Commitment
Partnerships require commitment. NGOs often operate on short times frames, only investing in an area for three to five years (Smillie, 2001, p. 13). In disaster relief, the life of projects may even be shorter. Peter Morgan asserts that capacity building agendas should instead take at least fifteen to twenty years (Smillie, 2001, p. 10). By entering into a partnership with a local group, NGOs have agreed to something more meaningful than a quick construction project or feeding program. The relationship forged between an NGO and a local group represents a commitment that the NGO is obliged to take seriously. From a faith perspective, one could say that NGOs should regard their working partnerships as covenants rather than casual relationships. In a covenant, parties are bound together by a promise, and violating the promise is a sign of serious disrespect for the other party.
Trust
Trust is a key component of partnership, and local players have no reason to trust foreign partners who do not demonstrate a commitment to their community’s interests. One horrible example illustrates the repercussions of a lack of both commitment and trust in a partnership relationship. Turay tells of an instance during the conflict in Sierra Leone when a rebel invasion caused tens of thousands of Freetown residents to seek safety in the city’s football stadium. The staff of one major INGO fled the country without handing off their keys to the food storage units to a local staff member. As a result, many people went without food for days (Turay, 2001). Not only could the INGO have demonstrated commitment by leaving some of their foreign staff behind, but they also could have shown greater trust in their local partners by giving them possession of the food storage key well before the outbreak of conflict. When partnerships are treated lightly, trust is broken. Sadly, it is the local partners that will bear the greater consequences of failed partnerships.
Trust is a key component of partnership, and local players have no reason to trust foreign partners who do not demonstrate a commitment to their community’s interests. One horrible example illustrates the repercussions of a lack of both commitment and trust in a partnership relationship. Turay tells of an instance during the conflict in Sierra Leone when a rebel invasion caused tens of thousands of Freetown residents to seek safety in the city’s football stadium. The staff of one major INGO fled the country without handing off their keys to the food storage units to a local staff member. As a result, many people went without food for days (Turay, 2001). Not only could the INGO have demonstrated commitment by leaving some of their foreign staff behind, but they also could have shown greater trust in their local partners by giving them possession of the food storage key well before the outbreak of conflict. When partnerships are treated lightly, trust is broken. Sadly, it is the local partners that will bear the greater consequences of failed partnerships.
Clear understanding
Potential partners honor each other by establishing clear expectations and an understanding of roles. By displaying honesty and transparency from the beginning, partners will better understand the nature of their relationship and avoid unrealistic expectations of one another. Though INGOs often bring many material resources and expertise to the local area, their resource supply is certainly limited. Local players must understand their partner’s limitations in order to avoid unnecessary disappointment later on in the relationship. Similarly, international agents should know their partners well enough to understand their assets and limitations as they relate to the proposed work.
Loss of independence & a long term approach
There are many poor models of “partnership” that, by their example, help flush out the genuine meaning. As illustrated by the glaring example from Sierra Leone, some INGOs not only show a lack of trust of their local partners, but they also feel they can operate on an independent schedule. The INGO in question fled without adequately consulting with local partners. Ethically, they should not have such license unless this is clearly accepted by their local partners. INGOs may be accustomed to entering and leaving a region according to their own agenda, but adopting the partnership approach requires greater accountability to and negotiation with local partners; INGOs must accept that this causes them to lose some organizational independence and sacrifice a degree of their freedom (Minear, 2002).
Many INGOs, especially in the wake of a disaster, treat their local “partner” NGOs as conduits for service delivery instead of co-planners in the relief process. Out of INGOs’ desire for conduits of aid transfer, disaster regions may experience a proliferation of so-called “briefcase NGOs” (Anderson, 2000a, p. 46). These local NGOs are developed by INGOs to act as partners, when they are really channels for aid distribution. Often times, the INGO intends to equip their “partner” to carry on the relief work as it moves into the reconstruction and development phase. Sadly, many INGOs leave the area without ensuring the sustainability of partner NGOs, and most of these newborn agencies collapse for lack of funding within a few years (I. T. Smillie, Goran, 2001). In these scenarios, INGOs are focused on their own priorities for relief delivery, instead of considering the effects these may have on their so-called partners. Starting an NGO only to abandon it soon afterwards violates the principles of true partnership.
