NGOs Do More Than Provide Social Services

Focussing on higher aid efficiency and donor harmonisation does not mean that civil-society organisations – be they from rich or poor countries – should be reduced to mere service providers and supporters of state agencies. Non-governmental organisations have important roles to play in cooperation with governments, but also in opposition to them.

In 2005, the governments of donor nations and developing countries, along with the heads of various multilateral development institutions, adopted the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. The goal was to set right shortcomings in development assistance and to reduce transaction costs. The aim is most welcome, as are the intentions to cooperate more closely, to coordinate action and to increase ownership by the target countries.

Debate on the merits and deficiencies of the Declaration is ongoing. In this article, we will summarise the main objections raised by German non-governmental organisations (NGOs) active in development. Our main goal, however, is to consider what the Paris Declaration means for civil-society actors in both rich and poor nations. Despite all the ownership rhetoric, the Paris Declaration is a donor-focussed document. It does not resolve the conflict between conditionality and ownership. Furthermore, it is government-centred in the sense of primarily aiming at state capacities. Civil society is merely mentioned in passing.

This is astonishing, given that key goals of the Declaration are assessing impacts and boosting accountability. Surely, obligation to give account is always owed first to domestic legislatures and people. Obligations to report to donors are no substitute. After all, development is not simply about technical data, it is about negotiating policy in and for the countries concerned. Competent and skilled parliaments, strong and well-informed civil-society organisations and a free press are absolutely indispensable for that purpose. Many German NGOs know that, and accordingly support their partners’ ability to demand accountability.

From an NGO viewpoint, it is discomforting that the Paris Declaration tends to marginalise civil-society organisations, at best regarding them as mere agents for carrying out state programmes. NGOs from donor countries are at risk of becoming subordinated to their governments, serving as implementation agencies for some kind of “coherent aid policy”. That kind of instrumentalisation would undermine diversity, the value of which lies in productive competition over new and good ideas.

To be sure, NGOs not only miss “coherence” in donors’ aid activities. Even more important would be that donors act coherently in general, with all departments working in a pro-development direction. Unfortunately, the Paris Declaration does not stress any indicators which might reveal anti-development attitudes, for instance, in trade matters. Nor does it stress adequate indicators to show whether aid really reaches the poor.

The Paris Declaration expects quite a lot in terms of democratic procedures and public accountability in the target countries, as becomes evident in its emphases on local ownership and donor alignment to local procedures. In many cases, however, the attitude is over-optimistic. It is well known, after all, that attempts to improve governance from the outside normally do not succeed. Lasting reform of a government itself is particularly unlikely so long as important civil-society organisations, which really promote democracy, remain marginalised.

The Paris Declaration pins hopes on programme-based financing (budget support, for example). From an NGO viewpoint, that hope is wildly exaggerated. So far, there has been little evaluation of cases of donors contributing directly to poor countries’ national budgets. Obviously, it makes sense to test budget support where there is good governance. But in light of the initial experience, the decision to implement this instrument as widely as possible is clearly over-hasty. Budget support is not suitable for poorly governed countries and fragile states, such as the majority of African countries are.

More than social services

Implementing NGOs often struggle with the widespread perception that they are mere providers of social services without a stake in lobbying and advocacy, fields other organisations supposedly specialise in. That view implies that NGOs, as state-aided bodies, come under the regime of the Paris Declaration and must fit in with government action. In the worst case, NGOs are thus relegated to the status of state agencies. That trend is particularly evident at the European Commission.

That conception misunderstands how large and important NGOs typically operate. They often combine project work with lobbying efforts. In this sense, a slum development project is also an educational workshop, encouraging the local population and the NGOs involved to express their views and raise demands vis-à-vis the government. Implementing organisations can and should test new methods they develop themselves. Experience of this kind matters in the discourse with state agencies, and can help to boost governmental capacity. However the expertise required for doing so would not even be generated, if NGOs were merely service providers acting on behalf of governments.

In many developing countries, official legislation is in support of poverty alleviation. Enforcement, however, typically remains inadequate, as has often been stated for India, among other countries. The Paris Declaration, therefore, quite rightly emphasises the efficiency of state institutions. From an NGO perspective, however, that emphasis is double-edged. NGO engagement often compensates for state failures, for instance, in health care or schools. NGOs thus frequently serve a dual function, making services available as well as demanding better state performance. NGOs set standards and contribute to making governments improve their work. Again, India is a good example for NGOs not only cooperating with various tiers of government in meaningful ways, but also making important contributions in opposition to them. The Paris Declaration ignores the latter aspect completely.

