achievement of the MDGs, and their successor the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These internationally agreed systems of measurement make judgements about each country’s progression towards ‘development’, leading to questions about whether the aims of international ‘development’ programmes are to improve people’s lives or to improve economic statistics, and as a result measurements of poverty, so that international donors meet their own goals. Perhaps most worryingly, the voice and the views, of the Global South are not particularly prominent in these international decisions.
170
Table 4: HDI comparison table of selected countries at top and bottom of HDI rankings in 2014 (UNDP, 2016) with Malawi and the UK highlighted.
Top 20 Countries with highest HDI
Bottom 20 Countries with lowest HDI
1 Norway 169 South Sudan
2 Australia 170 Senegal
3 Switzerland 171 Afghanistan
4 Denmark 172 Côte d'Ivoire
5 Netherlands 173 Malawi
6 Germany 174 Ethiopia
6 Ireland 175 Gambia
8 United States 176 Congo (Democratic
Republic of the)
9 Canada 177 Liberia
9 New Zealand 178 Guinea-Bissau
11 Singapore 179 Mali
12 Hong Kong, China
(SAR) 180 Mozambique
13 Liechtenstein 181 Sierra Leone
14 Sweden 182 Guinea
14 United Kingdom 183 Burkina Faso
16 Iceland 184 Burundi
17 Korea (Republic
of) 185 Chad
18 Israel 186 Eritrea
19 Luxembourg 187 Central African Republic
20 Japan 188 Niger
The UN’s new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which have replaced their MDGs, do appear to have laudable aims and are difficult to criticise at a basic level, in that they include such aims as zero hunger, quality education for all, gender equality and clean water and
171
sanitation (UNDP, 2016).73 However, detailed information about how these goals are going to
be achieved is clearly needed, alongside searching questions about what is different about these goals compared to previous ones, with a crucial missing element being a critical consideration of why previous global efforts to eradicate poverty have failed. What is clearly set out in the new UN goals is a focus on global partnerships and co-operation to underpin the achievement of all other SDGs:
The goals aim to enhance North-South and South-South cooperation by supporting national plans to achieve all the targets. Promoting international trade, and helping developing countries increase their exports, is all part of achieving a universal rules-based and equitable trading system that is fair and open, and benefits all. (UNDP, 2016)74
While promoting transnational co-operation is a good aim to have, it is interesting that the UNDP links this co-operation to economic trading activity. This would seem to imply that the neoliberal model of ‘development’ is an economic exercise and that ‘we’ simply need to help the poor countries of the world to access such trade seems rather close to Sach’s concept of the “ladder of development” (Sachs, 2005), as critically examined in Chapter 2. The UN’s view on partnership is quite different from the SG policy where, although based on previous UN goals, it is stated that a key principle to be upheld is that:
The needs and priorities of developing countries are paramount. Inevitably, Scotland will learn and benefit from the experience of working in partnership with developing countries, but these benefits will not detract from the development strategies and priorities identified by developing countries. (Scottish Government, 2008:1.2)
The difference in wording between the UN and the SG is quite clear, with the SG stating that it will ‘learn and benefit from’, and that ‘priorities will be identified by’, ‘developing’ countries. Whether this ideal always holds true may be debateable, but the key point to note, which gives a clear indication why people in Malawi may feel more respected and less patronised by working on international ‘development’ projects funded by the SG (GM1, A4), compared to other Northern donors is indeed the difference in language, and principles, at the heart of the policy: one of mutual respect and genuine partnership. This is upheld by the SG in a number of ways, including, but not limited to: forging relationships and ongoing communication between the SG and the GoM; consultation with the GoM on funding priorities for each funding round; a requirement that any Scottish organisation applying for funding must show evidence of a strong
73 http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html
74http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-17-partnerships-for-
172
working partnership with a Malawian organisation; and must provide a letter of support from the strand lead in Malawi as part of their application process (SG, 201475).