Partnerships must be mutually beneficial for both players. If partnerships are formed primarily to benefit the external, Western agent, their purposes and aims must be reconsidered.
Potential partners honor each other by establishing clear expectations and an understanding of roles. By displaying honesty and transparency from the beginning, partners will better understand the nature of their relationship and avoid unrealistic expectations of one another. Though INGOs often bring many material resources and expertise to the local area, their resource supply is certainly limited. Local players must understand their partner’s limitations in order to avoid unnecessary disappointment later on in the relationship. Similarly, international agents should know their partners well enough to understand their assets and limitations as they relate to the proposed work.
Loss of independence & a long term approach
There are many poor models of “partnership” that, by their example, help flush out the genuine meaning. As illustrated by the glaring example from Sierra Leone, some INGOs not only show a lack of trust of their local partners, but they also feel they can operate on an independent schedule. The INGO in question fled without adequately consulting with local partners. Ethically, they should not have such license unless this is clearly accepted by their local partners. INGOs may be accustomed to entering and leaving a region according to their own agenda, but adopting the partnership approach requires greater accountability to and negotiation with local partners; INGOs must accept that this causes them to lose some organizational independence and sacrifice a degree of their freedom (Minear, 2002).
Many INGOs, especially in the wake of a disaster, treat their local “partner” NGOs as conduits for service delivery instead of co-planners in the relief process. Out of INGOs’ desire for conduits of aid transfer, disaster regions may experience a proliferation of so-called “briefcase NGOs” (Anderson, 2000a, p. 46). These local NGOs are developed by INGOs to act as partners, when they are really channels for aid distribution. Often times, the INGO intends to equip their “partner” to carry on the relief work as it moves into the reconstruction and development phase. Sadly, many INGOs leave the area without ensuring the sustainability of partner NGOs, and most of these newborn agencies collapse for lack of funding within a few years (I. T. Smillie, Goran, 2001). In these scenarios, INGOs are focused on their own priorities for relief delivery, instead of considering the effects these may have on their so-called partners. Starting an NGO only to abandon it soon afterwards violates the principles of true partnership.
Partnerships must be mutually beneficial for both players. If partnerships are formed primarily to benefit the external, Western agent, their purposes and aims must be reconsidered.
FOOTNOTES
[i] As evidence of this, the UN’s Millennium Development Goal number eight is Global Partnerships, and the DFID’s White Paper (DFID, 1999) on sustainable development underlines the importance of partnership at all levels.
REFERENCES
Anderson, M. (2000a). Do No Harm - How Aid can Support Peace or War. Colorado: Lynne
Rienner Publishers.
Minear, L. (2002). The
Humanitarian Enterprise. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.
Smillie, I. (2001). Patronage or Partnership: Local Capacity Building in Humanitarian
Crises. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.
Smillie, I. T., Goran. (2001). Reconstructing Bosnia,
Constructing Civil Society: Disjuncture and Convergence. In I. Smillie (Ed.), Patronage or Partnership: Local Capacity
Building in Humanitarian Crises. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.
Turay, T. M. (2001). Sierra Leone: Peacebuilding in
Purgatory. In I. Smillie (Ed.), Patronage
or Partnership: Local Capacity Building in Humanitarian Crises. Bloomfield:
Kumarian Press.
*In 2010 I conducted research on the concept of capacity building for a disaster and relief mitigation graduate course at Eastern University. I share excerpts from my research here, in a series of posts called Capacity Building: What Does it Take? After reviewing the meanings and definitions of CB ('capacity building') I explore here its first hallmark: partnership.
No comments:
Post a Comment