By This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 10th, 2010 at 11:27 am and is filed under Civil Society (Self) Regulation and Effectiveness. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
It is hard not to be affected by the inequalities and injustices of this world. Living a comfortable ‘Northern’ life can create an uncomfortable amount of guilt about our excessive consumption, when others struggle to survive. There are of course ways to assuage this guilt: tick the ‘gift aid’ box, set up a standing order to your favourite charity, spend a few hours volunteering. But some people go far, far further. They have a idea that they think can make a real difference to peoples’ lives. With a deep sense of responsibility, absolute commitment and boundless energy, they battle to make their message heard, to gather support, resources and political will. They hope to change the world.
Sadly, their enthusiasm is often misplaced, and despite best intentions, these do-it-yourself NGOs can be grievously ill-informed about the reality on the ground. Rather than help, they can actually make things considerably worse.
One such misguided DIY aid effort is the 1 Million Shirts campaign, organised by Jason Sadler (tagline: “One million, one hope. Help us send one million t-shirts to the people of Africa”). Jason’s well-intentioned plan has been rightly condemned by development professionals around the world (including development guru Bill Easterly) as patronising, ill-informed, and undermining local industry. Any visitor to an African market has seen the piles of second-hand clothes for sale, crowding out local tailors. What the continent certainly does not need is a flood of more used t-shirts. The furore around 1 Million Shirts has also raises questions about the ease by which any well meaning person can charge into battle against poverty without an understanding of the complexities of aid. Some have taken this opportunity to advocate stricter regulation of NGO activities, to ensure that only constructive, well-planned projects can get off the ground.
But is it right to quash the aspirations of eager young philanthropists? Many of the world’s most recognised and respected charities emerged from the good intentions of a few eager souls: Oxfam was started by a university Vicar who wanted to provide famine relief to Greek civilians during the second world war; Medecins Sans Froniters was formed by a group of French doctors rebelling against the accepted humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality. One of Scotland’s most successful charities, Mary’s Meals, arose from the efforts of two brothers, who packed a jeep with food and blankets and drove to Bosnia in 1992. They had the same good intentions as Jason Sandler, although their strategy was certainly better thought out.
No-one in the development or humanitarian field would deny that there are far too many NGOs in the world today, often overlapping or even competing with each others’ work. Regulation could go someway to raising the standards of these projects: there are already numerous self-regulatory initiatives who are trying to do just that. But, quite apart from the sheer logistics of trying to form an official regulatory body to monitor all the NGOs around the world, we have to be careful not to stifle innovation. Yes, many DIY NGOs are fundamentally flawed, but some offer new and energised solutions to entrenched problems. Whatever solution is reached with regard to the regulation of NGOs, we need to ensure that the valuable, innovative new ideas are nurtured, and allowed to shine.
