Hey overseas volunteers- it's not you, it's us

Two years ago, fresh from my first development internship experience, newly conscious of how unqualified and generally useless I was in the world, a friend mentioned she wanted to volunteer in Africa. An English graduate, I could barely contain my scorn as I asked her what would she volunteer as. A teacher she replied or in an orphanage or something, just for like two weeks or whatever. What you want is a holiday, I pointed out. No, she insisted, I want to help. I, in reply, went on an unmitigated rant about people with no skills insisting on travelling to developing countries to work with orphans, why doesn't she volunteer at home, etc. etc. The term poverty porn was used numerous times and the friendship strained.

I don't think I was angry at my friend, more ashamed of my own naievety which had once matched hers. Only the year previous to that conversation, I had spent the summer combing websites looking for volunteer opportunities at home or abroad with NGOs or charities, genuinely shocked that no one wanted my free labour. Of course, it didn't occur to me that my years of waitressing experience and a whole two years of college education qualified me to do nothing useful. In my mind, I was a body willing to work for free. Surely, the poor charities should be begging me for my help?!

Oh, how we've all learned. People working in development (of which I only barely class myself, having the minimum of experience. However, I continue.) are scornful of voluntourism and with real, concrete reason. Too often, volunteering is aimed at enriching the volunteer's experience and not contributing anything meaningful to the community. I once got talking to a guy in Camden's Barfly who proudly told me he had volunteered in Africa. It transpired he spent one week planting trees and one week teaching maths in Ghana (I wish I was making this up by the way). I laughed too much to get angry at him and he flounced away, presumably to try and woo a more amenable girl with his tales of aid worker hardship.

This post from the always excellent WhyDev clearly sets out the serious issues with voluntourism.  Aside from English grads trying to pack some meaning into their holidays however, there is the issue of aspiring development professionals, probably still at university, who volunteer - often paying to do so- because they can't get any internships. Internships as an undergraduate are literally like gold dust. I will forever thank my university for establishing an internship programme within my degree. Nervous about graduating with literally zero experience, many students spend a summer or two on these programmes working with street kids in India or the like and for their efforts, develop a hefty slice of debt and nothing but scorn from development professionals. They're not bad people, these young volunteers! They're just thinking about the career prospects.

The thing is, a two week volunteer placement in Zanzibar for example, won't impress any NGO. Experience is obviously a plus but why not volunteer at home, in a women's shelter or a soup kitchen or a homework club for children of asylum seekers? If you can't afford to volunteer abroad and have spent your time at university working part time, shout that proudly. Everyone describes themselves as hardworking on a CV but you can actually demonstrate it. Trust me, that's more impressive than a few weeks volunteer work.

Again, this is not meant to be a dig at those who do volunteer abroad. I understand why and that the motivation is usually good. A lot of the problem actually stems from the NGO sector and it's stubbornly middle class expectation that parents will fund young people to work for free (look out for an upcoming post on how development needs more working class!). So, young volunteers, ignore the scorn you receive from development workers. It's all their bloody fault in the first place. 

A healthy dose of liberal guilt

I really enjoyed this piece 'Hey aid worker! It's not about you,' by Weh Yeoh over on WhyDev last week. It points to wider issues with our generation's habit of over sharing online (she said earnestly, on her blog) and highlights the problems this causes for those who work in aid or development.

A lot of the commentators on the piece got their knickers in a twist and quite unnecessarily. I think Weh probably exaggerated his point slightly at times in order to drive it home but he's right to question aid workers posting online selfies on donor funded trips, etc.

Instead of taking offence, people who work in development should take on board what he's saying and maybe think a bit harder about what they share on FaceBook, Twitter, Instagram or whatever. Aid beneficaries are not exotic backdrops for your profile photos.

Are European countries becoming a collective aid tease?

Ah the joys of debating international aid and its merits, or lack thereof. Is it right or wrong to give aid to corrupt governments? What's the best way of giving aid?  Should European countries be giving aid when they are in such dire financial straits themselves?

