Comment
Saturday, November 20, 1999
Are NGOs essential for Kenya's development? By ROSEMARIE MUGANDA ONYANDO
In the last two decades, the number of non-governmental organisations has grown significantly, as has the amount of resources they control.
The growth of the NGO sector has also been phenomenal elsewhere in the world. One of the reasons is the oft-quoted "comparative advantage" or the ability of NGOs to deliver emergency relief or development services cost-effectively to those most in need.
NGOs can reach groups that government and other agencies cannot, and past development strategies have given NGOs the legitimacy to act on behalf of the poor.
According to World Bank estimates, NGOs contribute about $180 million annually to rural water supply schemes alone. This is three times the volume of loans advanced by the World Bank itself for such schemes.
Although actual figures are difficult to obtain, it is estimated that NGOs in Kenya have an annual development expenditure of between $150-$200 million. These figures showing the volume of funds in the hands of NGOs at a time of global financial crisis and dwindling aid levels illustrate their growing importance in development.
Several reasons have been given to explain this trend. Many aid agencies see NGOs as playing a significant role in the design, preparation and implementation of development initiatives in addition or as an alternative to the efforts of governments or other international institutions.
NGOs have also effectively taken advantage of the increasing inability of government to fulfil its obligations in a number of areas.
But in contrast to governmental efforts, which are often large in scale but limited in impact, NGO activities tend to be good but limited in scope. The goal of sustainable development on a comprehensive scale is one that has eluded both governments and NGOs. It must be stressed that NGOs vary greatly, and while some of their projects are good and serve the intended purposes, there certainly are mediocre and even bad projects, lacking in innovation and purpose.
Coordination between NGO activities is also very poor. Institutional preferences and jealousies have prevented collaboration between NGOs that would greatly reduce duplication, even at the national level.
Many NGOs have similar intentions, but the differences arising from their political, ideological, economic and sometimes personnel issues prevent them from taking advantage of each others' strengths. This largely reduces the level of collaborations that could be achieved among NGOs.
NGOs in Kenya have come under heavy criticism over utilisation, management and accountability of resources. While NGOs have often criticised mismanagement in government, some of them may just be as guilty of the same vices as the government.
It is estimated there are about 3,000 NGOs registered in Kenya under various Acts. According to the National Council of NGOs, there are an estimated 1,000 NGOs registered under the NGO Coordination act of 1990. However, there are tens of thousands of registered self-help groups.
Ten years ago, there were about 23,000 registered community-based women's groups. More recent data shows that membership of the NGOs Council has grown steadily in the past five years from a mere 250 in 1993 to more than 1,000 by 1998.
The Act 1990 defines an NGO as any "private voluntary grouping of individuals or associations not operated for profit or for other commercial purposes but which have organised themselves nationally or internationally for the promotion of social welfare, development, charity or research through the mobilisation of resources".
By this definition, any organisations that is both non-governmental and non-profit, in fact anything remotely answering to this broad criteria, can and has been called an NGO. These range from merry-go-rounds, ethnic groups, estate welfare groups to churches and trade unions to universities and private hospitals to professional sporting leagues and so on.
Their contribution to various sectors of development has also increased tremendously as they are to be found providing relief and risking life and limb delivering services to Kenyans in places the government does not even know exist.
NGOs provide between 45-50 per cent of all health-care services and over 50 per cent of all family planning services. Within the education sector, NGOs are particularly active in the arid and semi-arid areas, where their NGOs makes it difficult to generalize despite claims that NGOs are "cost effective". The extent to which the beneficiaries "participate" or are involved and the utilisation of this "participation" is in itself an issue at the heart of the debate concerning the evaluation of social development and the debate surrounding issues such as empowerment. Lately, claims of mismanagement and lack of accountability and transparency have dogged the sector. Some of these claims may be justified and may arise from the fact that many NGOs do not have proper institutional structures and therefore cannot function properly.
This could be attributed to the way in which NGOs are constituted. Many of these organisations were formed to respond to a certain perceived need. Institutional development is usually not a priority for many NGOs. Many donors do not also support institutional capacity building which would include the development of structures and accountability systems.
To many NGOs, accountability and transparency have been narrowly interpreted to mean periodically furnishing donors with narrative and financial statements. However, the question is whether NGOs should seek to only satisfy the requirements of those who fund them and not those on whose behalf they accept funds.
The lack of institutional structures has contributed to mismanagement and irregularities. It is not uncommon to find NGOs that are run like private business concerns or family enterprises or that are plagued by what has become known as the Founder Member Syndrome (FMS). This refers to a situation where people who formed organisations are unwilling to let go though the NGOs may have expanded. FMS often leads to mismanagement of funds, nepotism and cronyism and can disrupt the normal functioning of an organisation.
But there is a way of monitoring NGO activity. Do these organisations have rules and regulations to guide their operations? Yes, indeed. Under the NGO Coordination Act of 1990, there is a code of conduct that clearly sets out rules and regulations for registered NGOs. It is supposed to be enforced by the Regulatory Committee of the NGO Council.
The enforcement of this code has been hampered by several reasons, one of them being lack of a provision for punitive measures, which makes the NGO Council a toothless dog. So while the Regulatory Committee may find an NGO guilty of an offence, it does not have real powers to punish the said NGO. Secondly, the size and diversity of the sector brings into question the capacity of the council to police this fast-growing sector. Also the council's own internal problems cast serious doubt on its moral authority to question members over any misconduct.
It is critical that the capacity of the council be enhanced to enable it play its role better. Unless this happens NGOs will continue preaching water and drinking wine while taking the public for a ride. It should be possible to shine the spot light on NGOs and keep the light on to ensure that NGOs are not just efficient but effective. Other wise the myth about "comparative advantage" and the ability of NGOs to cost-effectively deliver services may remain just that, a myth.