Development projects - bridging the gap?

GHANA

Akosmobo Dam

Top-down approach

Capitalist approach  

Key Players:

• Ghanaian government
• World bank
• USA
• UK

Main problem and details of the project 

• Akosmobo Dam was built between 1961 and 1966
• flooded the land behind to create Lake Volta, world's largest artificial lake
• designed to provide electricity through a HEP plant - for smelting raw bauxite into aluminium 

POSITIVE impacts of the project

• gives Ghana capability to generate electricity for industrial purposes
• helped to expand Ghana's industry - HEP  plant supplied cheap electricity to the aluminium smelter at Tema for 30 years
• improved export trade
• exported electricity to neighbouring countries - earning overseas currency 
• increased water transport inland 
• increased ttourism - cruises on lake
• lake Volta provides a source of irrigation water for farming

NEGATIVE impacts of the project:

• most still can't afford electrictiy
• smelter was mothballed between 1998-2000
• owned by Alcan - profits from ecport sales go back to USA, not Ghana 
• flooded 4% of Ghana's land and forced 80,000 people to relocate
• reduced river flow - less food for freshwater shrimps - local people have access to less protein in their diets  
• less silt downstream - falling crop yields - greater poverty - rural to urban migration and removal of trees to see as fuelwood - deforestations 
• incrase in water-borne diseases e.g. bilharzia - result of lake

NEGATIVE impacts of the project:

• most still can't afford electrictiy
• smelter was mothballed between 1998-2000
• owned by Alcan - profits from ecport sales go back to USA, not Ghana 
• flooded 4% of Ghana's land and forced 80,000 people to relocate
• reduced river flow - less food for freshwater shrimps - local people have access to less protein in their diets  
• less silt downstream - falling crop yields - greater poverty - rural to urban migration and removal of trees to see as fuelwood - deforestations 
• incrase in water-borne diseases e.g. bilharzia - result of lake

EVALUATE COMMENT ON THE SUCCESS

A successful project regarding the electricity production and increase in trade, but not for the local peopleof Ghana who still couldn't afford basic electricity for their homes 

GHANA

Aluminium Smelter 

Top-down approach 

Capitalist approach

Key Players:

• US Governments
• Ghanaian government
• Ghana Bauxite Comapny
• Alcan, US Company 

What is the problem and details of the project

• Bauxite mined by Ghana  Bauxitecompany - 80% owned by US company Alcan 
• raw bauxite exported to Alcan  smelters in Scotland and Canada - semi-processed aluminium for the VACCA smelter at Tema - imported from Jamaica and the USA until 1980
• all value-added from Ghana's aluminium industry was going overseas
• Ghananian government purchased 90% of shares in  the smelter  ofTema in 2005 and remaining 10% in 2007

POSITIVE impacts of the project

• Ghanaian government fainlly getting control over where their raw materials, produts and profit end up 

NEGATIVE  impacts of the project

• area prone to draught - had to be closed in 2008 because low water levelsin the  dam prevented electricity production

EVALUATIVE COMMENT OF THE SUCCESS

Although government in Ghana eventually purchased all shares  in the project, with the area  prone to draught the project simply can't be very successful 

GHANA

Water Provision

Top down approach

Capitalist approach 

Key Players:

World Bank

What is the problem and details of the project:

• 62-70% of urban dwellers have access to safe water; 35-40% in rural areas
• 78% of urban poor have no piped water 
• 70% of disease in Ghana caused by poor water quality 

POSITIVE impacts  of the project

• provides safe water
• improves health for many

NEGATIVE impacts of the project

• costUS $800 million tobringclean water by 2015 to Ghana
• privatised water schemes - people have to pay for their connection and supply - many can't afford 
• 1/2 of thewater industry's 4600 employees threatended with unemployment - new private companies aim to cut costs and maximise profit
• current plans only for urban areas - what about the rest! 

EVALUATIVE COMMENT OF THE SUCCESS

Increases the development gap within the country as rural areas aren't targetted, many still can't afford it, and many may also lose their jobs.

