Who should hold the aid world to account?
Blogged by: Nina Brenjo
Medicine Sans Frontieres aid workers walk in the mud as their vehicle is stuck after heavy rains in southern Sudan, 2005. REUTERS\Daniel Wallis
Many people still believe that charities and aid agencies can do no wrong. Their ultimate aim is to help others, rather than make money, and for this reason, few question the work they do. But "wrongdoing, of course, is nothing new to the international aid industry," argues humanitarian journalist Edward Girardet in Christian Science Monitor. He accuses aid groups of regularly covering up managerial dysfunction, including sexual harassment.
The reluctance to criticise also stretches to the donors on which many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) depend, even when groups suspect they are part of questionable political aims.
Another issue raised by Girardet is that NGOs are increasingly investing in their image. This means fundraising to keep up with high administrative costs, rather than intervening where there is need.
"For me, this is a form of moral corruption. Particularly when you know that the organisation is not doing what it claims to be doing," an anonymous U.S. agency representative tells Girardet.
The vast humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which the media couldn't seem to get enough of, was not actually necessary, claims Girardet. But because it was such a 'sexy disaster', many organisations spotted the promotional opportunity of being seen to be working in the affected countries. This meant some resources were diverted from more needy emergencies in Africa.
Girardet cites a representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross who questions whether the donating public would be as eager to offer their support if they knew how often disaster response is more about personal egos and vested interests.
U.N. agencies are no better in Girardet's eyes. Examples of their misdeeds include "in-house mafiosi" hiring poorly qualified staff for well-paid positions, a director lying about his age to keep his job, and an intimidating department head who was transferred to a better-paid job at another U.N. agency instead of being fired.
But the worst consequences for populations in need may come from projects that are badly coordinated because of rivalries between U.N. agencies or unqualified staff.
Girardet argues that there is a cure for these ills: more critical and independent reporting.
He praises the likes of the U.N. humanitarian news service IRIN and the Red Cross World Disasters Report, but worries that they are widely perceived "as beholden to their organizations".
As a solution, Girardet favours "a pooling of media, corporate, and foundation support for a specialized reporting entity... Any other approach that does not guarantee complete independence would be a waste of time and money."
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
11 responses to “Who should hold the aid world to account?”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
09 Jun 2007 18:25:47 GMT
You have to note that Giradet's position is not above suspicion itself. "Media, corporate and foundation ... and anonymous US agency representative" are in themselves vested interests that wish to get independant aid groups under their own control. (US agency - remember the attempts by the US army to incorporate aid groups as part of their forces)
Or are we back to the "UN watch"-"Media watch" group of organisations whose purpose was to put pressure on independants - to toe the official line.10 Jun 2007 13:53:53 GMT
I have been in this work for last 24 years and it is increasingly becoming an 'industry' and not an accountable entity. While 'markets' and the 'governments' could be held accountable, NGOs are the sacred cows.
My experience in Libera was the worst. A street fight between two gangs would be reported as ' ethnic conflict' which in turn raises the ' risk allowance' to the expatriate staff. In Africa, many NGO workers really 'commodify the tears' of the locals and get good jobs. Even that could be pardonable, if they do some work. Wild partying, frequent hopping to nearby tourist spots show a very vulgar way people look at the suffering of Africans. IN all the Aid circus, the money going to African is minimal. I left in disgust.11 Jun 2007 09:09:03 GMT
for an excellent look at what accountability - and ngo effectiveness should mean - please lok at nyu economics professor william easterly's book 'white man's burden'....
11 Jun 2007 18:26:11 GMT
Frankly: In my opinion, no disrespect intended, but if most 'aid workers' were to confront their ego-aid-identity, then they would realise that they are doing what they are doing, more to feel good about themselves than about REALLY MAKING A DIFFERENCE. It's a massive (not conscious for most though) SCAM and RIP OFF.
