The lack of accountability for NGOs

The whipping boy of international development is undoubtedly the World Bank, which receives a good lashing from various Western non-governmental organizations whenever large capacity-building projects are slated for construction in poor countries. Such undertakings include dams for increased irrigation, pipelines for energy mobilization and roadways for easier transportation. Though these endeavors proceed relatively smoothly in wealthier nations, they are typically met with resistance from today's NGOs, which fear harm to indigenous populations and destruction of the surrounding environment.

But while Western NGOs keep tabs on the activities of the World Bank, utilizing compassionate Hollywood actors, energetic university students and polished media pundits to push their pet causes, whose watchful eye keeps tabs on them?

Sebastian Mallaby, a Washington Post columnist writing in the October issue of the journal Foreign Policy, argues that most Western NGOs face little, if any, accountability for their actions. While European and U.S. publics feast upon a diet of "World Bank white elephants" prepared by NGOs, the poor they purport to help go to bed hungry, deprived of the basic infrastructure enjoyed by their Internet-enabled peers oceans away.

A telling example is the Qinghai dam project, initially sponsored by the World Bank on behalf of the Chinese government. The plan was to build a small dam in the Qinghai region for irrigation to help the 58,000 farmers, including 3,500 Tibetans, living on a nearby drought-ridden hillside. These farmers would be relocated to an area much closer to the dam after its completion, raising their incomes and alleviating the population burden for the Tibetans who stayed behind.

But as Mallaby notes, London-based NGOs soon got word of the project, and quickly this seemingly simple idea became embroiled in the larger debate over China's relationship with Tibet, fueled by claims that local Tibetans were being targeted as part of a wider scheme to dominate the nearby Tibetan Autonomous Region.

The global NGO network immediately shifted into high gear. Countless letters were faxed, protests staged and impassioned speeches delivered, culminating in the eventual withdrawal of all World Bank support.

Never mind that Qinghai had been part of China since its inception, or that no demographic changes would actually occur, or that the farmers themselves expressly desired to be moved. None of these facts were made strikingly apparent in the subsequent discussion of China's proposed "cultural genocide."

The Chinese government intends to erect the Qinghai dam anyway, revealing a frightening trend in the complex game of international development. As NGOs have grown in size and caliber, they have also become powerful enough to force the World Bank and other multilateral aid entities to heed their demands, removing any opportunity for extra-governmental oversight, protection and funding.

Local and national governments are left to deal with exigencies as best they can, resulting in abandoned enterprises or makeshift solutions that are inferior to the standards promulgated by either NGOs or the World Bank. Meanwhile, as activists engage in shouting competitions to attract attention and donors back home, the voices of the poor become increasingly hard to hear.

The events in Qinghai and elsewhere indicate that the laissez-faire status enjoyed by NGOs should be reconsidered. No one can rightly claim that NGOs are uniformly bad -- most, after all, sincerely strive to help whenever possible -- but the current framework in which they operate delivers neither accountability nor assessment of their impact. Much of this is due to the niche NGOs occupy, serving as conduits for ordinary citizens to pool resources and effect specific outcomes. In doing so, however, they often weaken the efforts of foreign and domestic governments, and particularly the World Bank.

Lack of cooperation among these groups has undermined broader policy objectives that are beyond the reach of even the largest NGOs. Accordingly, improving coordination among NGOs, governments and the World Bank is an important first step toward forging strategies that are structurally cohesive and acutely informed. Formally incorporating NGOs under the umbrella of government-endorsed agencies might prove a good way to improve communication and enforce the comprehensive review necessary of all participants in international development.

Ultimately, our focus must remain on meeting the needs of the poor. If the present mishmash paradigm of NGOs and government conglomerates continues to create more ruckus than reconciliation, then it must be abandoned.

Otherwise, we can only look forward to more piecemeal solutions -- and fewer permanent results.

Jason Lott is a first-year student in the School of Medicine from Anniston, Ala. Whole Lotta Love appears on alternate Mondays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.