Episode 5: Learning and Accountability
Ann-Murray Brown is Jamaican and lived and studied in South Korea for some years before adopting The Netherlands as her second home. She is a seasoned monitoring and evaluation expert and has been involved in consultancies funded and implemented by the United Nations, the European Commission and others. She has conducted and commissioned many evaluations and designed Results-Based Management (RBM) systems to measure performance of programmes implemented in Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burundi, Colombia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Jamaica, Sierra Leone and several countries in Asia. She joins us from Amsterdam, Netherlands.
She speaks to us about:
monitoring and evaluation capacity building
participatory and bottoms up approaches
working as a civil servant
going beyond the idea of evaluation as a policing role
the importance of learning and accountability
having a seat at the table and representation
communities of practice
adaptive management and the COVID-19 pandemic,
earning from mistakes
donor requirements
applying a gendered lens - and much more.
Editors Note: The transcript has been slightly edited for brevity and clarity.
Transcript
Intro: I think a lot of the work that we do in development is led by persons in the field, persons who maybe their day to day job is not monitoring and evaluation, but they’re the ones on the front line and being confronted with the issues. And I saw a disconnect in we’re asking these persons to monitor, collect data, track, do results based monitoring — “what, huh, results based what, what is this?” Right? So that sparked a passion in me in translating that academic technical language into a language that everyone can understand.
Safa: Welcome back to the Rethinking Development Podcast. My name is Safa and I will be your host as we speak with and learn from practitioners of all backgrounds and affiliations around the world. In our conversations, we aim to rethink ethical behavior and best practices through the lived experiences and personal reflections of different practitioners. Our guest today is Miss Ann-Murry Brown. Ann is Jamaican and lived and studied in South Korea for some years before adopting the Netherlands as her second home ten years ago. She’s a seasoned monitoring and evaluation expert and has been involved in consultancies funded and implemented by the United Nations, the European Commission, amongst others. Her sectorial interests are gender equality, poverty reduction, migration, social protection, child protection, human rights and justice reform. She has conducted as well as commission several evaluations and designed results based management systems to measure performance of programs implemented in Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burundi, Colombia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Jamaica, Sierra Leone and several countries in Asia. The main focus of her work is evaluation capacity building. Using visual storytelling, she translates technical M&E concepts and jargon into accessible language and conducts virtual and onside workshops to this end. Ann, thank you so much for speaking with us today.
Ann: Thank you for having me.
Safa: Wonderful. Maybe we can begin by you first telling us how you entered into this type of work, what you initially were drawn to, what you were motivated by and a bit about that early stage of your career.
Ann: Okay, well, to be quite honest, monitoring and evaluation is something I stumbled into. It wasn’t planned at all. I knew, though, that I wanted to help people so I have always been drawn to development work from a young child growing up in Jamaica. There was a lot of need and persons needed help. So from a young age, I was involved in helping school projects, helping around at hospitals, clinics and that way so I knew I wanted to work in an area that helped people. And that led me to select the studies that I did, which initially I studied sociology and psychology and I thought my career would have been on that trajectory. And the monitoring and evaluation came later. I rolled into that during my time with the United Nations and they were rolling out their results based management system at that time and everyone just had to learn it, this thing, the log frame, all so new. And then I realized, Oh, not only did I learn it, but I actually liked it. And then the rest is history.
Safa: So you mentioned working with UNDP in Jamaica?
Ann: Yes, UNDP in Jamaica. But like in most countries, the head of the UNDP is also the head of the entire UN system in the country, so all the other UN agencies would also report to the head of UNDP, and I was attached to that person’s office, so all my work had to do with all the areas — back then it was Millennium Development Goals, now we have the Sustainable Development Goals. So everything related to the MDGs in country at the time. So, yes, UNDP but technically the Coordination Office of the UN Agencies.
Safa: I see. And what were your experiences with the training processes that were offered in terms of monitoring and evaluation but also discussions about the ethics involved in doing this type of work?
Ann: I realized that a lot of the training — for some reason, people are scared of monitoring and evaluation when they hear it, for different reasons. I think partly because aspects of it can be so technical, the jargon, the language, and I found that the trainings were quite frankly stiff and boring and academic, right? So that’s the first part. In relation to the ethics, I’ve not personally encountered any experience that had me going “Hmm, what’s happening here?” But I think a lot of the resistance towards monitoring and evaluation is that maybe persons believe it’s a policing role. And there is some resistance because of that. Definitely sometimes when an evaluation report is written, like in my time at the UN, there might be forces that say, okay, could you word that a little bit differently? Or maybe you didn’t consider that. What about the language in this? Because then it might have implications for how we proceed further with the program. But thankfully, I haven’t had much issues there with the ethics.
