Categories
thoughts

Power outages every day in Kampala and Tororo. Strangely enough, it’s a similar cause as the ones in Tanzania – ‘budget shortage.’ Here it’s because all the budget for electricity was spent on President Museveni’s re-election campaign.

Tonight, I was drinking tea and chatting with my colleage/room mate because both our computers had ran out of batteries. Good does come out of seemingly bad happenings. The concept of “opportunity costs” pops up in the most unexpected places. In this case, I learnt way more due to having no electricity; opportunity costs can’t always be calculated beforehand.

My colleague has worked with many youth NGOs in Uganda before she joined us. Mostly it was with HIV/AIDs or marginalized youth (e.g. street children). There were projects that gave scholarships and those that gave chickens, goats, or seeds.

“Youth are funny,” she summed up her work in one sentence.

“There were really good, smart, and hardworking kids that you’ve sponsored for years. Then suddenly one day the kid would come in and tell you that they’re tired. They want to drop out of one of the best high schools in Uganda and give up a free full scholarship to the best university.”

Shaking her head with disbelief, she continued, “I found one of these drop-out kids working as a cashier in a small supermarket two years later. The kid admitted that she had made some bad choices, but life was OK as a cashier. This kid was one of the students with the most potential – smart, sweet, and trustworthy, or so we thought. Her sponsor would have given her all the money she needed to get the best education, but she gave up, with no apparent reason.”

“It was the same with the small entrepreneurship projects. Most of the youth would sell the seeds or slaughter the chicken or goat, immediately after you train them about growing their business so they can have a better future. They either saw no point in saving for the future or wanted to drink waragi (a local gin). Solve only the problem right in front of you seemed to be the common thinking.”

Baffled, I asked if she, after working with these youth for so long, could tell  which ones would be the successful ones from the start.

“No,” she answered without hesitation. “We tried every method in and out of the book. There’s no way you can tell, not even after training. You will only find out once you give them the inputs or sponsorship.”

If only we could unlock that secret. Then at least we can help those that want to be helped.

International Development Week at UBC

This morning, I woke up at 3:50 am to skype into a conference in Vancouver at UBC. I was one of the presenters at the panel for International Development Week called “A Day in the Life of the International Humanitarian.

The theme was a ‘typical day’ of my work (and the 5 other presenters). Just the thought of a ‘typical day’ is quite interesting because the things I do almost always differ from day to day. But I did my best to represent the different aspects that I work with and also some of the challenges.

It’s really hard presenting without seeing your audience, only speaking to the computer. They also didn’t have enough computers for me to keep listening to the whole panel. I did my part and then had to stop skyping. Bummer. I was looking forward to hearing what the other panellists were doing!

Anyways, the questions I got were:

  1. “Do you think your work makes an impact?”
  2. “Did you have any culture shock moving to a new country?”
  3. “How is it like as a woman travelling and working in Africa?”

I thought they were all really good questions. Too bad I didn’t have enough time to answer them properly. So here’s some fuller answers.

“Do you think your work makes an impact?”

In short, yes I do. We’re not saving the world or the country, but we’re definitely making some people’s life better. I think very carefully about all the activities that my organization asks me to do, if I had a feeling that it would do more harm than good, I would refuse to take part. Fortunately, I have a really good supervisor who explains to me how the world of development and NGOs work (from his point of view, of course) and it helps me navigate my own way. In many cases, we’re providing the ‘missing link’ in making processes work – we’re bringing government departments together so that an urban agriculture strategic plan can be submitted to the Master Plan; we’re bringing urban agriculture groups together so they can form a network. We’re not telling anyone what is the best way to improve their or their country’s situation; we’re simply being the catalyst because there’s often a lack of ‘push’ behind what people think should happen.

I like that we work at different levels to push for change, because not only do I get to have a feel about how different sectors work, but also because change often doesn’t happen because people don’t work on bridging the divides between the government, the civic groups, and the grassroots. I find that my organization works in a niche that is often neglected and, as such, cause development projects to fail. Of course, after all this self-congratulating, at the end of the day, nobody would know if our approach to development would actually work or if it would have any impact until many years later. Even with the passing of time, it is hard to measure exactly how much impact what you did had on such a large process. Sometimes, you can only work in faith and with intuition.

“Did you have any culture shock moving to a new country?”

I doubt there is a person alive that haven’t experience culture shock moving to a different country or even the next town over. We often grow up thinking the world is like how it is from our eyes. Gradually, we discover that there are many perspectives of how the world is and should be. That to me is the most fascinating part of living abroad. And also one of the important reasons why I like working in development.

