Rethnking International Development

As we near the 10 year anniversary of the tsunami, it is worth taking the time to reflect not only on what worked well but what has not worked well.  Over the last decade with the frequency of natural and manmade disasters increasing, the amount of money that has been fundraised and made available for organisations to respond has increased putting increased pressure for it to be spent effectively and efficiently.  The tsunami of 2004 was in fact the tipping point in terms of the money raised & spent (plus wasted) with the current Syrian crisis coming a quick second.

For a while many agencies that have been campaigning for greater transparency and accountability within the sector.  Calls for greater transparency have come in the wake of huge funding cycles being made available to agencies after the 2004 tsunami where agencies struggled to properly and efficiently utilise donated funds.  In the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake, it is still evident that many of the lessons that have been learnt from the South Asian tsunami and the Pakistan earthquake have not been taken on board.

However in scrutinising funds and fund allocations,  it shouldn’t constrain operations.  Additional levels of bureaucracy than already exists should not be brought.  Aid agencies already have enough hoops that they have to jump through in order to satisfy donor requirements and justifying the admin costs that are necessary.  This does mean that some of the smaller agencies who are doing great work on the ground miss out because they are unable ‘to meet such requirements’.

Thus a rethink of international humanitarian response and development should include methods of transparently accounting for funding.  It should also distinguish between emergency relief and long term aid.  Herein lies one of the fundamental problems with the current debate and dialogue on aid.  Long term aid and development is more needed and necessary but offers less tangible and visual results.  More importantly it survives the life cycle of standing governments.  Hence many governments are reluctant to follow up on verbal promises of aid packages. 

Witness the calls on G20 spending  by Oxfam, a call that is rapidly being repeated every couple of years when the G20 does meet, but which does not proceed farther than the rhetoric.  It seems that governments are just reluctant to move further on this or are content to regurgitate old rhetoric.

This in my mind is a problem.  The complacency of the government with regards this subject betrays not only the priority of international development and humanitarian assistance but also the importance of the work.

As we discuss a greater system of transparency and accountability, we should also measure not only efficiency but effectiveness.  More importantly, this discussion and dialogue needs to be set in place to change the paradigm of thinking on the issue as well as what is needed to change it.  The challenges of the globalised world along with climate change cannot and should not be addressed just from the west, but has to be done in consultation.  It should be realised that the current operational mandate with which International Development has operated in the last 60 years has some flaws which need to be revisited. 

Why it that at no point in time, has the world is contributed so much to alleviating poverty yet we seem to be in a losing battle.  Somewhere we have to stop and take a step back and examine our systems and processes.  We should be asking the question, ‘What is it that we are doing wrong with our International Development Strategy?’

Part of this reflection should also realise that there has been a birth of small charities and humanitarian organisations often set up by immigrants or the Diaspora.  They sometimes have a better reach into areas where the larger organisations do not as well as work on shoestring budgets with better energy and motivation.  Of course they will need to be guided in order to become more professional and to avoid pitfalls of bad governance.  This hand holding needs to take place at all levels...  Hence rather than giving to the UN, DFID should work with smaller organisations to mentor and lead them towards delivering on standards and many of the larger organisations need to come to terms with working with existing systems rather than trying to change them. 

Initially published in The News Hub

To remain complacent about the intricacies of the aid world and just continue giving aid and maintaining the status quo will be like putting a band aid on a deep cut.