Safa: I see. So you mentioned you were drawn to this work, it was very interesting for you. What did you feel is the value of it, or what is the kind of motivation you had in terms of following this further on?
Ann: A big part of what I do now is evaluation capacity building and that is making monitoring and evaluation accessible. That is my main motivation. Because as I say, people tend to be either intimidated or they are not understanding. And I think a lot of the work that we do in development, it is led by persons in the field, persons who maybe their day to day job is not monitoring and elevation, but they’re the ones on the front line and being confronted with the issues. And I saw a disconnect in we’re asking these persons to monitor, collect data, track do results based monitoring “what, huh, results based, what is this?” Right? So that spark a passion in me in translating that academic technical language into a language that everyone can understand. And this is how I got pulled into the training aspects of monitoring and evaluation and developing training manuals, doing workshops and also I love the interactions that I get to have with persons who are actually in the field and doing the work. Now in a time of COVID, more than ever, we rely on perhaps non technical people who are in the local context to do the remote monitoring for us and to collect that data.
Safa: Absolutely. You mentioned that part of what you continue to love about the process is the interaction with people. In terms of your role as a trainer or a facilitator or a teacher, what are some of the things that you think are always important to share with the participants in your workshops? Or what are some of the key moral guidelines or just ideas that you’re always keen to share or make sure that people take away from the workshops and interactions?
Ann: First of all, that it is participatory and it’s not top down and the power dynamic is not me coming to enforce or to thrust this idea on you. At all times, I would love to see ownership, and you talk about persons in my workshop, they have to understand the why because sometimes it’s mandatory attendance and sometimes they don’t even know why they are even in the workshop, right? It’s to make it clear how that relates to their work and why monitoring, proper tracking, is important and why evaluation is important for learning and not necessarily for accountability or for reporting to the donor. So I think at all times I try to stress that and to stress that monitoring and evaluation is part of what you should do naturally, it underpins all aspects of development work. It’s not a separate, discrete activity that you see as an add on or something extra on top of what you already do. In your everyday work, it is built in, it is entrenched, and it is something that you ought to be doing in a natural, organic way anyhow. So that is what I try to impress upon persons in my workshops. So to recap, the whole participatory aspect of it, getting their ownership or buy in, and to stress that it’s an ongoing process that should be embedded in their everyday work.
Safa: In terms of the participatory processes, whether it’s in relationship to just maybe gathering base line data or in relationship to actually rolling out a program, what are your thoughts on the level of use of participatory methods or participatory approaches? In your experience, is it being used enough? Is it being used correctly?
Ann: My experience has been that we like to talk about participation, right. Talk. And don’t actually get in the action of doing it, and I see in the past where participation was limited to consultation. So ticking a box, like, okay, I asked the local stakeholder or I asked the beneficiary what they thought. Tick the box and then that’s it. And then from the consultation, input is taken and then the report is written, and then maybe the same person who gave the input never sees that report again or even if they see it, it’s written in such a way that it’s still not accessible, right. True participation goes beyond consultation and at every stage, each stake holder should be involved from designing the program, implementing the program, the evaluation and the entire follow up and the feedback loops should be there. And I think that is when participation becomes more than just a talk shop and is actually real and has lasting results.
Safa: So there’s an element of building trust and making it a long term relationship or contact?
Ann:Yes.
Safa: In terms of ensuring quality standards throughout the different steps of the process, have you noticed some common barriers or shortcomings? Are there some quality issues or common shortcomings that you’ve noticed?
Ann: Well, yes, because especially in the context, like, say, Jamaica, let me just stick with that example, sometimes it can be confusing when you have different donors operating in the same space or different international development partners that each usually have their own quality assurance systems, their own terminologies, their own templates. And then, in an effort to keep on top of everything, sometimes quality is compromised. Wherein maybe you would have an indicator, to use a practical example, an indicator for example to measure poverty in Jamaica, it relies on traditional indicators like level of income. But in the Jamaican context, that is not really the only way to know economic well being because there is a large informal economy where people earn money in the informal sector- like they sell on the side of the road, but they don’t pay tax on that, so that is not captured in the formal economy. When you have standards from different donors that just focus on salary from a regular job and you just stick to that and you don’t deviate from that, then the quality can be compromised, that goes back again to the participatory nature, that if you had consulted persons there in the context, you would have realized that for proper quality, you have to use other proxy indicators, right? I’m just giving a very specific example, not just going with industry standards that might work in a different context, but not in this context and having true participation.