I did have very strong culture shock the first time I went to East Africa – Uganda, to be specific. More details can be found on this post I wrote a while ago. This time when I came back, I almost had none. I had to adjust to a different working environment, that’s for sure. I had never worked at the government level before and this placement has been much longer than what I had last time. However, in terms of feeling comfortable with my living situation, I haven’t had any problems. This could be partly because I grew up back and forth between two different countries and was constantly moving houses. I’ve never felt that there is anywhere that is specifically ‘home’ and I tend to settle down in any place I go pretty quickly.

“How is it like as a woman travelling and working in Africa?”

It’s not easy travelling as a woman. It’s also not easy travelling as a man, or really as someone who looks and acts foreign in any place. You will stand out. You will get attention, way more than what you’re used to at home because you don’t look like you’re local.

From my experience travelling and working in East Africa, it is not unsafe. It’s probably as unsafe as in Vancouver. (I know crime rates are higher etc etc, but most tourists or foreigners don’t actually go to the places with high crime rates, e.g. in the unplanned settlements.) There are places you shouldn’t go at night and there are places where you have to dress appropriately. Always ask locals and foreigners who have been around for a while about where it is safe or unsafe. As a woman, there are definitely more restrictions on what you can or cannot wear. When in doubt, always dress covering your shoulders and lower legs. I find that you often have to dress even more conservative than the young local women because you do stand out more. For example, here in Dar es Salaam, women can wear tank tops, but when I do, people look at me more. That’s not necessarily something you want when you’re coming home later in the night. During the day or at the beach, it’s probably fine.

As a woman, also, you almost always get different treatment depending on if you’re with a male companion (friend or partner) or not. Just the sight of having a male person next to you makes people treat you differently. For me, this is one of the more uncomfortable realities. You’re having a good chat with someone and then if suddenly a male friend joins the conversation, the whole dynamic changes. I still don’t really know why this is. Men also often only speak to your male friend and not you if you’re together. I’ve had experiences where men will ask questions through my male friend about me, as if I don’t have the ability to answer myself. Whether this is out of respect (as in they assume my friend is my husband) or some notion of me having inferior mental capacity, I don’t really know. Although, on the flip side, there are advantages. If you’re going out at night, it’s always safer to have at least one male with you, especially if you’re dancing. Just the fact that your group of girls came in with a guy makes all the difference in how close some (probably drunker) people try to get.

You’ll also get lots of marriage proposals and “I love yous”. People might ask you what is your name, how you are doing, and then, by the third question, as you to marry them or take them back to Canada. Laugh it off. Sometimes it makes me annoyed unnecessarily. It’s probably one of those little annoyances that are better left as a little annoyance than to be dwelled on.

In terms of work, gender is an issue. I find the grassroots level groups that I work with often have unequal gender dynamics. Men almost always dominate. Even the most outspoken women don’t really make opinionated statements, compared to the men. There are also groups that I work with where, probably because of the gender imbalance, it is usually the men who get more advantages from the project. I’m not sure if the culture is slowly changing, but younger women I meet seem to be more and more assertive, which is good progress. At the governmental level, however, gender dynamics are very balanced. There are high level female directors. There are highly respected elder ‘mamas’ (calling someone mama here is respectful). Whenever I’m in a meeting with government officers, it is seniority and rank that determines how much someone speaks, not usually their gender. In general, I find Tanzanian women very strong; or at least stronger than I had anticipated.

So I hope that answers the questions a little bit better. What are your experiences? Questions and comments are always welcome!

Land frustrations

Land tenure in this city is just so messed up. Coming from two places where privatised individual ownership of land is the norm, it’s really, really hard for me to get my head wrapped around how badly the land reform was done in Dar es Salaam.

The fact that the urban farmers I work with don’t actually farm on legal land is old news. But I recently heard that the ferry terminal downtown is going to be teared down, because the terminal owner doesn’t actually own the land!

Can you imagine? Pour money into building a huge ferry terminal, just never bothered to make sure you owned the land that it’s going to be built on.

The land actually belongs to the Tanzanian Port Authority (TPA). And now the authority wants it back to build their new office complex.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. I’m sure the story is more complex than that. It’s probably because the TPA didn’t want to sell the land, then the terminal building people paid someone in some high place, then they got the rights to build. But in the end, the land never officially changed hands, so now the TPA can come back to demand the land. Corruption seems to always crop up in stories of land. In fact, I heard that 95% of the planning department staff of one of the Municipalities in Dar got fired due to corruption charges. 95%. Blows your mind, doesn’t it?

