I’m starting to get a little ratty with all the media right now talking about the Horn of Africa.
Articles are starting to look like a fill-the-blanks template that the reporters are all sharing around: Quote some stats about the famine; talk about the complicating factor of al Shabbab making life difficult in Somalia; drop in some pithy quotations about the fact that short-term aid is repetitive and doesn’t solve the underlying problems (always with a nod to the fact that, well, of course it saves lives now); then end on the dark yet hopeful twist that while aid agencies clearly don’t have it right, clearly what’s needed is ‘long-term solutions’.
Yeah, cool, thanks.
Interestingly, the reporting, which feels cookie-cuttered from every other cyclical emergency that pops up around the African continent (alternate Somalia with Niger, Sudan, Kenya…) is exactly the sort of thing that the reports slam aid agencies for doing in their emergency appeals: Template emergency request, paste photo of child in malnutrition centre top-right, insert country emergency name here.
But what I’m really ratty about is not that what the media are saying is wrong per se. My problem is, they’re making noise but missing the point.
Two of them, actually.
By rabbiting on about long-term solutions (I’m sorry, what solutions did you suggest, exactly?), they make it sound like nobody’s ever come up with that idea before.
[Cue professional aid workers the world over beneath newly-illuminated lightbulbs slapping foreheads, exclaiming “Long-term solutions! Of course! Why didn’t we think of that?]
The point is, aid agencies know about this. They speak this language. They can ream ideas out ad nauseum, et cetera, et cetera.
This is not new.
It’s just that, they suck at implementing them.
That’s point one.
Point two is, these solutions aren’t simple in the real-world. But we’ll come back to point two later.
***
Aid agencies have a presence in pretty much all these places that suffer cyclical emergencies. Long-term presence. And presence that isn’t just based on emergencies, either. Long-term community development, empowerment programs, child sponsorship, infrastructure development, food security projects, governance, microenterprise development… In short, kitchen sink included.
So, shouldn’t the presence of aid agencies stop famines from happening?
In principle, yes.
In practice, a woeful no.
Why not?
Well, it would be unfair, but only partly inaccurate, to say because ‘aid agencies aren’t doing their job’.
There are other factors, of course, the most significant being that macro-level factors (global economy, environmental trends) do in fact overwhelm the relatively small investment that NGOs make by comparison. But, it’s not only that.
Most aid programs, however much they might claim the opposite, are not geared to manage pending emergencies. Their activities are not built to context. Their funding sources are restrictive, their monitoring and analysis is not geared around mitigating risk, and their management systems are too rigid to adapt.
Each in turn.
Needs Context
Most aid agencies have their way of doing things. Although they will all claim that their interventions are based on need, most of the time their interventions are based on an assumption of need. Their assessments are often facipulative or partipulative. Their approach is dictated by their organizational ethos, the way they’ve done things in other places. Very rare indeed is the [large- and read, able to make a significant and multisectoral difference over an area sufficient to mitigate against the effects of famine] aid agency for whom each project is truly designed from scratch. Most have to fit a donor funding model, match up with existing organizational skills and experience, fit into standard monitoring and evaluation frameworks, and are lifted from projects and programs that have been run elsewhere.
Most agencies don’t realise that they are a solution looking for a problem. And their ‘solution’ may not be what’s needed.
What is needed?
Context analysis.
Let me say it again: Context analysis.
And I don’t just mean context awareness. All the gathered knowledge in the world won’t save us if it’s not applied. I mean a critical appreciation of the various factors that influence trends, patterns, norms and change, taken and re-applied in an intelligent way to what action is planned.
Agencies have to learn to go in there and fit their interventions to the reality on the ground. Not the reality they assume is there because it looks similar to some other place, or because sweeping the eye over the landscape makes it clear that they lack a particular resource which the agency knows it can provide.
Macro-level. Micro-level. Understand relationships. Understand the need, and the reasons for that need, and the reasons why those reasons exist. Make the communities you’re targeting a part of your analysis process so that you can learn their perspective and, if they’re interested, they can learn yours. Then figure out not what services you can deliver, but what changes need to happen to the situation to change the need that has been identified.
And that is already way too oversimplified.
Easy? Of course not. It involves time, flexibility, intent, relationships.