Safa: Earlier on in your career, you also had an experience working with the Ministry of Justice in Jamaica. Could you tell us about that experience and what it was like to be part of the work that was happening there?
Ann: That was a very interesting time, working with the civil service in Jamaica. And at that time I focused mostly on governance and justice reform. And it was very interesting because Jamaica struggles with criminality and in the past the justice system was very punitive and at that time they were introducing restorative justice and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. So that was my first introduction in monitoring and evaluating programs of that sort and it really opened my eyes a whole lot to the different ways of working because before I was just focused on the social, sociology and the psychological aspect of things. So that was very interesting, because that has formed the basis, even later on, like in other post conflict countries, I had no idea that my experience at the ministry of justice would would come back in terms of mediation and crisis management, now working in other countries.
Safa: Very interesting. You mentioned working with the civil service, later on in your consultancies where you had to work with donors or with government partners and stakeholders, what do you think their role is, or how have you been able to navigate some of the conditions or terms of references, in terms of balancing it out with the needs of the community or what you yourself think is important to do or include in terms of the work or the activities?
Ann: It is always a balancing act, which once again, it is being the participatory nature of the job and the delicate balance that I do as a facilitator to ensure that all sides are heard or represented. I think that there will always be a little bit of a challenge. It’s less for me now, because I am an independent consultant. But when I was working within the cvil service, so to speak, I had to operate within certain parameters, right, because of course, any position that I take, it’s an official minister position, right? It’s not the position of an independent consultant. In those cases, dialogue and participation is crucial and what I really found useful during my ministry days, we would have these consultative bodies and committees, and on that committee would sit — like we had Jamaicans for Justice and we would have the armed forces and everyone would sit at the table in these consultative meetings before a legislation is past or a policy is drafted and give their input. And I think that is how you help, in not having one stakeholder having an overwhelming voice, so to speak.
Safa: You also had an experience of living in Korea. Could you speak to us about how that influenced you, or what that experience taught you in terms of work that is being done in other countries in different ways?
Ann: How I ended up in Korea, that is very interesting in that I got a full scholarship from the Korean government and this is what I would recommend to anyone who really is thinking of having a career in international development. Try as much as possible to get experiences in different countries. If you are from what we call the West or the North, then it is good to get experience in the South, and vice versa from the South, it is good to get experience in the North. And I got a full scholarship to study and work a bit in South Korea. Their whole approach was very intriguing in how they went about development cooperation. And I think that was a defining moment that really launched my international career, so to speak. Before that, I was just working in the civil service in Jamaica, then after my experience in Korea, I went on to work with UNDP in Jamaica. It’s a very different way of thinking in terms of development, the Koreans were, I think, ahead of the times back then in thinking of adaptive monitoring and evaluation and also really pushing for gender and gender and development back then. At the time it was the MDGs as well so they were very focused on that and spending a large percentage of their GDP towards the MDGs at the time, so it was a very interesting experience.
Safa: You mentioned the MDGs and now we’re in the era of the SDGs, how is work being done differently do you think under the SDGs as compared to the MDGs?
Ann: I think now we have more experience coming from the MDGs to the SDGs, more experience in working and developing composite indicators, having long term development plans, but I don’t see much of a difference in how we have worked towards achieving sustainable development. What I do think, though, is that of course, there are certain issues that continue to have maybe more relevance, without being too political, like climate change and there are other SDGs that will have more attention at different times. Like right now with what’s happening with CVOID-19 more health issues take centre stage and so forth.
Safa: In terms of the work that you’ve been doing, whether in Jamaica or other countries, have you ever felt that your identity as a woman or as Jamaican or whatever it may be, has influenced the way others see you or the interactions you have or the work opportunities that you have?