MALAYSIA

Pergau Dam

Top-down approach

Capitalist approach 

Key Players:

Uk Government

Overseas Development Agency 

What is the problem and details of the project

• built with £234 million of British aid from the UK Government's overseas development agency
• intention of boosting Malaysian energy production
• construction began 1994, finished 2000

POSITIVE impacts of the project

• boosted Malaysian energy production
• remains one of the largest amounts of aid Britain has ever given 

NEGATIVE impacts of the project:

• ODA - concluded in 1990 that it was uneconomic
• waste of money
• unlikely to produce any long-term benefits for Malaysia
• large areas of fertile flood plain flooded by the dam's lake
• thousands of farmers displaced
• generators can only be used at peak energy hours
• tied aid - military terms with Britain

EVALUATIVE COMMENT OF THE SUCCESS

Not  very successful as cost a lot of money and the lives of many have  been disrupted rather than helped - farmers displaced (exact numbers never revealed)

UGANDA

The Cooperative

Bottom-up approach

Grassroots approach 

Key Players:

• local people
• national and international NGOs
• Action Aid - NGO

What is the problem and detail about the project

•  village of Barlonyo suffered one of the worst massacres in Uganda'shistory - rebels killed over 300 people
• now peace in the area and villagers have returned from refugee camps where they relied on food aid
• support from NGOs - local farmers have linked up to form a democratically run cooperative
• all farmers have an equal say indiscussions 

POSITIVE impacts of the project:

• farmers can share the cost of hiring a truck to transport harvest to market - improves profits as selling directly to consumers - 2008 able to sellsesame seed crop for 3x 2007 prices they earnt
• extra income has  rippled through the local economy and farmers can send their children to school - long term development
• NGOsprovide items to improve farm output and efficiency 
• seed bank set up - don't rely on TNCs 

NEGATIVE impacts of the project

• relied on NGOs at the start  for money, advice, support etc
• but now becoming more self efficient and  can do things without so much of their support 

EVALUATIVE COMMENT OF THE SUCCESS

Very successful as there wasa botto-up approach - the local people's needs  were listened to and acted upon, and therefore they are developing socially and economically

MOLDOVA - Gura Bi Cului

The Kingship Project

Bottom-up approach 

Grassroots approach 

Key Players:

• students atKing's school
• Christian responseto Eastern Europe
• local rotary club
• local people in Gura Bi Cului 

What is the problem and details of the project:

• Moldova is Europe's poorest country 
• 30% in poverty - really 60% according to UNICEF
• charity run by students at the King's school in Ottery St Mary,Devon, together withthe local rotary club and the charity Christian response to Eastern Europe
• aim to build and maintain a community centre for Gura Bi Cului
• high literacy rates but  recession has reduced school enrolement to below 75% insome rural areas 

POSITIVE impacts of the project

• community centre will provide a kitchenarea, heated shower and washing facilities, study area for school children,community bakery to provide employment and bread at a fair price 

NEGATIVE impacts of the project

• only targets a small area - slow progress
• rely on their money which may not be reliable and isn't much
• rely on their help which might not always be there

EVALUATIVE COMMENT ON THE SUCCESS

Bottom up approach = successful as their needs are being specifically acted upon

HOWEVER as government not involved not much investment in the project so won't have a huge impact

ZIMBABWE

Land Reform

Top-down approach

Populist approach 

Key Players:

• Robert Mugabe
• British government 
• White farmers/landowners

what is the problem and details of the project 

• land redistribution
• After British conquered their territoy, black Africans were restritcted to owning land in small reserves
• 1980: Britain agreed to fund land purchase from white farmers willing to sell up

POSITIVE impacts of the project:

• gave the black Zimbabweans a better chance to own land, and farm

NEGATIVE impacts of the project:

• much of land acquired this way ended jup in the hands of the inexperienced
• as  a result of the land seizures, food and cash crop production fell dramatically
• subsequent fall in exports 
• Zimbabwe headed towards famine
• increasingly reliant on World Food Prograamme for food 

EVALUATIVE COMMENT OF THE SUCCESS

Not the correct approach, so unsuccessful

Inexperienced landowners meant rather than an improvement in productivity, produce reduced and had a huge negative impact on the whole economy 

Because ideas came from those in power rather from those who knew what would be best for the communities and whole country and economy as a whole - would have been different if they had been listened to