Partnership or purse-strings: NGOs in the South speak up - non-governmental organizations

UNESCO Courier, July, 2001 by Philippe Demenet

Riding on their new-found influence, NGOs in the developing world are increasingly critical of the stringent conditions imposed on them by richer counterparts. Partnership, they argue, has to become more than a buzz-word

Over the last decade, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in richer countries have tried out audacious and sometimes-far-fetched methods to check how aid is being spent by recipients in developing ones.

"We lent a video camera to a Ghanaian partner running a fair-trade project," says Chris Roche, programme director at the British NGO Oxfam, which funds more than $130 million worth of development projects each year. The Ghanaians did their own assessment, video camera in hand. The footage revealed a project agent embezzling craft workers' money. "We call this a participatory self-assessment, because it allows our partner to get more involved with the beneficiaries at the grassroots."

Other NGOs use peer reviews, crossed assessments (when partners in the developing world assess projects in the North) or consultations via a kind of travelling parliament. Last spring, Marc Berger, programme director at the French Catholic Committee against Hunger and for Development (CCFD), visited three continents to meet "partners" in developing countries. During a series of seminars he spoke about the organization, with a budget of $26 million per annum, and how it goes about selecting projects. "Our openness empowered them and made the terms of our relationship more equal," he says.

These various methods, which are still in the pilot stages, aim to rectify the lopsided relationship between donor

NGOs in the North and their beneficiaries in the South. But invariably, "the hand that gives is above the one that receives," as an African proverb goes. Even after such consultations, CCFD is still the one which chooses the projects to fund and the rules to be imposed. "They're consulted but in the end we decide, even though their opinion can carry weight," admits Berger.

Mounting dissatisfaction

World Bank figures show that NGOs have "grown exponentially" over the past ten years, especially in developing countries. In India, more than a million community-based groups are involved in local development. In Bangladesh, 5,000 organizations are involved in literacy efforts-so many that a child there is more likely to learn to read with their help than via the state education system. In the former communist countries of Eastern Europe, 100,000 NGOs sprung up between 1988 and 1995.

In terms of human development--health care, education, help in finding work, social services and emergency aid--"the role of NGOs in the South has become key," says Guillaume d'Andlau, a lecturer at Strasbourg's Political Studies Institute and author of a book on humanitarian action. "Even governments in the North call upon them for their overseas development programmes."

Their influence may be indisputable, but NGOs in the developing world are increasingly dissatisfied with the unequal terms of the relationship. Since the early 1970s, NGOs based in the richer nations have used the impressive term "partnership" to describe their links with colleagues in the South. The word "has been part of approved rhetoric in the 'development community' for a very long time," according to Gerry Helleiner, [1] an economics professor at the University of Toronto. "It has rarely been effectively practised. Some practitioners have long doubted whether it was possible."

Delivering results

Far from ebbing away, Northern NGOs are putting increasing pressure on those in developing countries. According to Oxfam's Roche, the idea is "to get them to increase their involvement and provide tangible proof of their effectiveness."

Novib, a Dutch NGO with a $120-million annual budget, requires aid recipients to supply accounts every year, as well as twice-yearly financial statements and a final report on the project. "When there's a problem with the spending of funds, the local partner might get a visit from an expert," says Jan Ruyssenaars from Novib's project department. The organization, which defines itself as a donor at the service of Southern NGOs, is far from the fussiest in the field.

Not all NGOs make the same demands, but there are fewer and fewer who make none at all and advocate a hands-off approach, according to Rick Davies, a social development consultant based in the UK, who has studied how donors in general operate. The most "laissez faire" tend to be Christian organizations. At the other end of the spectrum are the hard-liners, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which requires extensive information and the meeting of set targets akin to a business contract.

Between the two camps are the minimalists, who think producing reports diverts the energy of Southern NGOs from their most important work. You also have the "apologetic realists," such as Novib and Oxfam. Though aware that the reports are a burden, they need them for their own donors. "Without being neo-colonialist," says Roche, "every time money is disbursed, we need to know exactly where it goes out of respect for the British citizens who give us donations."