Ann: Yes, most definitely. I think as I mentioned before, growing up in a developing country, the experiences were very real to me and the challenges. And I think that gives me a sort of empathy in how I approach my work and why I am big on participation and soliciting the views of people who have to live that reality. And I feel fortunate and privileged that now I get to navigate two worlds — living in the Netherlands, country of wealth, where there is abundance and the whole approach to development is different. It’s providing aid. While in Jamaica it’s being recipients of aid. And I’ve been fortunate to sit on different sides of the table, one in the capacity of actually designing programs to benefit persons in developing countries and also to be the recipient. I think it has definitely shaped how I approach things. Sometimes it has made me very very critical and I am trying to be so very politically correct for persons who are listening. But there are things that I am more critical of and question like when I see things coming from the North and I’m like, Oh, do you know this? Oh, did you consult? Have you taken the views of the participants there, the beneficiaries? And even in terms of even the language that is used. Like in the past, I would work on poverty alleviation and you would hear things like victim support and even use of language — that no it’s not victims, people are survivors and what about economic empowerment rather than say poverty alleviation? So I think it has made me a little more critical as well. And as you mentioned, being a woman and being an ethnic woman on top of that as well has really let me look at things in a different lens, and I think it’s only an advantage that when I sit at a table, especially here in the Netherlands and other European countries, I can bring that to the table and to offer people a different perspective on the programs that they are designing to be implemented in the South.
Safa: Absolutely. Over the years have you maybe noticed that there are more diverse voices when it comes to positions of leadership or participation? Or do you feel that there is still a long way to go in terms of having greater diversity of people of different backgrounds participating in development programs and leadership positions and such?
Ann: Yes and no. And once again, I can only speak of what I have seen for myself with my eyes, their has been an increase in the level of participation of persons, of women, ethnic women, people from developing countries and so for it. But what I’ve seen is that that participation is sometimes limited to the field, but really at the high level policy making, strategic level within international development organizations, at the really high level, I see wherein more could be done to have better representation and to go beyond tokenism and to go beyond okay we ‘consulted’ but rather have meaningful participation. I think there’s some ways to go. And the practice I’ve seen is that people with a certain background from the South or so, they are just used in the field, more or less, not in every case you know, I’m over generalizing, but when you look on the governing boards and the supervisory boards and the decision making bodies or structures within organizations, there needs to be more diversity and representation I believe.
Safa: In terms of developing a community of practice or peer to peer knowledge, expertise and exchange. What have been your experiences in terms of is this something that’s used often? Or are there tips or thoughts you have in terms of really using this as a good resource amongst colleagues, amongst piers in this industry?
Ann: Yes, I mean communities of practice has been around for a good while, people are part of their professional associations. In my case, I speak of the American Evaluation Association, the European Evaluation Society. If you are part of these professional groups, there is a community of practice, you know, whether online or you have the conferences where you have informal and formal networking. So it’s definitely of value, and it has been used and even more now the online and the remote access to these platforms is crucial.
Safa: Related to that, I was also wondering if you could maybe speak to us about some of the current M&E development standards that you think are maybe newer or they’re kind of innovative in the way that they’re being used or applied. Are there any examples or new practices that you’ve heard of?
Ann: Well, the OECD/DAC recently published their new evaluation standards and a new criterion that they added had to do with coherence. And this has to do basically with how all the interventions in an area, in a specific country or sector, are aligned with what other actors are doing. To cut down on the duplication of efforts. For example, you have in one community six donor agencies having six separate programs on tackling sanitation. So I think this is a new and useful evaluation standard. So when we’re conducting evaluations, we look at the complementarity of this particular program, how it is embedded in what’s happening in that space and with other actors. So I think that is good and that is a positive trend. I also believe the use of more complexity aware evaluation tools, the world that we’re living in now, I keep going back to COVID-19 and depending on when you listen to this, well, no doubt you will know what COVID-19 is and right now it is topical and the more complexity aware evaluation methods are and the more adaptive evaluation methods are, that is now cutting edge, that is what we need to evaluate programs or to monitor in this time of great challenges with COVID-19.
Safa: Absolutely, this global coronavirus pandemic that we’re all living through. Speaking of that, one thing that I’m seeing is that in a time of crisis, the speed at which policies or programs are designed and rolled out is somewhat maybe more important than how much time or planning goes into it, what do you think this will mean in terms of the future and the ongoing impacts of the new policies and programs that each country is designing in its own way in respective to its own needs?