I don’t think it’s possible to develop this city any further without a serious and coordinated attempt (with teeth) to formalize land tenure. If you want to work on a capitalist economic model, private ownership of land is one of the first things you need to get right!

According to this article:

“The success of the land reform is often mentioned among the factors which laid the groundwork for the “economic miracle” of the 1960s and 1970s, a nearly unprecedented transformation of once rural and impoverished Korea into a modern and developed nation.”

The thing is, there is so much corruption and not enough checks on people in power (i.e. whatever people in power say gets done, no opposition, no consideration of what feasibility studies say is the best to do) that without a strong political will from the high leadership, a good land reform would never happen.

I’m starting to doubt if making Master Plans actually have any effect at all. What’s the use when people high up can just simply say “no” after the whole process?

Apolitical blame

One of the groups of farmers we work with farm in a controversial area – the Msimbazi Valley. In the past few months, there’s been lots of media attention on the valley, mainly due to research findings (confirmed or not depends on who you ask) about the toxicity of the water and soil.

The Msimbazi Valley runs along the middle of Dar es Salaam. It’s huge, with estimates of hundreds of, maybe even a thousand, people who directly make their living from urban agriculture here. It’s also a politically charged space because a palm oil company (SUKITA), controlled by the CCM (political party that has been in power since independence), owns the valley land. But rampant corruption means that company officials have started selling individual parcels of land without legal land tenure. People have bought land, built their homes, and set up their farms (see aside below*). Yet, none of them actually own the land they have spent their lives’ fortune on.

Msimbazi Valley is downstream to many of the industrial factories. Hence, untreated toxic by-products and sewage pollute the river, which is the only source of irrigation water for the farmers. The valley also floods during rainy season, so even if the farmers don’t irrigate with the water, the water still contaminates the soil.

The recent media attention means that nobody wants to buy vegetables from the valley anymore. Understandably so. The area has been declared illegal for urban agriculture. Forced removals happen all the time. My former roommate saw farmers beaten by the police; when asked, nobody says anything. The head of the municipal Agriculture and Livestock Department has no sympathy whatsoever. Whenever we try to bring this issue up when working for demarcating land for urban agriculture, the answer is always a strict no. It’s also hard for my organization to advocate on the farmers’ behalf, as too much controversy would gain us more enemies and slow down the process of legitimization.

Yet, it seems like nobody (except the farmers themselves) recognizes the large white elephant in the room: the farmers aren’t the ones causing the pollution. They grow toxic vegetables because of unregulated factories and non-existent sewerage treatment facilities. They are unable to invest in soil remediation or boreholes for cleaner water because they were sold illegal land through corruption (who would put money in when you could be kicked off any day?). The real blame is the unwillingness of the government to force the actual polluters to pay. Keeping foreign-investment is obviously more important than backward rural activities that don’t belong in a city. Neither is the government willing to spend money to ensure safe disposal of sewage. Nor anger people of power who illegally sell land. No, the blame has to be put on the farmers – marginalized, poor, and politically voiceless. What a convenient, apolitical scapegoat.

And that is the problem I have with the way most of us are taught to think – it’s too apolitical. During my political ecology class, I was taught to always ask “for whom.” Such and such practice is beneficial…for whom? We should make this policy because it is good…for whom? We often forget that behind most actions, there are the beneficiaries and then there are those who lose out. By asking “for whom” it clarifies the seemingly apolitical recommendations we make.

One example that really struck home is the accepted notion that soil erosion is an evil that should be stopped. But is that a universal statement? Who benefits from stopping erosion? What about the farmer at the bottom of the valley? Erosion is when the fertile top soil from the top of the mountain slides down to the bottom. The farmer at the bottom of the valley actually stands to grow better crops because of erosion. Certainly, I’m not saying that erosion shouldn’t be stopped because it benefits some farmers; soil erosion destroys other parts of the ecosystem also. I’m just trying to demonstrate that many of the facts that we take for the truth actually have hidden “for whom” statements that can prod us to rethink our, often “scientific” or “unbiased,” recommendations.

*(aside: I always get frustrated when people don’t see farm land as a structure on the same level as a building. I get it all the time when town planners say that you can’t knock down buildings but can kick people off farms, even if they were both built without permission. Farmers are built. It takes a lot of work to build a farm. I’ll like to see you clear off the vegetation, pick out the rocks, till the land, plant, weed, and irrigate. All back breaking work. Sigh.)

Profiting from poverty? The question of “development professionals”

I recently read this post http://chrisblattman.com/2010/05/12/poverty-professionals-and-poverty/ (reading the full original paper is highly recommended…it’s only 6 pages long!)