The frustrating part? Aid agencies have already had time. Twenty, twenty-five, thirty years of it. And if you go into some of these places and talk with the field staff, or the community members, when you drill down into it, they do in fact know a lot of this stuff. But the projects aren’t built around that context. They’re still matched to organizational norms, easily summed up in a donor report and an implementation table.
This has to change.
Funding Patterns
Agencies have their sources for funding long-term programs. Sometimes they’re long-standing cooperation agreements with institutional donors, where five years’ worth of funding is guaranteed for a particular community and sector. Sometimes it’s child sponsorship, where donors provide funds to the agency on the basis of a link with a child in the community in which the agency provides support. Sometimes it’s from general donations sourced from a faithful donor base.
Too often, these funding sources are restricted- either by the donor, or by the agency. If an agency has promised a donor a particular type of activity- providing clean water, or providing education- the agency may not be able to use those funds in other sectors. In some agencies, donors and not the agency have the strongest say in what sectors, approaches or activities are used (guaranteeing that we miss the context). In other cases, the funds may be more malleable, but still tend to be geared towards a suite of perceived acceptable activities.
Of course, these funds are often the agency’s bread and butter, providing the bulk of what keeps the agency in business, so making changes to how those funds are spent is a risky proposition.
When dealing with a context, like the Horn of Africa, which routinely slips into a crisis, we see a pattern. Existing funds continue to be pumped into the agreed sectors because there’s no donor flexibility to jump to other, more needy sectors. Activities continue to be geared towards the long-term development context without taking the emergency context into account, because this is what the organization has promised to deliver with the funding.
It sounds basic, but this is essentially what happens.
And if we’re also seeing a situation where the project has been cookie-cuttered into place, rather than built to context, then this is only going to be compounded.
What’s needed? Well, der, flexibility. On behalf of both donors and the agency. The agreement that, when a crisis emerges in a long-term program area, the agency can switch its donor funding into what ever activities it needs to to meet the needs. Not an unreasonable request, you’d think, for a donor who wants to help communities. So long as the donor trusts the agency.
And, of course, the organizational will and apparatus to do-so.
Thus avoiding the need to launch a fresh appeal every time a new emergency cycle appears in a place we always knew it was going to.
Monitoring and Accountability
And that’s the thing. We know. We often know. We knew about the Horn of Africa drought months ago. Many agencies began responding, in their own small way, long before this was a media circus. Mostly by tagging a few auxiliary activities onto their existing programs with a bit of extra funding. This was in part, to be fair, restricted by the lack of donor interest in the burgeoning crisis. It wasn’t until the media started making a fuss about it a few weeks ago that the public and governments sat up and started taking notice- making them equally complicit in this debacle.
Subject of another discussion.
Where aid agencies struggle though, and this is closely linked to the funding issue, is their indicators for success. When a block of money is granted to a project, there are almost always guidelines around how that money can be used. Hit the agreed targets and indicators, and the project is deemed a success (even if impact is negligible, uncertain or not measured).
And these targets- generally based around what can be produced by the project activities themselves- are most commonly concrete deliverables. (Some, granted, are vaguer, but these are both harder to measure and harder to get funding for.)
What long-term development projects are almost never measured against is their success at reducing the likelihood or impact of known crises in the area.
A malnutrition project may measure the number of children treated (in this case, a crisis that produces lots of malnourished kids actually makes the project look good!). A food security project, the increase in yield produced or the increase to household income- if the agency is really doing its job. Very rare is a project held to account for averting- or failing to avert- a crisis like a famine.
Despite the lip-service that agencies pay to having a positive long-term impact on a community’s context, very few of them can demonstrate this empirically, and even fewer actually hold themselves accountable to this principle in tangible terms.
They need to.
In fact, this should be the very raison d’etre of any long-term development project in an area known to be vulnerable to a particular disaster. Before we start launching into a wide array of obscure assistance packages that are au fait with our donor audience, let’s first make sure that our communities have food, water, shelter, and that we’re greatly improving their chances of hanging on to these things when the known and quantifiable threats this community faces materialise.
And, let’s actually hold them accountable with our measures of success and failure.
