The axiom "give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime" is widely accepted among the international development community, and for good reason. But taken on its own, this axiom leaves out very important principles. What if the man is not convinced that he needs to fish? What if the man is convinced but does not have a reliable way to obtain fishing supplies in the future? Helping a man learn to fish, although necessary, does not suffice for sustainable development. The manner in which a person is taught or helped has real implications as to whether he or she will be incentivized to practice the skill regularly and feel inspired to teach that skill to others.

While today's development efforts sometimes produce admirable short-term results, the way in which they are implemented may hinder the effectiveness of long-term development programs and leave the recipients worse off in a state of dependency.

Sustainable development has two components: "environmental" and "lasting-power." Environmental simply refers to the fact that the development effort does not irreparably damage the environment or drain crucial natural resources. Lasting-power refers to the degree to which the project has the drive and resources available to continue indefinitely, eventually with minimal or no outside assistance. An intrinsic element of lasting-power is behavioral change: The local population is fully empowered both to adopt the technology on an individual level and also to take collective responsibility for the project even when the foreign aid leaves.

During this past year, a project team from the University of Virginia has worked with the city government and a local university in Bluefields, Nicaragua to try to establish a ceramic water filter enterprise that would combat the serious problem of contaminated drinking water. They set up an international support network that included potential financiers of the project and technical experts such as Potters for Peace. They envisioned themselves as facilitators between this international support network and the institutions in Bluefields because they believed that the local people responsible for the project's success in the long run should have a vested interest and a meaningful role from the start. For this project to have lasting-power, the locals needed to take ownership of their own project.

Unfortunately, the UVA team learned that the local institutions in Bluefields did not wish to take a leadership role in this initiative despite frequently affirming their sincere interest in the formal proposals that they presented. Afterwards, the team drafted a full debrief that detailed possible reasons why such local leadership did not occur. In doing so, they have discerned and discovered that the underlying cause of their failure to effectively engage the local leaders has its basis in the current system of international aid and economic development that is practiced not only in Bluefields but also around the world.

Status quo development

The nature of international development in Bluefields is very similar to many other global development efforts, and the process is well illustrated by the following example:
The large international NGO UNICEF recently began distributing free ceramic water filters to a small group of people in Bluefields at the request of the Nicaraguan Ministry of Health. Even though a perfectly effective water filter is manufactured in western Nicaragua, and instead of laying the groundwork for a self-sustaining filter enterprise in Bluefields itself, they decided to import a U.S.-made product. Half of the filters broke during transportation. Although UNICEF can claim that it made clean water available to 100 people in Bluefields who otherwise would not have had it, the manner in which they introduced the filters—as a gift with no associated responsibility or commitment—provides very little incentive for the people to actually use them. People value things in proportion to the sacrifice they invested to obtain them. Since the users made no financial investment in their filters, they had no emotional investment in them either. The filters were perceived to be worth exactly what the recipients paid in effort and money—nothing. In addition, UNICEF did not accompany the filter distribution with extensive health education to make the case for the importance of clean water. If my family has been drinking from the same water source for many generations, and I notice that peoples' stomachs have become "hardened" to the immediate ill effects of drinking contaminated water, then why would I believe that this water can harm us? When no serious effort is put forward to convince me of the need for purified water, is it reasonable to expect me to change my longstanding habits? Convincing the recipient that he or she indeed even has a problem is the critical first step in initiating the desired behavioral change. In the language of marketing, this is "demand creation." Since the beneficiaries initially have no perception of the problem, no inherent demand exists for the solution; demand must be created through intensive educational efforts.

Another NGO in Bluefields called BlueEnergy is trying to find new ways to bring alternative energy to the people, as well as being involved in water filtration efforts in the rural communities. It is a U.S. NGO that funds everything itself and operates from a gated and enclosed property in the city of Bluefields. They have skillfully created impressive technology such as household-fitted wind turbines and solar panel systems. However, without involving the local people in the complex production processes with intensive and prolonged education, it remains to be seen if people will be convinced to purchase and adopt the pricey equipment as a feasible solution to their spotty electricity.

It is easy to see that these projects cited meet few criteria for sustainable development. Although they may not empower the local people, the projects are well intentioned and often solve an identified problem with admirable results in the short run. So what harm is done?

The law of unintended consequences

The UVA project team discovered that the ubiquity of such projects poses a real obstacle to the adoption of programs designed to do more. It was against this reality that the team tried to persuade the local institutions in Bluefields to make a sacrifice and take a leadership role in the ceramic filter enterprise, if only on a human resource level. It is easy for many people to simply dismiss community disinterest as laziness. But when the situation is analyzed more thoroughly, it appears that the leaders in Bluefields had acted perfectly rationally based on their experience of reality.

Leaders in Bluefields understand that in the past, when there was a large enough development need, there was usually a capable international NGO or agency that was not only willing to fund a solution, but also implement it. So although the leaders did not want the UVA proposal to be taken off the table, whereby they would be expected to make time and financial sacrifices, they did not want to commit to it either.

