David JessopI HAVE had an ambivalence about non-governmental organisations (NGOs) ever since I was at university. My reasons then and now relate to the way in which these powerful organisations speak in absolutes and claim to be the world's moral and social conscience.
A week or so ago, 11'leading human rights, environmental and social development organisations' endorsed an accountability charter for the non-profit sector. These bodies, which include household brands like Oxfam, ActionAid, Amnesty, Greenpeace, Save the Children and Transparency International, agreed a code of conduct for NGOs. They created in the process what seems to be a new category of global organisation, the international NGO.
SETTING STANDARDS
Their objective in doing so was to set standards of accountability for themselves. They signed a document that established core values and operating principles on issues such as good governance, fund-raising, respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and ethical objectives in fund-raising.
The document was a response to growing questions about the legitimacy of such organisations and who they speak for.
I have much sympathy with the broad social objectives of NGOs and, in particular, the original basis on which they were created.
They cover gaps in the social provision in many nations and provide relief in the event of major catastrophes such as a tsunami, hurricanes or famines.
In all these areas, they have ably demonstrated a capacity that has put governments to shame by their ability to mobilise finance and practical support along with the rapid delivery of relief in complex situations.
I also respect their desire to create greater social equity and to bring about change in a manner that ensures the world's poorest benefit from economic growth and have governments of their own choosing.
But where I have grave doubts and here the Caribbean's experience helps makes the case is when such NGOs begin to take positions of advocacy without recognising that the world is complex and single solutions cannot be applied to all.
I also have a deep concern about the basis on which NGOs have been sucked into a process that enables governments and international development agencies to justify their policies and actions on the basis that dialogue with NGO representatives legitimises the plans of the donor organisations.
With the exception of Haiti, Caribbean countries do not figure among the world's poorest nations. By applying the criteria of gross national product, the region has been set apart from other small and vulnerable developing nations by multilateral agencies and is said to consist of middle-ranking developing economies.
OVERSIMPLISTIC VIEW
NGOs endorse this simplistic view of the Caribbean and, to a significant extent, have as a consequence withdrawn from much of the region and the difficult issues of economic transition it has to address.
Arguably, this is also because their core groups of financial supporters in the developed world prefer simple messages and being associated with helping those in absolute poverty.
Nowhere is this failure to address the complexity of international economic relation-ships and the nature of poverty more apparent than when it comes to issues of trade policy in the Caribbean.
By seeking solutions that benefit the largest number of the poorest in the world, the big NGOs are in danger of preferring in the context of trade, rapidly-emerging economies like Brazil over nations such as Guyana and Jamaica.
This oversimplistic approach has been particularly evident in the case of sugar where a number of international NGOs have taken a line that fails to understand that the consequence of their policy will be for Brazil's huge landowners to emerge as the pre-eminent global sugar supplier to the detriment of the rural community of the Caribbean.
QUESTIONALE RELATIONS
International NGOs have also in the past been at the forefront of actions that have delayed key infrastructural projects in environ-mentally-sensitive nations such as Belize and Guyana without any suggestion or support for alternative courses of action.
There is some irony in this as developed country NGOs have the wealth and support that they have because earlier generations of those who fund them benefited from the largely unopposed deforestation and subsequent industrialisation of 18th century Europe.
Another area in which NGO activity is questionable relates to governance. NGOs seem set on promoting Western absolutes in part as they respond to the huge sums of money that the world's developed nations now want to throw at the promotion of good governance.
The consequence is that they now give less consideration to the importance of social justice and equity in some nations and place greater emphasis on the application of western democratic norms.
The decision by the world's most powerful NGOs to agree an accountability charter is welcome, but marks a further step away from their origins.
It implies that they are now seeking to become a part of the establishment with a political agenda, leaving one to wonder if in years to come their desire for accountability and legitimacy will lead them into becoming the first international global political parties.
They are not Governments and they have not been elected. They have huge financial resources but a growing need to maintain the voluntary flow of cash on which their often very large establishments are now dependent. They have seen poverty, the reasons it exists and the justifiable emotional reaction it causes, as a reason to become involved in the policy environment. In the process they have become a form of business with market-oriented justifications for aggressive sales and marketing techniques to sustain their revenues.
The decision by some of the world's most influential NGOs to find a basis to be seen as transparent and accountable in order, as they put it, to 'merit the respect and support they have' will only have value if there is some penalty for non compliance and greater certainty about where such bodies see their limits.
For the Caribbean, international NGOs would have much greater value if they re-engaged and developed a nuanced, non- absolutist and supportive approach when dealing with nations that are neither poor nor rich, but have unique problems that have to be resolved within the trade, development and environmental rules that the world has created.
David Jessop is the Director of the Caribbean Council and can be contacted at david.jessop@caribbean-council.org