It’s called Disaster Risk Reduction. But like so many other technical terms that get touted in the industry, this one lost its currency almost before it had any. It’s another tick-the-box theme that pops up on proposal templates. “Explain how this project will reduce the impact of known disaster risks.” A paragraph of blurb, donor nods and signs the cheque.
Why does such a basic, logical and common-sense principle get sidelined? Partly staff knowledge, partly organizational will.
Internal Systems
Many agencies have a firm divide between what is ‘development’ and what is ‘aid’. Long-term presence in communities is generally to acheive development outcomes. Emergency situations require short-term aid interventions, after which the aid cowboys can bugger off and leave the development professionals to their job of transforming communities.
Staff are not trained to live in both camps. Either they are aid workers, or they are development workers. It is not uncommon to find development workers resentful of having to change their activities because an emergency operation has been mobilized and their manpower is required. And by the same token, assessing long-term development projects for their suitability to the risk context bores a lot of aid junkies.
So staff lack the training, and often the knowledge. But they also lack the motivation. Because they’re held accountable to different outcomes. While aid workers might be expected to meet indicators around services provided in an emergency, long-term development workers will be expected to deliver on achieving their project targets. Getting the organizational systems- including operations management and staffing- to shift from one mode to another without completely shifting the operational and staffing structure- is very hard.
What am I saying? I’m saying that we need to train our long-term development workers to be short-term emergency workers as well. A staff member working on a water infrastructure development project needs to, at the drop of a flag, be ready to become a staff member working on an emergency water project. Staff managing a program to reduce chronic malnutrition must, when the indicators are reached, start managing acute malnutrition instead.
They need to be supported by flexible systems and management, and an organization that is ready to react when thresholds are reached.
***
In summary, a major reason why aid agency presence has not translated into reduced vulnerability to, for example, famine, is due to aid agencies not being geared to do just that:
- Aid agencies do not build their programs around context, but are influenced by donor interest, assumptions, internal capacity and their own models of approach.
- Aid agencies don’t have resources that can be quickly tasked from one mode of operation (development) to another (emergency response).
- Aid agencies’ internal measuring systems do not hold them accountable to how well they reduce the risk of a disaster happening, only on how well they acheive project deliverables.
- And aid agencies own internal systems and staffing do not allow a seamless transition from a long-term development presence to an emergency response.
As such, aid agencies condemn themselves, much like the context they are in, to an endless cycle of superimposing an externally-funded, externally-managed and externally-staffed emergency response program, when in fact they have plenty of funding, management and staff capacity in-place. It’s just not being directed properly.
***
All that said, for correspondents to sit in their air-conditioned offices and take pot-shots at aid agencies for their inability to come up with ‘long-term solutions’ without offering any themselves; to criticise media circuses in refugee camps without ever acknowledging that this is exactly where their story comes from; to slam hyped-up emergency funding appeals while their own publications feed off the drama created by images of dying Africans; and to condemn aid agencies’ slow response to the emergency when the attention which agencies require to raise resources is so largely crippled by the media’s short attention-span with chronic disasters; makes these journalists run the risk of being obtuse, hypocritical, or simply missing the point entirely.
Want to be part of the solution? Get to grips with the complexity of long-term crises and find ways to engage your audience so that donor funding is more forthcoming, understanding more sympathetic, targeting both more flexible and more intelligent. And where aid agencies aren’t doing their job right, don’t just regurgitate pithy soundbites. Take time to find where the holes are, then hold these agencies to uncomfortable account in the public light and show them where change is actually needed.
This isn’t rocket science. It’s about logic and common sense. Let’s be honest about these gaps and encourage change among agencies, donors and the public alike.
It’s not that aid agencies don’t think about long-term solutions. They have the language coming out of their ears. It’s that those solutions don’t match the context and aren’t backed by an operational reality that supports that sort of change. And until they’re forced to change because their survival depends on it, they may not.
***
Complexity coming up in a subsequent post.
Je m’excuse for the plethora of Francophone cliches. I was ranting.
Great, great post. Thank you!
I’m wondering if it’s an aid agency’s place to be thinking long-term, especially in emergencies like a famine. Shouldn’t the responsibility really lie with the governments where the famine exists for long-term strategies? (Of course, famines occur where governments are weak.) Because the funding of these agencies is mostly focused on short-term solutions, shouldn’t someone else be looking at the bigger picture, not aid workers working for their next contract?