Even so, a senior GoM official notes that one of the challenges for strand leads in Malawi is that the Scottish organisations only communicate with strand leads when they need a signed letter from the strand lead in order to apply for funding from the SG; essentially, when they need something. While one GoM official states strand leads are ‘busy people’ and, in addition to being a strand lead they also have a ‘normal job’ in the government, meaning they have to create the space for Scotland-Malawi work, which is demanding, especially when letters of support need to be given to projects at funding application times, noting that:
When the call for project proposals to a new funding round is issued in Scotland the strand leads in Malawi get emails and phone calls from NGOs to get as much information as possible as they get what they want off the government [of Malawi] then we never hear from them again, they feel no obligation to share information in the future. (GM1)
This view of the GoM as simply being a conduit for NGOs and other organisation to use in order to secure money from the SG needs further consideration, from an academic and a policy perspective.
The SG also states that any organisation which applies for funding must ensure that all work undertaken in Malawi must be in line with the GoM’s priorities, as set out in the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS) II. The MGDS II was published by the GoM in 2011 and sets out a vision for the development of Malawi up to and beyond 2016, in relation to six key areas of development. These are: Sustainable Economic Growth; Social Development; Social Support and Disaster Risk Management; Infrastructure Development; Governance; and Gender and Capacity Development. It also:
… represents a decisive and strategic single reference document to be followed by all stakeholders to achieve the goal of wealth creation through sustainable economic growth and infrastructure development. (MGDS II, 2011: v)
Funding and governance of SG funds
The funding model for the SG Malawi Development Programme is one based on partnerships, as explained previously, and is generally viewed as a very positive model:
Direct partnerships between organisations in Scotland and organisations in Malawi are a good thing, as they create a solid foundation for a good working
173
relationship. This partnership can provide support and encouragement to the Malawi organisations, as well as helping building their organisational capacity. (GM4)
The SG indeed sets out that funding can only be awarded to organisations based in Scotland who show evidence of a strong partnership with an organisation based in Malawi. The project must also be in line with the Co-operation Agreement, with GoM strategies, and also with international goals, particularly the UN MDGs, now SDGs. Organisations can be awarded up to £600,000 over three years. The SG also operates a small grants funding round for organisations with a turnover of less than £150,000 per annum, which are based in Scotland and wish to work with partners in one of the SG’s priority countries76. Under the small grants funding round, up to £60,000 may be awarded over a period of three years, with the funding round operated by the Lloyds TSB Foundation, on behalf of the SG.
The governance of the SG policy sets out several funding mechanisms, one of which is a targeted funding round, whereby the SG and the GoM agree on a priority area and the SG tenders a bidding process for organisations in Scotland to apply to meet a specific need. While there has been some high-profile funding awarded to large-scale projects under this model, mainly in relation to renewable energy and climate change, the majority of funding is disbursed through a challenge fund model. In this second model, a funding round is held which is open to applications from any organisation, as long as they meet the criteria, and applications are independently assessed, usually by an external contractor who runs the funding round on behalf of the SG. This funding model does not, however, appear to meet the aspirations of the SG to be “led by the needs of the developing country” (SG International Development Policy, 2008:1.2), since the organisations which receive funding are simply the best applications out of a cohort of applicants, not those which necessarily address the current priority areas for the GoM, nor those which the strand leads in the GoM, or the SG, would necessarily choose to fund. Instead, a patchwork of projects receive funding across diverse areas, both thematically and geographically. This links back to one of the key failures of international ‘development’ funding, as discussed Chapter 2: donor processes to disburse funds result in short term disjointed projects dislocated from each other, and potentially from the needs of local people.
