You know what I would love to do? I’d love to start an effort devoted entirely to solving the easy problems in the world. Not a new NGO; you know how I feel about that, but a division within a major existing group. It would be funded by donations, not government grants, and focus on the low-hanging fruit in relief and development. Heck, we could call it Low Hanging Fruit, and live with the inevitable LHF acronym. We wouldn’t worry about sustainability, but we’d have a big focus on local involvement.
There are a million little ideas we all run into, that don’t fit with any expressed donor priorities, but would so obviously make a useful different in the world. LHF would work on those. We’d document everything to pieces, so it would also serve as research on what works. Every community we worked in would have a paired control community with similar demographics, and as soon as we could demonstrate an intervention was working, we’d extend it into the control group so they could benefit too.
Because the focus would be on simple solutions, I think it would be easy (well, easier) to get the kind of individual donations we’d need to keep our programs going. A hippo roller or better irrigation is an easy sell, and easy to illustrate in photographs.
I’m not arguing that these kinds of quick fixes are the answer to the world’s problems; far from it. International development needs long-term approaches to major structural problems. But sometimes a band-aid help your wound heal faster, and it’s frustrating to see someone hurting when a five cent piece of plastic and gauze could make a difference.
Here’s some of what we’d do:
Irrigation: Irrigation water all over the world runs in open ditches. Water is then lost to evaporation and seepage into the ground. LHF would cement and enclose drainage ditches. We’d do it if farmers in the community agreed to provide a certain amount of labor. We would know if it was working by measuring water flows.
Water and Sanitation: We’d support distribution of the hippo roller, and the playpump. We’d know they were working if we saw a decrease in waterborne illness, or a decrease in the average reported time spent on fetching water.
Health: We’d teach parents how to make ORS at home, and work with communities to help them establish emergency transport funds for health emergencies and pregnancy, and nutrition education. We’d support new mobile phone applications to improve access to data for health care providers and remind patients on ARV and DOTS regimes to take their medicine.
ETA: Thinking about this some more, any large NGO could establish an internal “low-hanging fruit” fund. Country directors could submit projects to be supported from that pool of funds, based on opportunities they have seen that no major donor is interested in supporting. The fund pool could come from dedicated LHF fundraising or general unrestricted donor funds.
—————
(photo credit: sebastien.b)
Collectively we know exactly what we need to do in order to fix a wide range of very simply things that would improve the basic quality of life for millions of people around the world; it’s just that we don’t do them.
Sounds like the guinea worm work at The Carter Center:
“Health education and low-technology measures to promote behavioral change are used to prevent Guinea worm disease. The most effective way to prevent it is to filter the tiny water fleas out of drinking water. The Carter Center provides families with fine-mesh filter cloths that fit over clay pots used to hold water. Some people, especially nomadic groups, receive pipe filters, which are small straw-like personal filters that can be worn around the neck. These simple but revolutionary devices enable people to drink water safely no matter where they are.”
http://www.cartercenter.org/health/guinea_worm/index.html
Of course, it helps if the person asking for donations is the former President of the US!
Good show–in broad agreement that this is a good idea. I have been thinking somewhat similar thoughts, but of course in the bilateral setting. Not an impossible pipedream, as far as I’m concerned.
Love it. Also love the “document everything to pieces, so it would also serve as research on what works” – under an open license of course. (I know you’re aware of open licenses, but many aren’t).
I’d be inclined to choose some different technologies – e.g. treadle pumps are probably more cost effective than play pumps. But we can let the LHF people and the target communities decide the details.
it’s gotta be the right low hanging fruit. ORS is often made with contaminated water – the water from making dhal is traditionally used for this purpose in some areas, and that comes sterile. The playpump is ok but have you seen rope pumps?
I’m all about low hanging fruit, and documenting everything to the point where replication is possible, but I _really_ think we have to be very, very precise in selecting the technologies to scale.
But apart from those quibbles, with it 100%.
Vinay – Your point on choosing the right fruit is very true. And I admit, I’m fascinated by the playpump because it’s so charming. I don’t have the background to evaluate efficiency.
Chris – I keep forgetting open license isn’t an automatic idea…
[…] Blood and Milk: Low Hanging Fruit […]
I agree entirely that we should target low-hanging fruit. I guess a few questions come to mind:
1. Why are these not part of donor priorities in the first place? They really should be.
2. A bit more sceptical, but the obvious (Easterly-inspired?) question is, if what people needed was rolling water containers wouldn’t they have invented them a long time ago? And if they are so cheap, why aren’t people willing to pay for them? I guess this question is quite specific, but can be applied more broadly…why are concepts we think of as quick wins not thought of as such by poor people? Or maybe I’m wrong, and they are, but there is some other problem…
3. I think that documenting “everything to pieces” and using a “paired control community” risks the viability of the idea. Its merit is in being quick and flexible. Covering it with so many other things risks slowing it down. As an example, in business (and I realise I may be tiring you with comparisons to the business world…) you simply wouldn’t see that kind of approach. You would come up with an idea, run it by a few people, try it out, and then either run with it or bin it. There would be some evaluation, of course, but nothing to seriously impede the idea being implemented.
Philip,
1. In my experience, donor priorities cover big overarching goals like reducing poverty, improving access to health care, or improving the environment for microfinance. Fitting one small solution into that kind of comprehensive effort is difficult.
2. That is a great question, and not one I have an easy answer to. In some cases, a solution has been identified by a local community but they lack the resources to implement. For example, farmers everywhere will tell you they need enclosed irrigation.
3. I don’t think that documentation or choosing a control community would slow down implementation. Choosing a control could be done using existing demographic and geographic data. Documentation doesn’t need to be arduous, either. Plenty of rapid assessment tools exist. Well-chosen evaluation does not impede implementation, it improves it.
I disagree with the premise of your business example. Business do market assessments before they introduce new products or services, and they have metrics to make sure that their product/service is actually being purchased. No one would run a business with a way of knowing whether or not they were making money, growing, capturing new customers and so on. That’s exactly what monitoring and evaluation is.
Thanks for the quick response!
I take your point with regard to business. You’re right that ideas are tested, results are measured, and so on. I guess that in business sometimes these things are more easily measurable: sales, revenue, profits, etc. Your idea to try to find good measurements for the LHF venture is really good.
My point about business was maybe more low-level, however. A lot of work goes in to test over-arching strategies and big product launches, but successful organisations are those that allow people at all levels to try to make positive contributions where they see a need. Actually, your idea is just that, and so I’m a supporter, with the caveat that people need to be able to act quickly and flexibly, and so everything needs to be done to ensure that that’s possible.
Not a huge fan of either the hippodrum or the playpump, but you have a point.
(If you are wondering why…the hippodrum costs $90 which is ridiculous for a plastic garbage can with a stick through it; not to mention that it doesn’t work half the time because most of the paths people walk on are not flat, and a less than full drum is very uncomfortable to roll around; the playpump desperately needs to update their model…again costs simply too much to install and the design is horribly outdated).
pragzz- thanks for the hippo roller and playpump info. That’s really useful. And it points to the larger question of how a low hanging fruit effort would vet ideas for effectieness.
[…] community could have a large collective impact. One idea that intrigues me is the idea of “low hanging fruit“: problems are relatively small compared to big systemic issues but, are much easier to solve […]