Note: This post is my
views and my views only. They do not necessarily reflect the views or the work
of any of the organisations I have worked for or represented.
A
post that has been a long time in the works (at least in my head), but has been
good to leave until the end of my latest volunteering stint.
I’d
like to make the point here, that what I’m about to say refers to development
aid only, and NOT humanitarian aid. The two are significantly different, the
later responding to emergency situations only. I don’t know a lot about the inner
workings of Humanitarian Aid; I have heard it has its own set of issues, but is
also plays a very important role and I want to be clear that it is not the
topic here.
So
to the subject of development aid, the pros and cons, highs and lows of which
have touched my life every day for the past 18 months. It has often been
heartbreaking; to have believed in something so much and see it fail more often
than not, so miserably.
I
have to be honest; when I came to Zambia I thought that working in development
aid may be something I’d be interested in. I thought it would be “rewarding”,
working but working to make a difference. I wasn’t completely ignorant, I knew
that there were problems with development aid, that money didn’t always get to
where it was supposed to go, that it was slow, etc. However development aid, in
Zambia at least, was nothing like I expected. Some of the issues are cultural;
many I suspect are uniform across the world.
Targets and measures
Probably
the biggest issue I’ve seen with development aid is how it is measured. There
are the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which most people are aware of,
then there are the measures on the UN Human Development Index, the World Bank’s
development indicators and country economic data, to name but a few. However on
a day to day basis this is not really how things work.
The
government targets that are set for Overseas Development Aid are a case in
point. Once upon a time even I saw these as important, however I now view them
as almost completely irrelevant. The success and need for aid should NEVER be
based on some DOLLAR target (i.e. percentage of GDP). It doesn’t achieve
outcomes and it doesn’t prove that aid is being successful. It is completely
the wrong measure, referred to and relied upon far too much.
And
it is the same at an organisational level; how much is given might sound nice,
but it doesn’t mean that there has been any change to the people’s lives it is
supposed to be benefiting. However and unfortunately, it is quite often the MAIN
measure and to not spend 100% of one’s budget or close to, is regarded as some
sort of failure. I have been told by aid practitioners in Zambia that their
budget spend is one of their KEY performance measures. Of course when you apply
for a grant and when you are lucky enough to receive it, you will get asked
about the number of beneficiaries, changes to their situation, how many you
have reached with communications, etc., which probably means that someone is
thinking that these should be the outcomes. In reality however, as long as the
money is spent according to how you said it would be, the outcomes really feel
like a second thought.
Sub-granting
Sub
granting is a tough one as in theory it allows smaller, “grassroots”
organisations to aid local communities. And I guess it does this a little.
However having worked for this type of organisation I have seen just how little
of the money actually makes it to the beneficiaries it was originally intended
for. So what happens?
First
a cut is taken from the money by the first agency (usually government, sometimes
a large NGO) who are required to cover the cost of the process for deciding who
to allocate the money to. Then often it goes to a medium- large organisation that
works throughout a large region, whole country, etc., and needs help with
“localising” projects. And so they take a cut for their administration costs
and again the costs of allocating the funds before seeing that the remaining
money gets distributed to smaller NGOs left to run the projects. These smaller organisations
also need to pay staff and run their office, so by the time this all happens only
a fraction of the original sum of the money can be used for the projects it was
intended for.
An
alternative that is applied and often suggested as the only way to apply aid
efficiently is via direct aid to governments, allowing them to designate money
to the area’s most in need (e.g education, health, etc.) I actually do prefer
this idea, however finding trustworthy governments in developing countries is
difficult and donors like to have control of where their money is going.
I
have seen sub-granting be relatively efficient, especially if the administrative
cuts are small. However, it often the small organisation at the very end of the
chain that loses and is expected to run projects for “free”, i.e. no administration
money is allocated to the organisation. But all in all, sub granting from what
I have experienced is a very inefficient process!
