Rethinking relief operations: Idealistic and out of touch with reality?
The history of pastoralists' development reads like the afflictions of the biblical Job. Institutions after institution have conjured strategies that would be comical if their consequences were not so tragic. A respectable east African country thought that the best way to "develop" pastoralists was to "integrate them with the rest of society". It spent good million after good million building social halls in arid lands. Come weekends, the good government would host the "community" to a disco and western films. Needless to mention, the discos remained empty and the films exclusively patronised by pre-adolescent primary school boys. This was an Islamic culture yet no one thought of or gave due consideration to appropriateness.
Another government thought that Texan style ranching was the solution to "pastoralist problems", problems that pastoralists themselves did not know about. The consequence was the hiving off of huge pastureland by elitists at the expense of millions of patoralists to whom land ownership is as bizarre as owing a star (it is inherently everybody's). The reduced pastureland and interrupted livelihood came with their bedfellows; conflict over reduced resources (land, water points, etc) and chronic livelihood insecurity. It's a pity no one ever asked pastoralists whether they wanted "development" in the first place. It is a shame there was (is) no mechanism for reviewing and condemning the actions of the said government as they unfold.
To be fair, these are extreme examples of how wrong we, development professionals, can be and how long we can persist even when all evidence points to the fact that the idea was awfully faulty at inception. The noblest of humanitarian interventions is undoubtedly relief. Since its inception (in its modern familiar form) during World War I, humanitarian relief has redeemed masses from certain starvation, epidemics, massacres and annihilation.
But for all its noble intentions, relief is rife with the self-delusion that plagues community development and national economic development (remember the integrated rural development projects and the structural adjustment programmes?). Self-delusion seems a rather strong a term, but what better term explains the irrational adoption, defence and continued implementation of programmes, practices and policies that do not have the interest of the communities at heart? What is happening?
Relief programmes have become arenas for posturing and muscle flexing. Agencies compete for "visibility" while the needs of disaster and war victims are glossed, sometimes ignored. There are programmes strategised and implemented for their "visibility value" at the expense of less glamorous, potentially more effective programmes. Surveys and statistics thus become tools for validating an organisation's position rather than methods of identifying community needs and programme impact.
The sentiment of us-versus-them is unashamedly overt. Ask an implementing agency a simple question such as "how many refugees do you serve per day?" and your head will hurt from the complexity of the answer you get. Separately ask two donor agencies, in the same relief operation, how many beneficiaries their dollar (or yen) reaches and the variance is astounding. With a humanitarian crisis unfolding in Dafur, the subsequent stampede of humanitarian organisations in but a matter of time.
African governments have agreed to a peer review mechanism through the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). Isn't it a pity we, humanitarian organisations, have not instituted one?
It would be a gross inaccuracy to say that nothing (good) goes on in relief programmes. We do a lot of good. The desperately poor survive in cases where they would have certainly perished without the desperately needed interventions. Opportunities are created where none existed before the relief agencies came.
What is contentious is the mandate we have found convenient to ignore. When we ask governments, corporations and individuals for money, we promise that we shall serve the poor with it, and serve them in ways that embraces humanity (remember the equality, empowerment, rights, participation mantra?). Our reports say that we are serving the poor with other people’s monies (often giving accounts of sterling performances). It is the gap between this promise and practice that is embarrassing.
It is a pity that in this day and age, we hold planning meetings for refugee operations with but token representation of the displaced communities. Inevitably, our plans allocate more resources to our conveniences (accommodation, transport, security, remuneration, technical support etc) than to actual basic refugee services (food, shelter and clothing). We make policies that convenience us (working five-day weeks, no working weekends, no entry for refugees into our offices, etc) with impunity.
The greatest betrayal yet, is the tacit collusion of silence. We dare not speak of the ills we perpetrate "in the interest of the organisation". And many an employee has lost his/her job for questioning organisational methods. This reasoning reeks of conservativism and fear of the very positive change we keep harping about. For how else do we work better without honestly critically analysing how we work now. A peer review mechanism would force us to analyse this.
Alternatively, a simplistic acid test would be to candidly ask oneself; Are we serving the less fortunate that we promised to serve in the way we promised to serve? If your answer is yes, sleep easy. If this note sounds idealistic and out of touch with current realities, then therein is the problem. Humanitarian work is meant to be idealistic and out of touch with reality. How else do you explain the actions of humanitarian founders and leaders?
* Job Ogonda is an experienced Development Professional with expertise in Programme Management. He has eight years experience in programme cycle management at community, national and Africa regional level. He has a wealth of experience in coordination/management of relief/emergency, sustainable development/livelihood programmes and advocacy/policy processes.
* * Please send comments to