Two sides of the same coin

Last week I had the privilege of attending meetings at UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) about progress towards the ‘Education for All’ goals. You can read more about that in my (updated) previous post.

photo by Ari Vitikainen

And next week I am looking forward to visiting a project in Cambodia that LEAD Asia (the team I work with – see this 'old' post for some background info) is currently helping to support. As their website says:

“[The] ICC – READ Project works with the Bunong people of Mondulkiri Province to implement bilingual education and food security initiatives that enable the Bunong to make informed choices about their well-being and the future development of their communities. (READ = Research Education And Development.)” (Click here to read more about ICC's work in Cambodia or click on the picture to find out more about READ.)

I’m excited to see how the project works and how it is impacting people’s lives. Much of my work in the UK is supporting, directly or indirectly, exactly these kinds of projects and so it will be great to see some of the realities with my own eyes. Of course I am also interested to see how things compare to our own experiences in Tanzania, and to think about how we can better communicate the need and the impact of such work back here in the UK.

On face value the UNESCO meetings in Paris and this project in Cambodia couldn’t seem more different. However, to me, they are just two sides of the same coin. Decisions, policies, consensus and goals at the international level do have an impact on the way individual projects operate. They can affect finances, government policy and therefore support, and even potentially community willingness or interest. At the same time, individual projects like this should (and increasingly do) influence international meetings. More and more it is being recognised that a strong evidence base is necessary for setting agendas. Practical examples of solutions that are bearing fruit are essential in convincing other organisations and countries of the importance of particular issues, such as language. (And, in reality, many ‘on the ground’ NGOs like ICC also do a lot of advocacy work in their own contexts, helping influence national policies etc.)

My current role is, in some ways, trying to help connect these two realities. Understandably people, in their daily lives and work, generally either have a preference/focus for one or the other. My job is to try and show them how both sides of the coin are equally important, and to help them make connections between what they are doing and something that is perhaps very alien to them. It’s a challenge but I feel it’s a job worth doing.