The sentence (aside from the ambiguous "s" on failures) is grammatically correct, but very confusing. "No one" is a commonly used phrase that usually is the opposite of "everyone." However, in this case what is meant is "there is no one failure," where "one failure" is a unit, not "no one." "One failure" is not as common a phrase, but what it indicates in this case is a single source of problems. The general model is "one X" where X is something of unique importance (like Tolkien's "One Ring").
That, in itself, wouldn't confuse most people, but inserting "or five, or even ten such" in between "one" and "failure[s]" breaks apart the actual unit of meaning, and makes it appear as though the other meaning is (nonsensically) intended. The intent was to build on the idea that there is no single source of the problem, and to extend it by saying there is no finite list of fixable problems. This might have been too ambitious for a single sentence, however. A better version might have been:
...there is no "one failure" which, once removed, would boost the development of the sub-sector. There is not even any five, or ten such failures.
Apparently the sub-sector's development cannot be boosted... at least not by removing failures!