I’ve had the same question in my head for a long time, especially when I was ‘out in the field’ in Uganda and Tanzania. Seeing the UN and other aid agency workers driving around in expensive 4 wheel drives compared to the people who could barely afford bus fare that they were trying to ‘help.’ There is no wonder that resentment abounds.

But how can we reconcile these differences? Should development workers have to live in the same way as those people they are trying to help? Is it impossible to make good policies without first understanding how people who are you making policies for live?

For something closer to home, should all politicians and policy makers experience “normal” life a bit more? How can we design a good public transport system when the majority of the designers actually don’t take public transport (or bike) on a daily basis?

One thing that really stayed in my mind when I watched the movie “Gandhi” is that Gandhi was determined to live a ‘normal’ life. He spun his own cloth, planted his own food, and washed his own clothes. The other leaders probably thought it was a waste of time. But he insisted. I think he had good reasons.

Categories
writing

Essay: Corporate Social Responsibility

A New Turn for Corporate Social Responsibility

Tiffany Tong

March 5th, 2008

Introduction

The nature of corporations is to maximize the bottom line regardless of social and environmental consequences, because in an extremely competitive global market, failure to do so will result in forced exit from the market. Therefore, traditionally, the enforcement of rules has been viewed as the only way to protect society and the environment; voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been viewed as mere lip service that produces no results. However, in this paper, I will explore a new turn in the development of CSR, with a particular focus on a United Nations initiative named the Global Compact. I will argue that to effectively engage corporations to produce positive results, norm setting initiatives are necessary in addition to rule enforcement. Corporate Social Responsibility will not work unless we have both binding international agreements to enforce punishment of negative actions by corporations and positive incentives for innovation.

Categories
writing

Essay: china vs india

Tiffany Tong

March 19th, 2008

Which Country Made the Better Choice?

China and India, the two Asian powerhouses where 37% of the world population lives, have become the miracles of economic development of the modern world (Current World Population (ranked), 2007). China and India have sustained GDP growth, unmatched by any other country in the history of human kind, of 9.4% and 7% average respectively for over a decade (Dahlman, 2007). The proportion of Indians living in extreme poverty (on $1 a day or less) has fallen from 40% to 25% in a decade, while in China, between 1981 and 2001, the proportion fell from 53% to just 8% (Sharma, 2006). The countries have followed “diametrically opposed development paths (Sharma, 2006)”: one is now the IT-enabled service center of the world and the other is the factory of the world (Dahlman, 2007). In this paper, I will compare the strategies and performances of the economic reforms of China and India and ultimately argue that due to their diverging economical strategies, it is very difficult to conclude which country is superior in terms of economic development; both have major advantages and flaws that will need to be addressed before true sustainable development can be attained.

Categories
writing

Essay: Is Worldwide Collapse Inevitable?

Is Worldwide Collapse Inevitable?

By Tiffany Tong

Current globalization and international trade practices, which are frequently unsustainable, will only prolong a worldwide collapse, as defined by Joseph Tainter, not prevent one. According to Tainter, a collapsed society is one that “displays a rapid, significant loss of an established level of sociopolitical complexity[1].” Sociopolitical complexity is the differences in power structures and levels of ruling class. The indicators of a loss of sociopolitical complexity are a decrease in social stratification, economic specialization, centralized control, overall coordination of society, trading and redistribution of resources, and cultural activities such as art, buildings, and literature1.

Categories
writing

Essay: The Chinese Mercantilists

The Chinese Mercantilists

Tiffany Tong
November 15th, 2007

China has been growing in GDP at rates that the world has never seen before. It took China less than 10 years to double its GDP, while it took Britain 58 years, the USA 47 years, and Japan 34 years (Hou & Hou, 2002). Countries that started market reforms at the same time as China have all seen less growth (Remmer, 1998). There are many speculated reasons for this apparent disparity: in this essay, I will argue that a mercantilist approach to the political economy is necessary for a smooth transition into a capitalistic system with free markets. Drawing from the Chinese case study, I will attempt to identify the characteristics of the reform policies and explain why it has been so successful in terms of economic growth. In the process, I will try to answer questions such as “is creating devolution beneficial to rapid growth?” or “is a strongly autonomous government required to push reforms forward?”

3 days of field work in Bwaise (one of the largest slum areas in Kampala)

life changing? a bit

career changing? more like solidifying

We held a focus group with youth who are school dropouts, the hopelessness in their eyes about their situation on one hand, and the beautiful smiles when talking about their interests and dreams on the other…what a contrast…what an inspiration…what a cause to work for…

at the same time, I knew the passion would die down…soon

Spam prevention powered by Akismet