Corruption and waste
Corruption
or wasted funds is another area I can’t fathom in development aid. We all know
it exists in aid, right? We’d be kidding ourselves to believe otherwise,
however what is unforgivable is the extent of some of the corruption and misuse
of aid. And what I struggle with probably the most is the “acceptable” forms of
these; forms that are not considered corruption because aid agencies openly
allow them to happen, hell, they even support them. What are they?
Allowances
First
is allowances; sums of money paid to people within the industry for coming to
workshops and meetings, or basically to do an already paid job. These
allowances are often broken up for different things. You will most definitely
get an allowance for transport, or “transport refund” as it is referred to. This
one I have less of an issue with, PROVIDING the person is actually out of
pocket because of the trip. Going to an office one block away does not
constitute being out of pocket in my view.
Then
you have meal allowances. Sometimes meals are just provided, but if not
attendees are provided with money for any meals that are included during the
time they are “engaged”. No need to pack your own lunch.
My
very personal favourite is the “sitting” allowance. This one is just for the
person’s presence and even then you may not get that if the attendee shows up
for only half the meeting, ultimately to collect their allowance. I’m sure the
idea behind this is or was, to drive attendance because apparently doing
something because it is your job is not enough. Nonetheless, this allowance can
get quite expensive if you wish to run a meeting, not to mention it often takes
people away from the job they should be doing. On many occasions I have come
across people who don’t really need to be at a meeting but are there anyway,
often with very little to contribute. These allowances completely fly in the
face of productivity and improving the development situation.
An
example I can use to explain this is for a project that required large scale
training for staff of a government organisation here in Zambia. Staff all
around Zambia were to be trained on a system that they would be using for their
jobs. No problem there. The problem that occurred was when staff from the head
office decided they needed to also ALL be a part of this training, “attending”
all three training sessions (each being a repeat of the first) and ALL paying
themselves the “standard head office” organisational allowance rates. I point out
that the rate was “standard head office” because the rate was significantly
higher than the rest of the attendees who would be doing the actual work.
Furthermore, these head office staff were not even present for a majority of
the sessions. And to top it off, the donors, both large and well known
multilateral institutions were aware of the budget and the proportion going
towards allowances, including for the head office staff who didn’t really need
to be present (well certainly not all). Disgraceful really.
Now
I should point out here that there are many within the industry who are not
paid, or at least not regularly, and allowances are probably a key source of
income for them. However, I stand by my thoughts on the premise that
development aid is there to make a difference to the wider community and can
only do that if its properly directed, rather than given as “handouts” to a few
people.
Workshops and training
Workshops
and training sessions are another large misuse of funds. The answer to every problem
in development aid is to provide a workshop or training. It doesn’t matter if
the attendees have already completed 4 other sessions on Monitoring and
Evaluation (M&E) or project management, more than likely they will get
another one. The workshop or training will offer incredible allowances and if
it’s in another location, a cosy hotel room on top of everything else. It
doesn’t matter that the person undergoing training will probably not use that
fifth training session on M&E, because it’s unlikely that anyone will
follow up or check. One of my own personal favourite stories is of the
“capacity building” organisation that was almost 100% USAID funded, offering
week long training sessions to my colleagues (including for subjects they’d
already had trainings on) and putting them up in Lusaka’s finest hotels. Think
just how much it costs for 20+ attendees in a five star hotel, all expenses
paid, sitting and travelling allowances for a week? Imagine what it could do if
used to assist a local community. And what’s funny is that when sending a
proposal to USAID via email, my organisation was asked to print the hardcopy
and courier it to them, using resources and money that a small organisation
really doesn’t have. Where are the priorities here?
Use of organisational resources
Then
there is the use of organisational resources, particularly vehicles, for
personal needs. Again, a tricky one as making a quick trip in the
organisational vehicle to the local market is probably not the end of the
world. However these vehicles, which are provided by foreign donors, are often
seen speeding around town on Saturday nights; or on weekends with a staff
member’s family twice removed, in the back; or parked outside of the local
hotel. I’ve seen it all and does it really matter? Well I think yes. Vehicles
use fuel and even if the person “borrowing” the vehicle replaces the fuel, who
pays for the maintenance of the vehicle, the tyres, the registration? If the
vehicles become damaged or are not maintained and need to be replaced, who is
going to replace the vehicle? Most likely foreign donors and the taxpayers that
support them, that’s who!