If you really want to help some down and out, then the only one's you can help are those who want to help themselves, and you don't help them by encouraging their never-ending codependency upon aid! You help them with some straight-talking take some g*&^^m accountability for your life, and then I will help you, and then you help them to learn to be fishermen for themselves. I don't help people (I used to, I used to be a wonderful feel better about myself cause I am an aid worker 'activist' blah, blah, blah) anymore, unless they demonstrate to me, they are CONSCIOUSLY SERIOUS ABOUT WANTING TO BE HELPED. If homeless or pregnant or whatever people ask me for money, I say NO. If they say, I'd like to wash yur car, or do you have anything I can do to earn a bit of money. I will find something. But FREE CHARITY! OUT THE WINDOW!!! SIT IN AN AFRICAN PRISON FOR A WHILE AND SEE WHAT THE PRISONERS (ACCEPTING 'CHARITY' HAVE TO SAY ABOUT HOW STUPID 'AID' WORKERS ARE ONCE THEY LEAVE!!! AID WORKERS IN A SENSE ARE THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE CONTINUED PROBLEMS, THEY ARE ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTING TO CURE!! No, of course not all..... but I'd suggest aid workers take a good h0ard look in the mirror (and I sympathise, having been there, it's not easy), but if you REALLY GIVE A FLYING F&^K, then you HAVE TO CONFRONT REALITY, FOR YOURSELF, AND FOR THOSE YOU ALLEGEDLY CARE ABOUT. Regards13 Jun 2007 12:18:26 GMT
We at IRIN would be delighted to see more quality, in-depth coverage of humanitarian issues in national and international media.
The $20 billion-a-year international humanitarian endeavour is subjected to very little critical analysis. Media coverage tends to be either uncritical and mushy or scandal-driven. There must be few global industries of this size in the world today that have so little specialist media devoted to them. Current humanitarian accountability mechanisms are still largely of a self-policing nature. "Lessons learned" and "[real-time] evaluations" are often kept internal and lack teeth. A well-informed and inquisitive media is really a major part of making a more honest and effective international relief aid system in my view. IRIN, despite being a project of the UN, enjoys a degree of editorial independence which gives a (perhaps surprisingly) high perception of trust and credibility. The last reader survey found: "More than 78 percent - an increase from 61 percent in 2005 - of respondents felt IRIN represented the views of the broader humanitarian community rather than any one organisation... Only 6 percent (compared with 12 percent in the 2005 survey) felt that IRIN represented the views of the UN alone." (http://www.irinnews.org/report14 Jun 2007 07:17:34 GMT
Once again the issues about aid are muddied. NGOs get a tiny slice of the aid pie. Much more official aid is delivered through big corporations who do not have to meet the same levels of accountability as many NGOs are forced to. NGOs too are put in the same basket but their aims, objectives and practice are widely varied. Certainly there needs to be scrutiny of NGOs but we must not forget where the real money is in the aid world. The other key problem when relating to accountability is really about who we, as aid deliverers, whether NGOs, corporates or multinationals, are actually accouutable too. There is far too much upward accountability (usually solely focused on accounting) to governments, donors, supporters etc and far less downward accountability to the people we are working with. In terms of really having an impact in our work, this is where the most important changes really need to be made.
17 Jun 2007 12:18:54 GMT
It is a challenge and will continue to be a challenge to hold the aid world to account. Hiding behind whatI call "bad diversity" some will hide behind "independance" to escape accounting. To whom they have to account? I will argue that beneficiaries should be first on the list. The situation now is often they are at the botton of the list, when they are on the list.
Media can play a role when they are not embbeded with the big aid world agencies. A Rapporteur can be a possibility to look at.21 Jun 2007 15:33:01 GMT
The question of accountability is complex and is closely linked with issues of power. In order to hold an aid agency to account it is necessary to have both and information. If you are poor and displaced, for example, you are unlikely to be in a position to hold others accountable. For me the following are key issues, related to some of the comments above:
The aid industry in general is defensive. It often talks of openness, dialogue and empowerment but rarely has the time, money, inclination to genuinely open themselves up to those who use their services. Agencies depend on donors. It is not in the interest of managers who have financial targets to allow people to hold them truly to account. There is little incentive for honesty in evaluations either for staff, consultants or current beneficiaries. Many governments in poor countries are more accountable to donors than their own populations. To what extent are the recipients of aid genuinely in a position to hold those who deliver it to account? Which aspects of aid can they criticise? Budgets? Priorities? Service delivery? Salaries of expatriates? Aid policies? The impact of aid on conflict? The impact of aid on self help? The aid industry is funded by governments and government funded institutions according to their political priorities. Accountability is very far down the list of donor countries priorities. In donor countries aid is never an important political issue. Aid budgets attract little popular scrutiny. Increasing spending them may be popular at times but there is little real interest in (or votes for) examining that expenditure. Western media often perpetuate this in the poverty of their coverage. By focusing around individuals and visual images they do little to inform. None of this invalidates attempts to make the industry more effective. But it can not be done in isolation. Initiatives such an Mangoâs âWho Countsâ and HAP-I should be supported. However to make long term progress will require a very different political framework and a very different attitude from those who manage aid agencies.22 Jun 2007 08:32:58 GMT
Well a lot to digest here, I was redirected from another site. My background is business management, I have done some international development and will be shortly doing aid work.
