|
|
|
Do Donors
and NGO’s speak the same Language – Part 2 Donors and their changing
paradigms |
It appears strange that in a democratic state the powers of donor
influence still outways that of the Lesotho Government where NGO’s
see international donors as their first point of contact to gain
funding for NGO Programmes rather than contacting first and foremost
it’s own government. Despite the fact that the NGO sector has
accepted with open arms the defining development documents, the
‘Vision 2020’ and tool for achieving this the Poverty Reduction
Strategy Paper (PRSP), the case in point still exists where NGO’s
have more confidence in donor funding for their programmes than in
their own governments ability to back and fund projects related to
the PRSP? In this country, unlike many others, almost no assistance
is given to NGOs by the Government and NGOs depend almost entirely
on donor assistance to survive. One would ask the question does the
government have a true mandate for democracy or through this lack of
funding are they trying to cripple the democratic function of civil
society? If NGO’s support grass-root advocacy and development,
highlight issues with national laws or lack of them, human rights,
social, economic and environmental justice and protection of Lesotho
natural resources are they not a legitimate player in civil society
that the government and donors should support?
In a complicated mix of governments mistrust of NGOs, donor
agenda’s, and an over dependant state on aid, grassroots NGO’s are
finding it hard to comprehend the changes in donor assistance and
how that relates to NGO funding. Indeed this period of change in
development in Lesotho is having a crippling effect on much of the
non-state activity. As the government and donors adjust their
positions, civil society organisations are falling by the wayside.
Thus with the drastic changes in the mechanisms of donor assistance,
a gapping hole is appearing in the democratic actors in Lesotho,
that of NGO’s. We have the government and donors and International
NGO’s as the bastions of change in Lesotho and national NGOs are
being marginalised into oblivion.
In our last issue we asked local NGOs about their experiences and
views on the donor community in Lesotho. Frustrations abounded with
lack of financial assistance, lack of support and assistance to NGO
programmes that are in line with government policy, criticisms from
donors about NGO capacity, impossible to access funding streams
through government and now the new local government as yet another
factor reducing funding to NGOs. So in this article we have tried to
ask the donor community to reply to some of these criticisms and
create a platform for discussion between the two social actors in
Lesotho, donors and NGOs so that they understand each other more in
this period of dramatic change, where it appears that national NGOs
have not been party to decisions on the change development funding.
Where once upon a time the donors supported small grass-roots
projects, suddenly a huge surge to support government ‘programmes’
has taken place. And even if that decision is a good decision, is it
responsible to change so drastically with the result of NGO
confusion and at worst the collapse of established civil society
organisations?
Getting through the Front Door
Getting through the front door has not been as easy as perhaps it
should be. In a society, where freedom of speech is integral to
democracy, it appears that the donor community have either the fear
of saying the wrong thing on their position with regards to NGOs and
perhaps the governments perception of what they say, or perhaps
there is a lack of capacity and transparency in responding to media
concerns that would simply not be the acceptable in donor point of
origin countries.
In our last article NGO’s stated that is consistently difficult to
speak to anyone bar receptionists of donor organisations. We found
that many of our letters and telephone calls went unanswered by a
number of the donors in Lesotho. For sure, in Europe it is customary
to answer letters within two weeks. I wonder why such courtesy is
not seen as necessary here by some donor offices?
It appears donors definitely need to improve accessibility and
communication, although there were some noted exceptions! Gold stars
should go to the German Development Agencies who responded quickly
to questions and requests for information.
New Ways of Working – old and new paradigms
Unknown to most ordinary citizens, the world of development has run
on a series of development paradigms. DCI can act as an example of
this and these global paradigms intricately have impacts upon
Lesotho based NGOs.
DCI have been present in Lesotho for over thirty years. In the
1970’s, as with most donors, DCI provided people in Lesotho with
inputs of foods and medicines, but this had no impact on long-term
development. In the 1980’s this approach changed to a micro project
approach where the government or organisations could come up with an
idea and ask for funding. This approach lasted for many years, but
another change came in the 1990’s when donors wanted to become more
strategic. They began to work strategically with Directors of
organisations and Principle Secretaries in government, but the
approach was still project based but was more focused in areas of
work. An output of this under DCI was the support of the Foot
Bridges and Rural Roads Programme and a water programme. However, in
recent years this has been seen as being unsustainable in terms of
skills transfer. It is felt that where foreign, usually white,
technicians worked within projects, the projects appeared to last as
long as the technicians were there. Once the technicians had gone
the project disappears. Although the projects worked they were not
sustainable.
From here DCI shifted to its current approach. This approach
supported the Governments Poverty Reduction Strategy Programme (PRSP)
and indeed DCI were one of the main funders on this initiative. DCI
have now taken a seat at the heart of government and fund programmes
in Education, Health and Rural Development and Parliamentary Reform
and Governance, with a cross cutting programmes on HIV.
As a part of this new development paradigm, with notable exceptions
of the World Bank and Millenium Challenge Account, donor
‘harmonisation’ is taking place between all the international donors
in Lesotho, including some that do not have a presence in Lesotho
such as USAID and the African Development Bank and International
NGO’s to work jointly on specific issues. Harmonisation takes a
sectoral approach such as health, education, rural development etc
and all interested donors and Principle Secretaries of the
government attend these meetings to map out programmes on these
areas.
Harmonisation or New Government?
I asked whether NGO’s or MP’s were involved in these meetings. James
Atema, DCI quite curtly responded ‘ No, I don’t think they would
have the expertise to do so, for example if they were talking about
malaria, they would not understand. MP’s and NGO’s need a different
forum.’ Is it wrong of me to assume that even if you are an MP or a
related NGO that does not have expertise in an area, that this truly
means you cannot learn to understand concepts. Indeed these civil
society actors probably have a critical stake in understanding?