Ann: Well, the thing is, this is why adaptive management and adaptive monitoring any evaluation comes in, you know, to be agile. Being quick doesn’t necessarily mean flawed or low quality. And I think it’s good, it changes the way we go about it, because if you look at how different countries have approached the current pandemic, you realize that the ones who have been slower to respond usually had more disastrous results, right? So I think moving forward policies we will have to be swifter, much quicker to adapt to the emerging needs, you know, if we are going to survive, for want of a better word. So I think maybe it is too early to tell if this has changed the way we do things, but when we can’t sit years to get certain policies through or to get certain decisions made, what this pandemic has shown is that we need the real time data, real time information, more agile and quicker responses, and to formulate policies and strategies and make the decisions in a much quicker timeframe.
Safa: You know, you mentioned agile is not necessarily low quality of course, but in terms of your experiences of maybe doing an evaluation and it revealing that the intended outcome was not achieved or there was unintended harm that was done, in cases or experiences where an evaluation has revealed something that maybe for lack of a better word you could call a failure or something just not working out as intended, do you think that most organizations do well in learning from that, in adjusting, in improving based on that information, or do you think there is still maybe not enough done to learn from mistakes?
Ann: Well, it depends on the the organization. As I say, evaluations usually serve two main purposes. One is learning, the other is accountability. Thankfully, the past few years, the trend has been more for learning and hopefully to change your actions based on the learning because sometimes learning took place but no action afterwards. And good monitoring and evaluation practitioners want to see the unexpected changes and the unintended consequences, right? Like I can remember an example of a program for farmers to engage in more sustainable farming practices and use more modern equipment for farming. But what this meant is that poor farmers went out of business because they couldn’t afford new machinery, and then some moved to the city and became part of the urban poor. Now, that is the unintended negative consequence of your intervention that was made to help these same people. However, it’s good to learn from it and to adopt other programs moving forward, and I think a lot of organizations have come far in expecting that evaluations are not just a policing function but if you are to not just survive now a-days, but to thrive, you have to learn and improve.
Safa: Yes, I think that’s very well said. When it comes to the conversation around the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the issues or factors is the gendered impact that it has in different contexts in different countries. In terms of gender sensitive research or evaluation practices or creating gender sensitive indicators, what are some of the issues or barriers you think exist? I know it’s hard to generalize, every organization has their own processes or priorities, but just some general thoughts or reflections you have in terms of making processes more gender sensitive?
Ann: It comes down to everything that you are collecting and every program that you’re designing, that you just use your gender lens and consider the women involved because interestingly I was reading a report today by UN Women that was stating that the COVID-19 pandemic has actually increased the reported incidents of domestic violence against women. During the pandemic now, persons have been under quarantine or lock down and they have seen wherein being with an abusive partner in a confined space for extended periods of time led to more abuse. Now, this is something good that it is being tracked, it is being monitored, that organizations even thought to measure this, because maybe they could have just been distracted with how many new infections, how many persons in the intensive care unit — so I think having that sensitivity, that whatever we do, pandemic or not, just to have gendered indicators and a gendered lens when examining that phenomenon is crucial.
Safa: Mhmm. Could you tell us a bit about some of the work you’re currently drawn to or participating in?
Ann: I’m currently working with an economic empowerment program in Jamaica. Naturally, I’m drawn to that, I’m from Jamaica. And also, working with scientists in developing countries, and this is natural science, like biology and chemistry. How does a social scientists get into that? It is about looking at the impact that their research, their scientific breakthrough has had for their communities and for increasing the capacity of other scientists within developing countries. I find that type of work very interesting because of the sustainability aspect of it, both the economic empowerment project in Jamaica and also the other one in Italy, very interesting.
Safa: Do you feel that maybe over the years your motivations have changed when it comes to what it is you want to contribute to or achieve in your work?
Ann: Yes, yes it has. It has. But one thing that has remained constant, that is to help people. And I do that by using my gift and that gift is to make programs that we implement for them more sustainable and to have results. And how do we do that? By effective monitoring and evaluation. So depending on my clients or where I’m working, I would have maybe been drawn to different areas. Like at the Ministry it was more governance and justice reform. At UNDP it was pulled into poverty. And over the years I’ve pulled into gender things. But I think that at the basis of it all, it is all about helping people and if I can make the projects that help people more effective and have results, then I’m happy.
Safa: Fantastic. Has there been a person, whether it’s a mentor or colleague or a supervisor or someone in your career, in your professional life that has had a great influence on how you view the work or just something from them that you’ve carried on in the way you approach the work that you do?