On the other hand, the Declaration increases the demand donors have for disbursing funds through NGOs and, similarly, multilateral agencies. Naturally, large, transnational organisations serve that function better than do small NGOs. Consequently, implementation of the Declaration is likely to result in dynamics of competition and crowding out, which will weaken, rather than strengthen locally-rooted civil society.

This is not to say that donor-country NGOs dismiss the Declaration’s aim of supporting developing countries’ home-grown strategies, programmes and procedures. On the contrary, NGOs have long paid attention to – and emphasised – needs and priorities as defined by their partners in the target countries.

Accordingly, the work done by government and non-government agencies from Germany in a particular country may have different priorities. If programmes complement one another, that can even be beneficial. What really matters is that Germany’s Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, its agencies and the NGOs stay informed of what the others are doing. Otherwise, there is little scope for synergies. The practice of “country discussions”, in which the relevant experts from the various institutions exchange information, is a sensible instrument, which could be expanded.

VENRO is the umbrella-organisation of German NGOs active in the development field. Together, its members command an annual budget of more than ¤ 1 billion. Donations, endowments and membership fees (including church taxes, which are collected by the state in Germany) make up the largest share. The Development Ministry only contributes ¤ 250 million to programmes of civil-society agencies, churches and related organisations (excepting humanitarian aid). NGOs, therefore, are indeed independent actors.

The large share of private funds shows that donors and churches want to make a visible contribution to fighting poverty. Tens of thousands of volunteers are active in solidarity networks and Third World groups, discussing and promoting development issues. Donor-country NGOs depend on the support of their contributors, supporters and volunteers. Accordingly, they also depend on setting their own priorities and agendas (stressing environmental protection, food security or children’s’ rights, for instance). Of course, these priorities and agendas must match the needs of developing-country partners.

Lessons for NGOs

VENRO was formed ten years ago. The organisation supports its members by lobbying, providing services and organising the exchange of ideas. However, VENRO does not coordinate members specific development programmes. Sometimes such coordination occurs thanks to a member’s own initiative. That can happen at a cross-border level, as in the case of Catholic CIDSE (Coopération Internationale pour le Développement et la Solidarité) and Protestant APRODEV (Association of World Council of Churches Related Development Organisations in Europe). There are also secular European NGO networks, Alliance2015, for instance.
And yet, donor-country NGOs still have a lot of catching up to do when it comes to coordinating and harmonising activities. Cooperation between NGOs from poor countries, in turn, also needs to be beefed up.

While it is only fair to demand cooperation, a crucial problem remains unresolved. The transaction costs of cooperation are high, in terms of both money and time. For NGOs that work on assignments from various governments and thus have to fulfil all of their respective demands, the burden becomes even heavier. Nonetheless, improving cooperation among NGOs must remain high on the agenda, with the goal of streamlining procedures and standards, in order for costs to be reduced in the long run.

A key concern of the Paris Declaration is impact monitoring. And this is also a challenge for NGOs. Some NGOs already have established systems for impact analysis, others are still in their infancy in this regard. The Paris Declaration emphasises the issue, and rightly so. Strangely, one sometimes has the impression that impact monitoring was only recently invented. What we are really suffering from is probably a lack of communication. Countless evaluations, studies and surveys are stuck on shelves and in drawers, without ever being made public. As long as we don’t heed findings already made, it is questionable that additional information will be used in any meaningful way. Therefore, the question arises how coordinated impact monitoring will come about. Who will determine rules, indicators and standards and using what criteria?

Cooperation and impact monitoring are issues which are stressed in the Paris Declaration and which affect NGOs. Civil-society organisations would do well to face up to this challenge and to review their own practices. However, they must also make sure that the debate on aid effectiveness does not divert attention from the causes of poverty and the need for coherently development-friendly donor action.

( Claudia Warning & Ulrich Post - D&C,magazine for Developement and Cooperation )


Dr. Claudia Warning
is a member of the board of the Church Development Service (EED), a Protestant agency in Germany. She is also chairperson of VENRO, the umbrella-organisation of development NGOs in Germany.
sekretariat@venro.org

Ulrich Post
is head of the information and policy division of German Agro Action and Vice-Chairperson of VENRO.
ulrich.post@dwhh.de