Reply 2, I agree with this in part, NGOs are not as accountable as businesses or governments, to a degree. Funders are the ultimate stakeholders. However businesses can still act unethically, oil companies may claim to have some sort of CSR policy but it does little to their strategy other than a PR act. Governments still can go against the wishes of their people and are certaintly not "for the people by the people"! Question would be what would have happened if there were no aid agencies in Africa, would there really be no effect felt if such minimal amounts go through? Point 4, well that is the difference between aid and development in my eyes. Emergency relief such as MSF and ICRC is there for emergencies. Development agencies, both governmental and non-governmental deal with longer term issues, and another issue this raises is how relief and development agencies work together as there is often a disconnect between the two. Egos, well tell me an industry where there isn't egos involved? Ego is the only thing to be boosted about in aid/development, it certaintly isn't the pay packet, business class trips or company vehicles/additional perks unless you work for a governmental agency. It seems like you are muddying the water, if another earthquake like the one in India occurs you are saying you wouldn't give money? I think that is different to a case of poverty where someone is unwilling to work. In India I met plenty of people who were willing to work or were working and did not have enough to survive. You are creating a view that those in poverty are there due to their own circumstances. In India 3 million graduate each year, there will never be enough work. Aid will not help those people, but development will. Besides that doesn't even touch on the development/trade issues such as structural adjustment programmes that destroy local economies to ensure "other" markets are protected, banana wars a case in point. Your argument is an agency based view, my view is more of a mixed view, that the agent (individual) and society (structure) are both involved in social ills of today such as poverty. Point 5, correct, but I feel the press largely get things wrong, articles in the Guardian/Observer recently have been disappointed. There has to be a balance though, there are many private organisations who are seeking to get into aid and development work and critiques of NGOs could be used to strengthen their case. But there does need to be more publicity about the wins and losses of the NGO sector. I don't think monitoring and evaluation is great, but it is a start. I think aid and development issues are complex for too many tabloid newspapers and the media is generally not interested in the plight of those outside their audience with a few notably exceptions. 6, Excellent, couldn't agree more. This comes down to choice, in many business environment if you don't like a product, you change company/product. Empowering service users by allowing them to speak directly to funders would give them a voice, it would be the best way to ensure they were included in development of the NGO. 8 Well it is complex, and having studied and worked in the industry and outside it I learn what a complex beast it is. I feel the media does little reporting as people are more interested in popular news (tabloids) as opposed to unpopular news (broadsheets). The industry is still only 60 years old and I have seen some of the worse sides to it, nepotism, founder syndrome, service users being denied their needs, etc. But that is why I want to work in the industry is to help shape it. I think half the job is the day to day work, the other half is fighting against the various abuses that occur. It will take time, but look at what is at stake. 700 million in India alone live in rural poverty, the country is getting richer, but there is little distrubution of wealth. Yes there are free-loaders, but I expect 80% of the population if not more want to work, but do not have the opportunity to. Where natural disasters strike aid agencies are the best placed to respond, they have knowledge and expertise and with time national staff in those countries will respond to disasters instead of foreign staff. I hear the point in remark 2 about individuals abusing their power or not pulling their weight. The question is what we do about it, since the press and public has little interest it is up to individuals and groups to address these issues. The alternative is to walk away.22 Jun 2007 08:37:38 GMT
Having just read the cited article it is rather sloppy in its arguments.
The mismanagement it cites is leveled at governmental and private agencies. The criticism it levels specifically at NGOs seems to be based around the Tsunami, but talks generally, not specifically about agencies or projects that suffered. It makes me laugh that he offer corporate support. Look at any large private organisation, the founder is often the CEO and Chair/President, (Nike, Mclaren, etc) and these organisations will be the beacons of transparency, lol...22 Jun 2007 08:39:18 GMT
Accountability has always been a hot issue for NGOs, many NGOs present nice reports, but few really make a difference. Indeed, the NGO World is becoming more and more an industry.
What is needed, is that the so called âbeneficiariesâ finally also get a voice to speak out what they really want and donât want and indicate which NGOs are effective. In water projects also a lot goes wrong: many NGOs work with outdated strategies and donate old fashion handpumps for instance that break down in a few years. No wonder that rural Africa is still struggling to survive, after 25 years of non-sustainable donor water projects. We recently launched a new initiative on the web, to give people the possibility to speak out on the web, with an online forum and open discussions. This is still difficult, people are not yet used to it. But we are confident that with time, our website will be playing a role in improving the quality of water projects. www.watsan.org