Hi Jay,
You’re partly right, in that it is definitely the primary responsibility of governments to assure the wellbeing of their people- morally and under some aspects of international law as well. But when you get to a situation when governments either can’t or are unwilling to do this, that’s when you run into a gap.
Most aid agencies which respond to emergencies and crises also have teams that deal with long-term development, that is, trying to tackle the fundamental reasons why poverty and insecurity exist. So from that perspective, yes, absolutely it is the responsibility of aid agencies to be thinking about the long-term, and not just the immediate. This should never compromise the need for an appropriate and timely response, but needs to be a part of it. Aid agencies’ actions, even in the short term, can have both positive and negative impacts on the long-term context in which they are working, and it’s essential that agencies consider this risk and assess the work they’re doing accordingly- the principle of Do No Harm, which we learnt to terrible cost through Rwanda post-1994. Finally, aid agencies are the players who bring resources and potential into a situation in need of those resources. Where they’re the only ones with the potential to change the situation, they absolutely have a responsibility to look at how they can impact it positively- both immediately, and into the long term.
Yes, other players too need to look at the long-term solutions. The UN, donor governments, institutions, corporations, national governments, administrators and so forth. But aid agencies are one of a horde of players who can affect this outcome, and given that many or most have long-term as well as short-term programs, they have a moral responsibility to be reflecting on this.
Thanks for your comment,
-MA
But what happens to all the ” flexible funding” for humanitarian assistance that is given to the agencies? Perhaps it is used for less media -sensitive crises, as we all know that the only real “additional resources” are freed up when the images hit the news. Other allocations are just a transfer within the budget for humanitarian assistance, e.g. less money for Niger, more to Somalia.
A totally fair question Sam. A few things.
1. It’s this ‘flexible funding’ that has allowed most agencies to be responding to the Horn of Africa drought since early 2011, on a small scale. But it’s still the same thing- imposing an externally-funded response on top of existing long-term development programs, rather than actually building the sustainable funding model of the long term development programs around the cyclical, predictable humanitarian needs- so therefore really just an extension of the same criticism I’ve made in the post.
2. This ‘flexible funding’ has to go a long way. You’re right- it goes into those forgotten emergencies like DRC, or the ones that were in the front pages in the past but have now dropped out, but still have massive needs, like the Pakistan floods of last year, the conflict in Afghanistan, and so-forth. And they’re also being used to develop new practices in the humanitarian field- pilot activities that might help agencies do their job better. In short, it’s in high, high demand, so there’s not lots of it to go around.
3. There’s a lot less ‘flexible funding’ in NGOs than many skeptics believe. I’ve worked for the donor-side of the NGO community and can speak to how seriously NGOs take their legal promise to donors about where funding goes. It’s very common to have funding that was raised for one emergency unable to be transfered to another for legal reasons or, and this has nearly equal weight in some conservative decision-making, the desire to appear to be doing the right thing by the donor. As a field-facing practicioner I can assure you this has been an extremely frustrating experience.
In fact, usually the most ‘flexible’ funding is the sort that comes in precisely for the long-term development programs, through whatever is the main development model being touted- namely because the fundraising efforts usually focus on helping a person or community [generically, and generally] out of poverty without necessarily defining precisely how this process will take place. This should give agencies all the freedom they need to take this funding (which makes up the bulk of their income) and tailor it around the humanitarian context, not just plop another generic development project into place.
Thanks for your thoughts & question mate.
-MA
Great article describing a complex problem, and a nice rant 🙂 I think you might be interested in Everything Is Obvious (Once You Know the Answer) by Duncan Watts. It explores the paradox of common sense – while it helps us make sense of the world it can undermine our ability to understand it. Here’s a snippet from New Scientist (16 July):
“…why does rocket science seem hard, while problems to do with people – which is some respects are clearly much harder – seem like they ought to be just a matter of common sense? As it turns out, the key is common sense itself. Common sense is exquisitely adapted to handling the kind of complexity that arises in everyday situations such as how to behave at work versus in front of your children versus in the pub with your mates. And because it works so well in these situations, we’re inclined to trust it.