Outright corruption
There
is of course straight forward corruption where someone intently steals money or
resources from aid for their own gain and I’ve heard these stories too
(fortunately I haven’t seen it first hand). And while the general population
does not want to see offenders get away with it (which unfortunately they quite
often do), many still think that this should not dissuade foreign donors from
continuing to give. I was attending a workshop here in Zambia where all
attendees were asked if a donor should stop giving money if their money is
being stolen. The unbelievably strong response to this was that the donors
should not. As the only person in the entire room (and non-Zambian) opposed to
this view, I asked shouldn’t the money be re-directed somewhere else, to where it
will be used properly? Isn’t the money not doing what it’s supposed to anyway?
But no one saw it except me. I was simply told that “the poor people will
suffer”. Hmm, and I thought they already were!
Crowding out private
investment
Something
I also believe is that aid, particularly from what I’ve seen in Zambia, is “crowding
out” private investment and entrepreneurship. I have met many smart people, people
who have ideas for businesses and good business instincts, but never go there,
or only dabble, because they’re doing so well on the aid “gravy train”. And it does
make sense. For reduced risk and effort you can make quite a good living off a
job in aid; not everyone does, but many do. However, what if these same people
were to go into business? They would be producing items and services for the
local economy, probably using local materials and produce. And overtime many
would start to hire workers, people from their country, providing them with
employment and income to support both them and their families.
False Economy
Following
on a little from my previous argument is the “false economy” that aid creates.
In most cities in Zambia you can nearly guarantee some sort of lodge or hotel
on nearly every street. And no, tourism in Zambia is not that busy!
These
businesses exist purely to take advantage of aid and the many, many workshops,
trainings, conferences, etc that take place here. And some of them charge
ridiculous prices which they can charge because there is demand and
organisations pay!
Aid
in my mind has also contributed to the value of rents in Lusaka, Zambia’s capital.
I can’t of course prove this, or at least not without doing further empirical work.
All I know is that based on my own observations there are a lot of aid workers
based in Lusaka, most live in pretty nice houses/ apartments and many
organisations also use houses as their administrative offices and this time
there is more than one to each street on average. Economics is all about supply
and demand and there is large demand for housing from aid!
The
impact of all this is that it pushes real businesses out to make way for those
operating from aid; it also forces people with lower incomes to the outskirts
of the city because they can’t afford to be in it.
What to make of all
of this development aid “stuff”
I
know that by writing this post that there are likely to be people who will use
it as an excuse for not giving or volunteering for anyone. I guess that if
that’s all someone gets out of all of this, then they were probably already in
that frame of mind to begin with. However what my biggest learning from this
whole volunteering and development aid experience is, is to do your research
and ASK QUESTIONS!
There
are some good organisations and projects working hard to make things better,
that use talented, well intentioned people and try to ensure that as much money
as possible makes it to the end beneficiary. But you have to find them and then
you have to ask questions: What are they doing? What are they trying to change?
How are they making change? Where are they making change? Who are they working
with? What evidence do they have of change? Are they audited by an external
party? Do they sub-grant? Where does most of their funding come from? You get
the point! Some sites go a long way to doing this for you; a couple I know of
are Charity Navigator and Givewell, but still ask questions!
Sadly
I can’t see development aid changing any time soon. Many of the people in the
industry, as well as intentioned as they are, are not business people driving
outcomes. Too many see small changes for only a few as enough evidence that aid
is working, despite the large sums of money going into it.
My
time in Zambia has in many ways made me extremely cynical, however I know in
time I will again prioritise the positives of development aid over the
negatives and learn to focus again on the people it should be benefiting, but
ALWAYS guarded on the outcomes presented to me.