These are issues which have been debated exhaustively in development circles but in the last few months, they seem to be more prominent than usual in the mainstream media of many European countries. There's a number of contributing factors for this- the UN report leaked this summer detailing Rwanda's alleged involvement in rebel activity in neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo which led to a number of countries suspending aid (and then reinstating it. and then suspending it again) reignited the whole thing. Then we had revelations of large scale fraud in Uganda, with approximately 16 million Euro of aid being misappropriated by the Office of the Prime Minister. The issue of giving aid to middle income countries was also prominent in the media with Britain's announcement early this month that it will stop aid to India after 2015.

Much media debate and public outrage and where has it gotten us? Well, things are how they used to be - foreign aid is dependent on politics. Britain initially suspended aid to Rwanda only to again reinstate it. Just today, it suspended it again. A rather excellent Channel 4 news report earlier this week detailed the uncomfortably close relationship between the British Conservative party and Rwandan President, Paul Kagame.

Last week, the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs released its interim report into the Uganda/Irish Aid scandal. It found major collusion between Ugandan officials to commit fraud and also pointed out the failings of Irish Aid officials to pick up on the fraud. The report also suggested that the Irish Government would wait on the findings of the investigation by the Ugandan auditor general. The report is expected to be released next April.

There is little or no expectation however that the report and its recommendations will be implemented by Uganda's notoriously corrupt public officials. Should this fact alone not be a lesson to European governments giving aid to corrupt governments?

 There's a lot of problems with the way European governments currently give aid to the developing world but surely withdrawing it then reinstating it on a whim is not an improvement of any sort.

The point of this post is basically, the UK et al are being a bit of a prick tease with their aid budgets at the minute. For a more sophisticated, and much more knowledgeable, look at some of these issues have a look at this piece from the always excellent A View From the Cave.

The Ugandan Affair: What it means for Irish Aid

Last week, Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore (the Irish Deputy Prime Minister) suspended all Irish aid channelled through  the Ugandan government and announced an immediate investigation into allegations of fraud. The unprecedented move was prompted by a draft report of a special investigation by the Auditor General of Uganda into the handling of aid funds by the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM).

The Auditor General found that significant amounts of donor funding from Ireland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, earmarked for the Peace and Recovery and Development Programme in Northern Uganda had been transferred to an unauthorised account of the OPM. Up to 4 Million Euro of Irish Aid funding was misappropriated.

The reaction from the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) appeared to be swift and decisive. The Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore released a statement in which he described being "deeply concerned by what I have learned today of the findings of the investigation by the Auditor General of Uganda into the management of aid funds by the Office of the Prime Minister of Uganda." The statement concluded "The Government will not provide financial support under our development cooperation programme unless it is clear that Irish money is being spent for the purpose for which it was allocated. Pending the satisfactory resolution of this matter, I have instructed that no further aid funding should be provided through Ugandan government systems.”

The amount of Irish Aid due to be allocated through official channels this year totalled 17 million euro.

Three DFA officials were swiftly dispatched to Kampala to investigate the affair and the Irish media had a field day with the story. Responses were varied; some gave credit to the Ugandan officials who initially  highlighted the fraud; some called for Irish Aid to channel more of its aid through NGOs and charities as opposed to governments; many commenter's on social media called for the permanent suspension of Irish Aid.


To give or not to give?

The whole debacle has highlighted increasing tensions in Eurozone countries surrounding the issue of foreign aid. Ireland has a long, generally proud history of foreign aid. As I talk about in this post, given that we are a small, neutral country with a recent history of conflict ourselves, Irish Aid is generally respected as being non-partisan, not tied to conditions and genuinely concerned with conflict resolution and peacemaking around the world.

Irish people, in turn, have traditionally valued our foreign aid programme and taken a proud view of our commitment to the developing world. There's a lot of reasons behind this but basically: it wasn't too long ago that we were awful poor ourselves and the Irish education system beats you over the head with talk of the Famine from Primary level. So, we appreciate the importance of both charity and long term aid (We are sorry about inflicting Bono and Bob Geldof on the rest of the world though).