Ann: So I would have to think of Minh Pham, he was the UN Resident Coordinator (in Jamaica), the head of the UN system there and he has been very instrumental, I don’t think he even knows, in my career. I mean, I just loved how as the head of the UN system there, how collaborative his approach was in getting all the stakeholders on the same page, how he facilitated all the meetings, all the workshops and he had a genuine interest in people and a genuine interest in building consensus. And that is something that I have tried to model in my work, all about consensus building and finding solutions that everyone can be happy with and just his approach to development work, that it is a partnership and that it is win win. Life is not about zero sum and that everyone can have their needs met and everyone has something to offer. And it’s all about partnerships and together we can make it happen.
Safa: I think that’s beautifully said. And maybe it’s something that we’re seeing more of now in this time of the coronavirus pandemic. One aspect of the work that you do in capacity building is also creating visuals in order to help people better understand evaluation terms and concepts. We also live in a time right now where the visual medium, whether it’s videos or pictures, scrolling on social media, it’s a very visual oriented consumer culture in terms of the information that we get from the world, what do you think is the importance of including visuals in the work that organizations and individuals do?
Ann: I think it’s very important, especially with evaluations and the reports I mean. In how most of them have been written in the past, very academic, which is good for a journal. However, the thing about evaluations is that if we want the findings to be utilized, then they have to be written in a way that speaks or engages the potential audience and the users of these evaluation reports are usually non technical people. They are people outside even the development field, they are persons working in the hospital, working at the schools. And these people are bombarded — the age that we live in now, where with social media, with so much advertisement, in that if we want to engage persons, than visuals are absolutely important and there’s nothing wrong with having the traditional evaluation report, that is good for documentation purposes and for your archives and persons who want that length and depth of information. But for the regular, ‘regular’ quote on quote stakeholder, then it is an absolute must, I think, to use infographics and visuals to make what persons would normally find intimidating and boring, more engaging and exciting.
Safa: In your work as a consultant, you’ve done projects for the private sector, the public sector, international organizations. What would you say are the nuances or the differences of doing consultancies perhaps for the private sector in comparison to NGOs or the international development sector?
Ann: Well, what I find is for the non governmental organizations, a lot of their focus sometimes - and I’m broad brushing, but I think some donors are more flexible than others. But a lot of the emphasis when I work with a non government organization in country, their concerns seem more to be are we meeting the donor requirements?This donor says that they need X, Y and Z, and we want to make sure that we’re compliant. So it’s a ticking the box exercise if I come there to evaluate, and just to ensure that okay we submit the quarterly report or submit the evaluation report, check it off the list, we submitted it, it is done. While for my clients who are donors, their interests usually lie more on learning. How can we learn and improve? How can we enhance this program? How can we make it better? Yes, there are some reporting obligations as well because they do have their templates and their standards and their evaluation questions of what they want to know. But they’re more interested in what is the impact, what is the sustainability, what has been the social return on investment for all these years that we have been in country, all these years we have been contributing to the development of this sector? So more of learning and the sustainability for donors and international development organizations, while for the NGO’s within country, it’s more accountability, ticking the box, and of course I’m over generalizing. It’s not like that in all cases.
Safa: Of course, I understand, but that’s a very interesting, markedly different approach or priority that each has. When you think of the international development industry, for lack of a better word, at large, and you just think of generally the way things are done or the systems that are in place, or the ways in which programs are sustained or introduced or designed- just generally, again very broad stroke, are there reflections that you might have in terms of things that you think could be changed, could be improved?
Ann: Well again, it might sound like I am beleaguering the same point, but more bottoms up and less top down when designing these strategic plans and coming up with these indicators and what will be the interventions or the road map, whatever you want to call it just to have genuine participation and involvement of the persons whose lives will be affected. And also to do development not because every other system is doing it, so we’re just going to do it this way as well. I know collectively we all have to contribute to the SDGs and there are some standard indicators, right? But some of that can be nuanced to the local context to make it work in that reality.
Safa: Absolutely. Thank you so much, it was really great to learn more about your experiences and -
Ann: Thank you for having me and thank you everyone for listening.
Safa: We really appreciate it. Thank you to our listeners. To keep up with our latest episodes you can listen to us on your preferred podcast provider and follow us on Instagram, where our handle is @rethinkingdevelopment. If you have any listener questions that you would like me to ask our future guests, please feel free to email them to us. I look forward to continuing this conversation with you all next time. Until then, take care.
