The numbers still sting: forty registered fish farmers, two years of implementation, hundreds of thousands of dollars invested. And when we conducted our honest mid-term evaluation, barely five people had genuinely engaged with the project. The meticulously constructed fish ponds sat stagnant, the fingerlings had long perished, and the community we came to ‘help’ regarded us with polite indifference masking deep frustration.
This wasn’t supposed to happen. We were environmental engineers, development professionals with credentials from respected institutions. We had the funding, the technical expertise, and we believed in the right solution. The village sat beside a magnificent waterway, a natural asset begging to be leveraged for aquaculture. On paper, it was perfect. In reality, it was a spectacular case study in how well-intentioned development can fail when we confuse our expertise with omniscience.
The Arrogance of Assumptions
Our mistake began long before we broke ground on those fishponds. It started the moment we looked at that river and saw fish farming without first asking the villagers what they saw, what they needed, what they dreamed of, what kept them awake at night.
When forty people registered as ‘fish farmers’ during our enrollment drive, we interpreted this as validation. We had community buy-in, or so we thought. What we actually had was a community politely playing along with outsiders who controlled resources, hoping that somewhere in our predetermined plan, their actual needs might accidentally be addressed.
The project leaders, convinced that villagers ‘lacked the technical background’ to properly use aquaculture technology, made every critical decision on their behalf. We chose the pond designs. We selected the fish species. We determined the feeding schedules and harvest protocols. We essentially asked the community to be caretakers of our vision, rather than architects of their own prosperity.
The Turning Point: When Humility Met Methodology
What finally changed wasn’t our technology or our funding level. It was our approach. In the third year, facing the reality that we’d burned through two-thirds of our budget with almost nothing to show for it, we did something radical: we listened.
We conducted a proper needs assessment. Not the box-checking exercise we’d done initially, but genuine, extended community dialogues. We sat with villagers not as experts with solutions, but as learners seeking understanding. And what we discovered shattered our assumptions.
The river that we’d seen as an aquaculture opportunity, the villagers saw primarily as a source of wild fish, transportation, and seasonal farming along its fertile banks. Aquaculture wasn’t a priority; it was our priority imposed on them. Their actual concerns centered on crop storage, market access for existing produce, and dry-season income opportunities. Some were interested in fish farming, yes, but integrated with their existing agricultural calendar in ways our rigid technical design hadn’t accommodated.
When we finally gave villagers the freedom to define their own development pathway, using our remaining third of the budget, something remarkable happened. The project, which had languished for two years, achieved a third of its original objectives in a single year—with one-third of the original budget. More importantly, it achieved goals that actually mattered to the community.
The Real Cost of Development Arrogance
That fish farming project taught me lessons I couldn’t learn in any graduate program, not even at ERAIFT where I’m now pursuing my Master’s in sustainable protected area management. The principle of ‘liberty meeting opportunity’—the foundation of every successful community initiative I’ve witnessed from Cameroon to DRC, isn’t just poetic language. It’s practical wisdom born from countless expensive failures like ours.
Consider what our arrogance cost: Beyond the wasted financial resources, we’d consumed two years of community time and goodwill. We’d reinforced villagers’ cynicism about development projects. We’d demonstrated that even ‘progressive’ development actors who speak the language of community participation can default to paternalism when we think we know better.
Three Non-Negotiable Principles for Development That Works
1) Diagnostic humility precedes program design. Needs assessments aren’t bureaucratic formalities, they’re the foundation of everything. And they must be genuine: extended dialogues, not quick surveys; open-ended questions, not leading ones; listening to what people say and what they don’t say.
2) Community co-design is non-negotiable. Participation cannot mean ‘involving communities in implementing our predetermined solutions.’ It means communities deciding what problems to solve, what success looks like, and what approaches fit their context. Our technical expertise serves their vision, not the reverse.
3) Flexibility must be built into every framework. When we discover our initial assumptions were wrong, and we will project structures must allow pivoting without the bureaucratic paralysis that forces failing programs to continue because changing course threatens funding or admits error. Adaptive management isn’t a buzzword, it’s survival.
The Fishponds That Taught Me to Listen
Those fishponds sit beside that river today, some still functioning as originally intended, others repurposed by villagers for uses we never imagined. They stand as monuments to both failure and redemption. A reminder that the hardest challenge in development isn’t technical complexity, but the infinitely difficult task of setting aside our certainty long enough to hear what communities actually need.
The woman who now runs a successful small-scale fish operation integrated with her garden told me something I’ll never forget: ‘’We knew from the start what would work and what wouldn’t. You just never asked.’’ Those words should be engraved above the entrance to every development agency, printed on every project proposal, and whispered as a prayer before every community meeting.
Africa doesn’t need more experts arriving with pre-packaged solutions. It needs partners willing to support the genius already present in every village, every community, every riverside where people have survived and often thrived long before development professionals arrived with our clipboards and certainty. That’s not a soft approach, it’s the only approach that works. And every dollar wasted, every year lost in that fish farming project stands as expensive proof.
This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the magazine as a whole. SpeakFreely is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions. Support freedom and independent journalism by donating today.