Now however, we're poor again- or we think we are anyway. The boom years of the Celtic Tiger are gone. Times are tough, taxes are increasing, benefits are being cut, unemployment is rising, emigration levels are soaring. This story broke as Ireland approaches what is expected to be the harshest national budget in decades. It isn't hard to see why it prompted some people to question the amount of money donated through Irish Aid.

The misappropriated funds in Uganda have increased the calls for a dramatic rethink of the amount of foreign aid, or at the very least the method in which, Ireland donates. This is not a bad thing. We all know that there are many issues with international aid, how it's used, etc. However, we also know it's very easy to point out the problems but much harder to come up with feasible, sensible solutions.

So do we need to justify giving aid in the first place? I often skip these endless discussions of the motivation behind aid, not because I think it's unimportant (far from it) but it's exhausting. Usually, I take foreign aid as a given and focus on ways of improving it but how can we assist development in countries such as Uganda which have corrupt political regimes?

Having spent some time in Uganda last year, I can see how desperately the country needs development. I also think it has one of the most ruthlessly corrupt political system I have ever seen- and coming from an Irish person, that's really saying something. So we come to the difficult questions; Do we refuse to hep the Ugandan people because of political corruption? Why don't we work through the third sector? But will the Ugandan government allow aid to be channelled through others? Is it permissible to turn a blind eye to small levels of corruption in order to get aid to people who really need it?


That's what she said. . .

Once Ireland suspended aid and the Scandinavian countries quickly followed suit. Although hardly an unjustified reaction, are these governments just trying to appear to act decisively on this issue? After all, if they had proper Monitoring and Evaluation procedures in place to start with, would such an instance of fraud have been allowed to occur?

Reports emerged yesterday that the UK had suspended aid chanelled through the OPM (although this decision will not affect the regular budgetry aid it provides to Uganda) back in August when allegations of fraud first emerged and had since launched an independent inquiry. This was even though no British money was taken.

The rapid reaction of the UK to such reports, even though it was not their money alleged to be misappropriated, reflects poorly on the Irish government's slow reaction.

A friend of mine pointed out that the Uganda fraud case appears to be similar to the recent incident in which European donors suspended aid to Rwanda over its connections to militias in neighbouring DRC. European governments were not so outraged by this fact that they cancelled aid. Rwanda's involvement in the DRC had long been an open secret. But with a leaked UN report explicitly spelling it out, many governments felt something must be seen to be done.

Is this the reasoning behind the deployment of the DFA officials to Kampala? A member of the political opposition  I spoke to questioned the decision to send three Irish officials to Kampala. Surely the very capable staff at Ireland's embassy in Kampala are better placed to investigate such an issue. How can the DFA justify the expense of sending three officials, considering the slight returns any such trip is likely to incur? Is it all merely for show?

There are also some nuances to the story which have been under reported in the Irish media . Firstly, the story first began to break in Uganda back in July, when an accountant attached to the OPM went missing. Secondly, it was Ugandan officials and media who forced the story out into the open. The Irish media only picked up on the story last week once aid to Uganda was suspended (although the Irish Times did give credit to the Ugandan whistle blowers). This is not insignificant as it raises serious questions about the M&E procedures employed by Irish Aid. Again, are the DFA now acting to cover up their own failures perhaps?

In the end, even if Irish Aid and the DFA are somewhat at fault, the fraud was committed by the Ugandan OPM and it is the people of Northern Uganda who will suffer, as well as other Ugandan citizens who are tired of the endemic corruption in their country. But there are questions on the Irish side which need to be answered.

So I'll just owe you one Ireland?

This incident however could prove to be a game changer. I don't think Irish Aid will be scraped. But I do think this incident will leave a terrible legacy. It's proving to be a massive headache for the Irish government. It's difficult to justify international aid when you are cutting vital services in your own country such as rural garda stations, special needs assistants in primary schools, hospital beds and home help for carers. It is especially difficult to make such justifications when the foreign aid is found to be misappropriated. This incident has unfortunately increased the likelihood of Irish Aid being cut in the upcoming budget. The Dail's taxpayer watchdog is due to launch a special investigation into the spending of the country's third world aid budget.

