Over the last few months, I’ve been lucky to be able to chat with a wide range of leaders across the development sector. These discussions have spanned a wide range of perspectives—from innovators and consultants to network leaders and NGO representatives, and offered deep insights into the current state and future aspirations of the global development sector. While the articles that we’ve shared show some of those keen insights, the conversations have been immensely beneficial and insightful. As we wrap up this series, I wanted to share some insights from me, and some of the key trends which came through.
Time for change
Almost every interview included a discussion on the need for change in global development. Whether through the question on localisation, technology or just hope for 2024, change remained one of the biggest ideas. The question on localisation was purposefully framed to ask what needs to be done to drive this into action. While there is a huge acknowledgement of change needed, action is still hard to find.
Weh Yeoh from the Consultants article summed it up “My hope is that we use this opportunity to rethink the business of helping and trying to come up with new models and new ways of doing what we do rather than replicating the same old methods.” It’s the models, the systems and the structures that need to change, and I think that’s part of why it’s so hard. We want to make the change through discussion, through workshops and events (all very much critical), but following from Josh Hallwright’s insights, “Much greater attention needs to be placed on the ‘boring revolution’ – how contracts and partnership agreements are made, how accounting practices need to shift, how Board KPIs need to shift etc.” And even in finance, we can change, as Cameron shared “there’s no reason that capital needs to work the way that it currently does. It’s designed by a human. It can be completely different, with a completely different outcome. But it starts with being able to imagine that it could be different.”
Technology impacts us all, but we need to think how to use it
Going into this series, AI was a huge piece of news. New generative models, AI consultancies from development actors, and the use of AI systems in conflict zones. So I expected technology to be met with wariness and hesitancy. But, overall, I found that most are pretty open and accepting of technology. There was a lot of interesting how AI can make things easier, including Beth’s question of “Can AI help us do more with less?” to Peter Rudd’s insights on AI for fundraising, or Peter Russell’s insights on AI systems to support localised training.
But, what captured my thoughts the most was the main question still on how do these benefit and support communities. Technology is here, but technology is a tool that we need to manage and utilise. It doesn’t solve everything, can certainly make things worse, but it can also help us build and leverage. Siale spoke in depth (I have over 6 pages of notes form our call!), around making technology and innovation accountable to communities. “It’s to make sure that we are in there and make those development ecosystems all of it have a sense that it is accountable to people.” Technology can help, but what’s most critical now is the accountability and transparency to make it work for everyone, not just a few.
Aid of its current character is not development
Some of my favorite conversations are those that leave me a bit uncomfortable after. Not because they are wrong, but they force a shift in thinking and to re-evaluate why I’m in this sector. Soli has an incredible ability to challenge and shape the conversation, and move thinking form what is, to what needs to be. Her insights on local development and aid were on point: “it is an unchecked donor-driven system beset by excessive power and control to benefit the system and its agents. Such aid may result in some success but it systematically fails to empower Pacific agency and to reduce aid dependency.”
The last line has stuck with me, it may work a bit, and our measures will probably find some change to show it was useful, but when we step back, the same systems are still in place, that extract value and leave communities dependant.
While localisation has been around for a while, as Jess mentioned “We are still at the starting line of localisation, and there’s consensus that it’s a priority… but we are still defining what it means to be doing localisation well.” As we move to action, defining and understand what localisation means, not just for global actors, but the communities that will lead, is critical. Peter Russel said it well “Local-led development is not just a practice but a structural change requiring actionable steps from development organizations and donors.” But, most critically was Mark Cubit’s comment: “If the sector doesn’t localise adequately, it will continue its declining influence of the last decade”. Localisation is not a good thing to do, it’s what needs to happen.
The conversations over the last few months have been exciting, insightful, challenging and valuable. I want to thank each of the interviewees for their time and insights, it was an incredible privilege to speak with each of them, and hear more about what the development sector is thinking, and what it can look like as we step further into 2024.