But situations involving corporations, cultures, markets, nations and global institutions exhibit a very different kind of complexity. Large social-scale problems necessarilly involve anticipating or managing the behaviours of many individuals in diverse contexts over extended periods of time. Under these circumstances, the ability…of common sense to rationalise equally one behaviour and also its opposite causes us to commit all manner of predictive errors.
Yet because of the way we learn from experiences – even ones that are never repeated – the failings of common sense reasoning are really apparent to us. Rather they manifest simply as ‘things we didn’t know at the time; but which seem obvious in hindsight.”
Seems to me some of this might be at play in aid organisations and the media.
Cheers, Viv
ooops, there’s a typo…
…the failings of common sense reasoning are rarely apparent to us.
V
Just discovered your blog. Nice job on this Somalia analysis. Blood-pressure-popping how many commenters there are in the world who suggest long-term solutions, as if making a discovery, or (worse still?) argue against relief aid because it won’t deliver a long-term solution. I blogged myself about the irony of large multi-mandate (aid + development in your lexicon) agencies hyping the “perfect storm” of factors causing this food crisis in parts of Somalia, yet forgetting to mention their own decades of failed development efforts.
On this point, I don’t share your optimism about the potential to improve the emergency response of large development organizations. I just find that each lives in a different reality, and can’t see the other. The Haiti cholera and Pakistan flood responses are only the most recent examples that lead me to believe separate agencies fighting each other in a turf war would be less inefficient than that same battle going on within the same agency.
Finally, as much as NGOs self-servingly point the finger at donors for not being flexible with funding or not being willing to pony up the cash until a full-blown crisis is in our Western living rooms, what of their own responsibility? If development is all you do, fine. But if you call yourself a humanitarian agency and you sell yourself as an emergency responder then you have to take the consequent strategic decisions to ensure internal funding is available immediately, and in substantial measure. For humanitarian NGOs to be dependent solely on donor contracts (or public appeals) in order to mount a significant response in a crisis like Somalia today is an internal failure. Where is their emergency fund?
Excellent points. I wonder why NGO’s have not implemented them yet. The major untalked about issue with the Kenya and Somalia drought is also equal access to water. In Kenya, Lake Turkana is the main source of water in the northern part of the country, and as such is often disputed by Ethiopia and other countries bordering the lake. Countries understand that water is power, and as such, they are often focused too much on controlling what they have then developing water catchments and dams and focusing on watershed management.
MA, another great post and very enjoyable rant.
However, for me anyway, it raises a few questions… questions about how aid agencies communicate (a big interest of mine).
First, I can’t help but wonder where “the media” got the idea that long term solutions were sorely lacking. I doubt that this is their own personal analysis. My guess is that it comes from communications staff from different aid and development agencies involved with the present situation in the Horn of Africa. And if all articles sound the same, it’s because the sources of the stories are the same (or at least very similar).
I wonder if part of the problem stems from sub-optimal messaging from within an agency rather than from poor reporting.
I wonder if the gap that needs to be bridged isn’t greater between aid workers/researchers and communication professionals than between aid agencies and the press.
You wrote:
“Want to be part of the solution? Get to grips with the complexity of long-term crises and find ways to engage your audience so that donor funding is more forthcoming, understanding more sympathetic, targeting both more flexible and more intelligent.”
I think that this in particular is the job of a given agency’s communication staff… give journalists a better story and they will print it (she writes as if this wasn’t a challenging endeavour).
If aid workers want messaging to be less diluted, they need to speak to those who create it (communication departments). And without criticizing (because communicators are professionals too and reaching people is harder than it looks), offer different points of entry through which more complex issues can be discussed.
Like everything, I think this is a process. Communication staff need to better know their “product”. Public awareness needs to increase from “poverty and famine are problems and there are agencies that are working to make things better” to “this is the why and how of an agency’s response”. Of course, this requires time, interest and will…
Unfortunately, given that aid is a profession to be respected, you can’t expect everyone to understand its complexities overnight (or in the span of a single news cycle). And articles that deal with higher discourse require readership that can keep up.
Best,
Karine
Pingback: Roundup: Commentary on the Famine in Somalia | Sahel Blog
Pingback: Simple « Tales From the Hood
Pingback: The Last 3 Months « WanderLust
Pingback: Images of Africa « WanderLust