The Irish government is demanding repayment of the 4 million euro from its Ugandan counterparts. News reports that the Ugandan government is "considering" such a repayment prompted much amusement from online commentators with a basic sentiment of "yeah, good luck with that one,".

And so we wait the budget in December, to see the real impact this affair will have on Irish Aid.


<a href="http://www.bloglovin.com/blog/4175749/?claim=cde85fz7cq2">Follow my blog with Bloglovin</a>


 

Improving Development: Irish Aid and Beyond

Last Friday, Joe Costello, Ireland's Minister For State for Foreign Affairs, launched the 2011 annual report of Irish Aid- the official foreign aid apparatus of the Irish government. Irish Aid is highly regarded in development circles, both by aid recipient countries and independent evaluators. As a small, neutral nation, there are rarely strings attached to Irish Aid and it has also targeted its funding to specific countries or areas, to try and ensure some continuity of development. Irish Aid was ranked second out of twenty one donors in its committment to African development by the first global survey carried out by the Centre for Global Development in Washington D.C. Plus some Ethiopian farmers I met in Addis airport last month, on their way to China for an information exchange trip focused on new agricultural technology, said they liked Irish Aid. A lot. So there.

Despite the fact that Irish Aid is, by all accounts, run professionally and transparently, Minister Costello felt the need to pledge increased accountability in how Ireland's development aid is spent. Now, this is largely political posturing. Ireland is making bailout repayments to the Troika, social spending is being cut, new taxes are being introduced and public anger is high. There may be some who question the reasoning behind providing development aid for countries abroad, when important social services in the country are being cut. Minister Costello's comments are most likely an appeasement of such critics.

But it does point to difficult issues which plague those who work in development; How to provide time and cost effective accountability and transparency measures. Donors (rightly) wish to know their money is being well spent and properly utilised. In making such demands however, some of their money is wasted on time consuming reporting and costly evaluations, which all drive up core costs such as staffing, making it difficult for charities and NGOs, big and small, to stay afloat. Since the recession, donors have been giving less money and making more demands, squeezing the third sector even more.

Those of us in the third sector can whine about the endless reporting and receipt collecting we are forced to endure by those heartless donors who pay our wages but that's not productive. What would be productive is a dramatic restructuring of traditional donor-recipient relationship. Some donors have already recognised this. A number of considerably large, private donors I have come across have incredibly thorough application processes for grants. All projects and staff, past and present, are vetted and evaluated and numerous stages of proposals, presentations and interviews are required. Once approved however, the recipient is given a substantial grant to do with it as it wishes. The money must obviously be accounted for but the donor does not stipulate what it is to be spent on. After rigorously selecting a trustworthy recipient they then trust in their judgement to spend the grant wisely, whether it be on core costs, project costs, etc. This leads to a genuinely trusting, apprecative relationship on both sides and such an approach often allows recipients to cut down on the admin costs that result from endless reporting to donors.

Other donors are insisting that similar third sector groups amalgate or at the very least work together, so as to make money donated more effective. For example, one relatively small Irish city has numerous LBGT rights groups working exclusively from one another. One donor organisation I know of who prioritises LBGT  rights has insisted any group it funds demonstrate it is working in partnership with other, similar organisations so that there may be real, city-wide, effective campaigning on the relevant issues.

Having spoken to colleagues about these issues, the feeling I get is that private donors are largely restructuring their systems to try and overcome some the issues highlighted above. Governmental agencies however are not. Again, this comes down to politics. European countries in particular are in a difficult position. With the Euro Crisis dominating domestic politics, any money spent on aid must be rigorously justified. They are not the only ones however. A colleague of mine calculated her office devoted at least fifty hours to one grant from a particularly zealous Asian government agency- between proposal writing, email correspondence, reporting, etc. The grants was only for $6000. It literally was not worth the work that winning the grant neccesitated.