TIB catches clan members off-guard
Monday, 8 October 2007
Shamsul Huq Zahid
THE non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that have, apparently, won the hearts of both bilateral and multilateral donors must be shell-shocked. The helmsmen of the NGOs did not expect such harsh observations from an organization-the Bangladesh chapter of the Transparency International-- which they consider a member of their own tribe.
The TIB while releasing at a function the research report prepared on 20 NGOs-one international, eight national and 11 local- late last week alleged that most of the NGOs lacked financial transparency and were engaged in financial irregularities.
The two associations of the NGOs, meanwhile, have protested the TIB report and expressed their serious reservations against its findings. The TIB in the face of strong protest from NGOs has clarified that the findings do not necessarily reflect the situation within all the NGOs.
The TIB report was very critical about the financial dealings by the founders and executives of the NGOs. It maintained that the financial conditions of the founders and executives had improved while the situation with the service recipients of NGOs remained unchanged. The TB report also accused the majority of the NGO executives of taking illegal financial and other facilities while depriving their other employees of their due.
The WB in a recent report though did not make similar accusations yet it in a veiled form admitted the existence of non-transparency in financial matters in the country's NGO sector.
The NGOs which have emerged as a dominant force in the poverty alleviation and social empowerment programmes might have to redraw their strategies against their critics following the TIB report.
The NGOs have enemies in both private and public sectors. The donors' bias towards NGOs so far as doling out development funds is concerned does not go well with the government. The top government leaders in the past did not hide their growing dissatisfaction over the issue. But in spite of donors' strong faith in NGOs, a section of people do have deep suspicion about the honesty and integrity of the NGOs in financial matters.
The latest TIB report would be a major setback for the NGOs. The donors might find it prudent to be cautious while making comments about performance of the NGOs. The suspicion that the general people have about a section of NGOs, rightly or wrongly, is likely to go deeper following the publication of the TIB report.
The donors have demonstrated certain degree of biasness to the NGOs, particularly in relation to allocating funds to social sectors and poverty alleviation programmes.
The flow of assistance made available to the government by the donors has declined in recent years while the same has increased sharply in case of the NGOs.
According to a World Bank report, the aid made available to NGOs increased from an annual average of $233 million in 1990-95 to $343 million in 1996-2005. But the total donors' assistance to the government fell from an annual average of $1.62 billion to $1.39 billion during the same period.
Reliable estimates show that most part of the donors' fund flows directly to the NGOs and the rest through the government. The multilateral lending agencies provide funds to NGOs mainly through the projects under the annual development programmes (ADPs).
The relations between the government and the NGOs have never been that cozy as the donors made it no secret that they trust NGOs more than government agencies involved in social sector development and poverty alleviation. The government leaders and bureaucracy often feel embarrassed when donors compare the performance level of the government organizations (GOs) with that of the NGOs. Besides, the direct dealings between the NGOs and donors in the matters of funding have helped development of a sort of defiance among some NGOs. This again has not gone well with the administration.
The alleged involvement of a few NGOs in the national politics, particularly during the 1996 and 2001 parliamentary elections pulled down the relations between the government and the NGOs to a new low. The row over the involvement in NGOs in national politics to work for a major political party, however, led to split in the unity of the NGOs. Two separate apex association of NGOs were formed.
While multilateral donors preferred to stay away from the controversy, some European donors were found to be sympathetic to the cause of the NGOs against whom the last political government took actions for being involved in national politics.
The experts are of the opinion that flow of funds to NGOs outside the government's budgetary framework does create problems so far as priorities and public policy choices are concerned. The WB does also approve of the fact that financing of NGOs through the government budget improves the comprehensiveness of the fiscal framework and quality of public policy choices.
But at the same time it points out the dangers involved in making available the assistance to NGOs through the government. The irregularities in procurement, contract awarding, delays and rent seeking and emergence of shady NGOs are among the problems that might crop up if the donors decided to channel resources through the government's budgetary mechanism.
In spite of remarkable contributions to areas of poverty alleviation and service delivery to the poor, NGOs, rightly or wrongly, are not held in high esteem by a section of the population, or to be more precise, the better off sections both in urban and rural areas of this country. In some cases the beneficiaries too do not have much respect for the benefactor NGOs.
The better off section have always accused the sponsors of the NGOs of exploiting the poor people to make their personal fortune. The life-style of the NGO executives has made these people suspicious about the financial transparency of the NGOs. What has made the NGOs involved in micro-financing at the grassroots more vulnerable to criticism is the high lending rates that they charge on the borrowers-the poor.
The NGOs in spite of growing criticism have never felt the necessity of becoming transparent and accountable in their financial dealings and operational matters. Nor the government could put in place an effective regulatory authority to streamline operations of NGOs. The apex association of the NGOs also did never ask its members to bring about a change in the situation.
The TIB has recommended establishment of an independent commission for effective monitoring and regulation of NGOs so that the latter can pursue their avowed objective of acting as catalysts for development at the grassroots and never dare step beyond the dotted line. The government should consider the suggestion seriously.
