Post by Ann Witmer on Feb 3, 2017 16:06:33 GMT
My University had a long-standing relationship with a community in Ecuador through an education-focused NGO that operated schools in the town. At one time, an NGO leader approached the University asking for help with a farming irrigation project. They said farming was the “lifeblood” of this small community and that saving it was a priority of the people living there.
Illinois took up the call, even creating a semester-long course to study and plan the project. When students and faculty made a visit to the site in 2015, however, they found a political and social situation very different from the picture painted by the NGO. Only those who were members of the area’s indigenous group by blood or marriage had access to the land and could participate in political process and land management — meaning only one quarter of community residents had a say in decisions and could benefit. In addition, the younger generations didn’t view farming as a viable career, and instead were preparing for high-skilled professional jobs in cities. They’d rather see the land developed into housing.
We don’t know for certain the motive of the NGO workers who pushed for the irrigation. Was it financially motivated because the land is extremely valuable? Was it a quaint idea of protecting tradition? We don’t know. We do know that whatever is was, it didn’t reflect the majority feeling of the community.
In the end, the university team cancelled the project. I think that demonstrates maturity in decision-making that we didn’t just say, “We’ve come this far, so we’ll push forward.” If we had completed the project it may have done more political harm than good.
To put the best face on it, you could say that the NGO had good intentions, but little thought to later impacts. You could also say that the residents were willing to shrug shoulders and go along with NGO’s plans just because someone was offering to do something for them for free.
Illinois took up the call, even creating a semester-long course to study and plan the project. When students and faculty made a visit to the site in 2015, however, they found a political and social situation very different from the picture painted by the NGO. Only those who were members of the area’s indigenous group by blood or marriage had access to the land and could participate in political process and land management — meaning only one quarter of community residents had a say in decisions and could benefit. In addition, the younger generations didn’t view farming as a viable career, and instead were preparing for high-skilled professional jobs in cities. They’d rather see the land developed into housing.
We don’t know for certain the motive of the NGO workers who pushed for the irrigation. Was it financially motivated because the land is extremely valuable? Was it a quaint idea of protecting tradition? We don’t know. We do know that whatever is was, it didn’t reflect the majority feeling of the community.
In the end, the university team cancelled the project. I think that demonstrates maturity in decision-making that we didn’t just say, “We’ve come this far, so we’ll push forward.” If we had completed the project it may have done more political harm than good.
To put the best face on it, you could say that the NGO had good intentions, but little thought to later impacts. You could also say that the residents were willing to shrug shoulders and go along with NGO’s plans just because someone was offering to do something for them for free.