Should other stakeholders be concerned about these closed doors
meetings? I would suggest, yes! It is almost as if another
non-accountable power has been created in Lesotho. These committees
need to be far more transparent and publicise what decisions they
are making. It should certainly be considered very carefully whether
there should be checks and balances on the decisions made in this
kind of forum. This is a Democracy and no longer Protectorate!
Don’t get me wrong foreign donors can bring to the table valuable
skills in strategic and financial planning, but if closed door
meetings continue this is slipping back into the very development
paradigm that is supposed to have been left in the past.
Funding through Government
One of the issues addressed in the last article was a concern over
funding to NGOs through government. NGOs had felt that this was
problematic because of slow and ineffective systems and the feeling
that the government do not have the will to fund NGOs even when they
are working towards the governments own policies. We managed to
speak to representatives from both DCI (Development Corporation of
Ireland) and GTZ (the German Technical Assistance Organisation) who
are both currently inputting most of their resources through
government.
As mentioned above DCI are now active at government level, trying to
influence programme development in relation to the PRSP on specific
areas of work. All areas of work have a civil society budget
attached to these programme. James Atema, from DCI the leading
bi-lateral agency with a budget of M72 Million per annum said that
funding is predominantly being streamed through a Sector Wide
Approach (SWAP). Budgets are allocated per sector and streamed
through agreed accounting procedures, with internationally agreed
monitoring & reviews (one accounting system). A multi-stakeholder
group chaired by the government is held accountable for the funds
and outputs. There is also some funding allocated to civil society
who support these programmes. However, the onus is on larger
organisations in the hope that umbrella organisations and
international organisations will filter funds deeper into civil
society.
As a result programmes such as LCNs Civil Society Support Programme
(CSSP) are being delivered. However, criticism has been raised on
this approach in that they undermine the capacity of smaller NGOs
and CBOs to build capacity in fund management, thus again weakening
civil society.
I asked Mr Atema whether this approach supported corruption through
governments misuse of funds. I was told “This is just a perception
that people hold, there is no evidence that corruption exists. It is
not true that government is always corrupt. If donors bypass the
government, sustainability becomes a problem. NGO projects are not
sustainable as they rely on short-term funding, communities cannot
sustain projects, it is only the government who can sustain
programmes long term. ” He said “ NGO’s can and do create islands of
excellence, but their projects are not sustainable in the long run
if governments do not support them”.
Views on NGO’s
So if we establish that there appears to be a logic behind the
changes in donor behaviour, that of long-term sustainability, then
perhaps NGOs need to look at how there organisations need to be
evolving within these shifting paradigms.
However, leaning back on an age old criticism from donors that NGOs
shift their core mandates to be eligible for funding, donors truly
need to recognise that NGO’s ‘have’ to shift when development
paradigms change, this is not just a matter of NGO survival, but
also should have strategic consideration under current development
conditions. I move it is time to drop that criticism of NGOs as lets
face it governments and donors are guilty of ‘change’.
We asked donors how they thought NGO’s can improve their core
services and also their fundraising capacity. Kirsten Roettcher, the
Community Advisor for GTZ said on the subject of improving NGO
services “ NGOs need to work with the new local authorities, there
is an opportunity for NGOs to act as local authors, as a gateway to
where resources and need meet. They should act as a conduit of
information and act as an overview to what areas need. Decisions
have to be made by communities on resource management and local
health needs. NGOs need to be involved in these planning phases,
through this NGOs will be given a platform to strengthen local
need.” Mr Atema mirrors this expectation that NGOs need to get
involved with local authorities “ NGO’s can provide training to
local authorities in areas such as project management, institutional
development and capacity building, they need to capitalise on what
they are good at and transfer those skills into local government”.
Both the donors who agreed to be interviewed suggested that NGOs
need to be involved in advocacy on critical issues. Ms Roettcher
said “ There needs to be more discussion on critical issues, for
example the health service is in chaos, NGOs appear not to be doing
much on this, they need to show their credentials and stand up and
be heard! We need to hear more from them”
Mr Atema said “ NGOs have the power to take an evidence based
approach to issues. This does not always mean collecting facts and
figures, sometimes the simple collection of views can act as a
powerful advocacy tool for influencing governmental decisions”
Mr Atema also raised a note of caution to NGOs “ NGOs in Lesotho
compared to other African nations have a weak educational
background, as a result the government don’t see NGOs as part of an
intellectual exchange, this needs to change”.
It is not surprising that NGO’s in Lesotho are left bewildered by
the changes in donor assistance strategies. Donors appear to be
doing very little to publicise and explain their new approaches.
NGOs were neither consulted or were able to input on these changes
in Lesotho. Of concern though, is just how dependant NGOs are on
donor assistance due to the lack of assistance from government and
the poverty innate in Lesotho Society. In an immature democracy,
where the government see NGOs as a threat to governance this is
unlikely to change. And even if the government decide to support
civil society will this be enough in the form of the popular ‘small
grants funding’ that throws scraps to Lesotho’s civil society.
However, perhaps a comment needs to be re-iterated from Ntate
Soforea Shale, Programmes Co-ordinator for Development for Peace
Education, ‘It is naive to redirect the funding through government
to the detriment of NGOs because the government is not the only
arbiter of society; it is shared with civil society organisations.
This may paralyse the development process.’ This indeed is what is
happening. If the trend of reducing funding to NGOs remains then the
government and the donors can look back and claim responsibility to
the collapse of civil society. Historically speaking, this is a
dangerous road to take.
|
|