THE non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that have, apparently, won the hearts of both bilateral and multilateral donors must be shell-shocked. The helmsmen of the NGOs did not expect such harsh observations from an organization-the Bangladesh chapter of the Transparency International-- which they consider a member of their own tribe.
The TIB while releasing at a function the research report prepared on 20 NGOs-one international, eight national and 11 local- late last week alleged that most of the NGOs lacked financial transparency and were engaged in financial irregularities.
The two associations of the NGOs, meanwhile, have protested the TIB report and expressed their serious reservations against its findings. The TIB in the face of strong protest from NGOs has clarified that the findings do not necessarily reflect the situation within all the NGOs.
The TIB report was very critical about the financial dealings by the founders and executives of the NGOs. It maintained that the financial conditions of the founders and executives had improved while the situation with the service recipients of NGOs remained unchanged. The TB report also accused the majority of the NGO executives of taking illegal financial and other facilities while depriving their other employees of their due.
The WB in a recent report though did not make similar accusations yet it in a veiled form admitted the existence of non-transparency in financial matters in the country's NGO sector.
The NGOs which have emerged as a dominant force in the poverty alleviation and social empowerment programmes might have to redraw their strategies against their critics following the TIB report.
The NGOs have enemies in both private and public sectors. The donors' bias towards NGOs so far as doling out development funds is concerned does not go well with the government. The top government leaders in the past did not hide their growing dissatisfaction over the issue. But in spite of donors' strong faith in NGOs, a section of people do have deep suspicion about the honesty and integrity of the NGOs in financial matters.
The latest TIB report would be a major setback for the NGOs. The donors might find it prudent to be cautious while making comments about performance of the NGOs. The suspicion that the general people have about a section of NGOs, rightly or wrongly, is likely to go deeper following the publication of the TIB report.
The donors have demonstrated certain degree of biasness to the NGOs, particularly in relation to allocating funds to social sectors and poverty alleviation programmes.
The flow of assistance made available to the government by the donors has declined in recent years while the same has increased sharply in case of the NGOs.
According to a World Bank report, the aid made available to NGOs increased from an annual average of $233 million in 1990-95 to $343 million in 1996-2005. But the total donors' assistance to the government fell from an annual average of $1.62 billion to $1.39 billion during the same period.
Reliable estimates show that most part of the donors' fund flows directly to the NGOs and the rest through the government. The multilateral lending agencies provide funds to NGOs mainly through the projects under the annual development programmes (ADPs).
The relations between the government and the NGOs have never been that cozy as the donors made it no secret that they trust NGOs more than government agencies involved in social sector development and poverty alleviation. The government leaders and bureaucracy often feel embarrassed when donors compare the performance level of the government organizations (GOs) with that of the NGOs. Besides, the direct dealings between the NGOs and donors in the matters of funding have helped development of a sort of defiance among some NGOs. This again has not gone well with the administration.
The alleged involvement of a few NGOs in the national politics, particularly during the 1996 and 2001 parliamentary elections pulled down the relations between the government and the NGOs to a new low. The row over the involvement in NGOs in national politics to work for a major political party, however, led to split in the unity of the NGOs. Two separate apex association of NGOs were formed.
While multilateral donors preferred to stay away from the controversy, some European donors were found to be sympathetic to the cause of the NGOs against whom the last political government took actions for being involved in national politics.
The experts are of the opinion that flow of funds to NGOs outside the government's budgetary framework does create problems so far as priorities and public policy choices are concerned. The WB does also approve of the fact that financing of NGOs through the government budget improves the comprehensiveness of the fiscal framework and quality of public policy choices.
But at the same time it points out the dangers involved in making available the assistance to NGOs through the government. The irregularities in procurement, contract awarding, delays and rent seeking and emergence of shady NGOs are among the problems that might crop up if the donors decided to channel resources through the government's budgetary mechanism.
In spite of remarkable contributions to areas of poverty alleviation and service delivery to the poor, NGOs, rightly or wrongly, are not held in high esteem by a section of the population, or to be more precise, the better off sections both in urban and rural areas of this country. In some cases the beneficiaries too do not have much respect for the benefactor NGOs.
The better off section have always accused the sponsors of the NGOs of exploiting the poor people to make their personal fortune. The life-style of the NGO executives has made these people suspicious about the financial transparency of the NGOs. What has made the NGOs involved in micro-financing at the grassroots more vulnerable to criticism is the high lending rates that they charge on the borrowers-the poor.
The NGOs in spite of growing criticism have never felt the necessity of becoming transparent and accountable in their financial dealings and operational matters. Nor the government could put in place an effective regulatory authority to streamline operations of NGOs. The apex association of the NGOs also did never ask its members to bring about a change in the situation.
The TIB has recommended establishment of an independent commission for effective monitoring and regulation of NGOs so that the latter can pursue their avowed objective of acting as catalysts for development at the grassroots and never dare step beyond the dotted line. The government should consider the suggestion seriously.