The SG is aware of the weaknesses of the challenge fund model, and in its 2016 consultation it is actively seeking views on how to secure longer term partnerships and other funding models
76 In 2013 the SG’s priority countries/regions were listed as: Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Zambia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Indian States of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa (SG, 2013)
174
that would allow priorities to be better tailored to the needs and priorities of host countries, acknowledging that:
Over time, since 2008, our funding rounds for the Malawi Development Programme, the Sub-Saharan Development Programme and the South Asia Development Programme [challenge fund models] have become the main funding mechanism, with the majority of the International Development Fund committed and disbursed through this route. In 2014-15, approximately £7 million of the £9 million IDF was committed in this way. (SG, 2016:4.8)
All four of the GoM officials interviewed were content that SG-funded projects are based on Malawi’s priorities as set out in the MGDS and they all felt that the strand leads have some influence over the funding assessment process, as the SG sends them copies of the applications for their comment during the application assessment process. There would still appear to be a lack of clarity around what exactly the GoM’s role is in deciding whether a project receives funding or not, and problems that have been discussed in earlier chapters around cultural differences may not always result in an honest dialogue. Additionally, the power imbalance, and fear of receiving no funding at all, may result in agreement being given for any project that the SG wishes to fund. While there are improvements that the SG could make to its existing funding process in policy and practice, they nonetheless still have more interaction with the GoM than many other donors have (GM1, A2). As one GoM official notes:
The implementation model is perfect for me, as the partnership approach is much better than a top down approach to development, and the partners in Scotland work directly with their counterparts in Malawi, which is a very good model. (GM2)
One GoM official held the view that when it is two NGOs who are partnering, with one based in Scotland and one in Malawi, then much of the resource, and therefore power, still rests with the Scottish NGO. When it is non-charitable institutions partnering, be they scientific, academic, environmental or civic, he feels that partnerships can be more equal in nature (GM2). One example of such a project was the Capacity Building for Justice Project which supported partnerships and exchanges between organisations such as the Law Society Scotland and the Law Society Malawi, as well as senior officials within the field of justice. Several interviewees in Malawi (GM1, GM3, NGO3) noted that this project was discontinued and they did not know why. Given that, for the people involved in this project, it was “one of the best capacity-building projects” (GM3) with which the Malawian partners had ever been involved, this outcome was disappointing, and confusing (GM3, NGO2). This case illustrates, as discussed previously, the fickle nature of international development’s project based funding, where the donor and partners in a wealthy country have the power to decide whether to continue with a project or
175
not, and the needs and voices of the people on the ground are not always taken into consideration. It also highlights the drawbacks of the current challenge fund model; projects are chosen on the merit of the application alone, not whether they fit into a wider strategy, from either the SG or the GoM.
From 2008 to 2014, the SG has held annual funding rounds to disburse funds for work in Malawi, although from 2015 onwards these funding rounds will be held on a three-yearly basis.77 This decision is largely one taken for administrative reasons, and, while it will not change the amount of money being set aside for use in Malawi, it is a decision that some stakeholders dislike, mainly because it reduces the opportunities to apply for SG funding. This is particularly problematic for organisations which have previously received funding from the SG, as it reduces the window of opportunity to apply for follow-up funding. Also, for those who apply, but are unsuccessful, it means a three year wait before an application can be re-submitted following feedback on the unsuccessful application, a time period that some feel is unreasonable. The three-year gap between funding rounds may also result in the loss of ‘goodwill’ in Malawi, as for some organisations partnerships are difficult to maintain indefinitely, particularly if no money is available for joint working, or other beneficial reason for continued partnership working. As a Scottish project manager notes:
Moving to a cycle of three year funding creates a barrier between the Scottish Government and projects it funds, and it is setting the Scottish Government on a path to make them more like other [international] funders … when they should be using their close relationships with stakeholders, and small regular funding rounds, to their advantage. (NGO8)
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E)
For those Scottish organisations which receive SG funding to work with partners in Malawi, and other countries, the SG enforces a stringent set of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) rules, which are linked to subsequent six monthly releases of their funding award over the three-year funding period. The SG therefore maintains a strict governance and oversight role to ensure that public funds are being used and administered in a fiscally responsible way. However, much of the application assessment process, and M&E system, has been designed by officials in the SG working, at times, with Scotland-based consultants. This is something that one Scottish grant-holder feels is a shift towards the SG removing direct contact and relationships between