In the situation described, the leaders in Bluefields make a logical analysis. Their behavior is consistent with what sociologists call the "min-max" principle. At first glance it appears to be laziness, but in reality, it is how humans have advanced as a species by not wasting time and effort investing in low-payoff activities. They had experienced the compassionate and committed nature of Americans and Europeans to commandeer and complete the projects themselves, and they had been able to use that to their community's benefit. With limited resources at their disposal, what is their incentive to accept a proposal in which they must commit those resources when there are other development agencies generously offering a solution at no cost or with highly advantageous financing? especially if the people in Bluefields, the leaders included, did not prioritize clean water in the first place? Thus one can observe that the payoffs in the current aid system strongly reinforce the "min-max" principle by paying the largest returns for the smallest effort. This situation is unfortunately the reality in much of the developing world today.

The manner in which the industrialized world helps its poorer brethren in long-term development is often counterproductive to the sustainability of that development. Global aid agencies' policy of generously funding development efforts and providing most of the human resources to implement them has bred expectations for perpetual generosity from the industrialized world. Implicit in this policy is the assumption that people are unable and unwilling, for whatever reasons, to help themselves. When international NGOs choose to not spend the time or money to involve, educate and empower local people in their projects, they deprive them of the experience of working together to offer solutions to their own problems and the satisfaction of completing a job well done. Certainly the aid agencies can accomplish the same goal more quickly and easily if they just do it themselves. But when the formal project is concluded and its stated goals achieved, who will continue it in their absence? This attitude underestimates the willingness and ability of the locals to be leaders if they are given the proper incentives and educated in the means.

In a final example, the USAID "Cuenta Reto de Milenia" project built over 30 pottery kilns in the La Paz Centro area of Nicaragua. The project leaders neglected to ask the people if they wanted or needed the kilns. They did not question the people about their current firing methods or the extent of their firing knowledge and did not take into account that the artisans in this community had traditionally worked individually or with immediate family members. Instead, they introduced an oversized kiln design in hope that people would be moved to collaborate and share this resource with their neighbors. When people raised objections concerning the size and design of the kilns, they were kindly told that if they did not accept what was offered then there were other people in the community who would. Since this kiln was part of a complete "goody bag" the people who did not accept it would not receive the other promised benefits either.

Although the kilns represented a significant technological advancement for many of the recipients, after they were built, no one came and taught the users how to fire them. One family had to buy a second ox cart full of wood in the middle of the firing process because it unexpectedly consumed so much fuel. Another man said he has never even fired his kiln because he talked to someone who said it took him 24 hours to run through the firing process. Another recipient said it takes two months for his entire family to make enough products to fill their enormous kiln. One by one, they are coming to Potters for Peace asking them to fix the kilns that have been left in disrepair at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.

What will it take to change the system of international aid and development?

After having assessed the situation in Bluefields and other areas of the world, it appears that we need a global reevaluation of the system of international aid and development. It makes sense to start with a conference where NGOs, aid agencies and representatives from the major donor nations can sit down and agree upon a charter of new guiding principles for the way in which they distribute aid and practice development. Even if that is not feasible in the near future, changing the development policy of one NGO at a time can make a significant difference.

A charter of new guiding principles should place emphasis on closely consulting and strategizing with local leaders and institutions before a development plan is fully drawn and agreed upon. This will encourage the intended beneficiaries to feel authorship of their own project. Aid agencies and NGOs can achieve this goal by listening to the local peoples' perspective on the biggest challenges facing them and their understanding of the problem that the foreign aid intends to ameliorate. Aid agencies and NGOs should actively engage the local people to contribute ideas and plans of their own to surmount the issues that they themselves have identified, and wherever possible incorporate some of the locals' ideas into the master plan.

In addition, it would make sense for foreign donors to incentivize the local people to meet a series of benchmarks that demonstrates their genuine commitment and competency with regard to the development effort and skills learned. Perhaps instead of international organizations releasing full funding at the beginning of the project, the local people would be better motivated to take leadership roles if most of the funds were released later on the condition that the locals met periodic benchmarks designed to prove their commitment, competency and empowerment—and thus the sustainability of the initiative.

Finally, world governments and NGOs should make the practice of freebie development—otherwise known as charity—more difficult by establishing specific and limited circumstances under which that type of aid is acceptable. Extensive evaluations of the ability of a developing area to contribute to its own development should be conducted before any project begins, in order that appropriate self-help benchmarks can be set according to the peoples' standard of living, wealth and health. Conducting development in this new way would channel financial and human resources to areas where they would be most productive and needed in a manner that would be most sustainable. There would be millions of dollars saved in the long run from reducing the number of "do it over again" projects because the projects failed when the international help waned.

Concluding remarks

These new guiding principles cannot simply be agreed upon in word alone. Only when they are practiced conscientiously on a global basis will we begin to see long-term development that benefits all people in a country, not just the elites at the top. Many developing countries may recoil at these new guiding principles because the current system of development is virtually free to them, and it is human nature to choose the easiest and least-costly path. People will need other incentives strong enough to overcome this natural tendency before they can endorse a different way of doing things, even if it will be more advantageous to them in the long run. We owe it to ourselves and to the people of the developing world to convince, empower and incentivize them to make the effort to improve their own lives and develop their own societal resources for their children's benefit.

---

Jeffrey Tyler Matuella is the leader of the University of Virginia Social Enterprises Team, a team that worked with international and local partners in Bluefields, Nicaragua to establish a ceramic water filter production site. Matuella is also the publishing manager at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.

Robert Pillers is the treasurer of Potters for Peace, a U.S.-based non-profit. Pillers and his colleagues have been involved in numerous water filter enterprise efforts around the world. He currently resides in Nicaragua and is the coordinator of the Nicaraguan Artisan Program.