There is as much diversity in the NGO sector as in the municipal and private sectors, discussed above. International, national and local NGOs, with vastly different mandates, display very different levels of skills and experience, and thus offer very different competencies to service-oriented partnerships. Some are staffed by social and technical professionals, some by volunteers, and others by a mixture of the two - all in an effort to bring benefit to others.
Despite this massive diversity, when compared with the public and private sectors, NGOs also reveal a set of fundamental and unique characteristics (see Box 6.23). Unlike the private sector, which is driven by a profit motive, the primary interest of (legitimate) NGOs working with the poor is social.12 Many organisations (large and small, international and local) work without profit, generally undertaking their role with the purpose of promoting justice and equity and improving the quality of the lives of vulnerable and marginalised groups in the society. Adhering to ideology is often an important characteristic of such organisations - many struggle with their roles and the validity of certain actions. In the main, their work is carried out for public rather than private benefit.
Like private sector companies, the scope, skills and overall capacity of NGOs will largely determine the roles they can perform within a partnership, and just as with private sector companies, many municipalities are wary of NGOs and their roles with the community, particularly when past relationships and experiences have been ineffective and confrontational. Many will not be clear about the benefits that the NGO sector can bring to a service partnership. Yet over recent decades, poverty reduction projects in a number of sectors have exposed the benefits of NGO involvement in replicating initiatives.
NGOs work to a timeframe that is very different from that of the public and private sectors. Their over-riding concern with the sustainability of service improvements often makes their vision long term. This is often reflected, for instance, in their commitment to the time element of effective participatory processes. In practice, this ideal vision is often affected by the short-term and tenuous nature of their funding. Only well-established NGOs are usually able to work within a timeframe that brings about their sustainability objectives.
Primary assets of many NGOs include their dedication and capacity to work in diverse and often difficult situations with few resources. Because of these characteristics, many NGOs working with urban poor communities build a level of trust with the poor that is rare for a government agency or private sector company. Much of the work carried out by NGOs focuses on incremental service improvements, and typically this is based around community mobilisation and capacity building. Compared with the public and private spheres they generally show superior skill in communication and thus they are frequently, but not always, ideal facilitators for action at the neighbourhood level.
International NGOs working in service delivery, such as WaterAid, are strong organisations with their own networks at the funding and local levels, and are frequently involved in both policy and implementation. Many international organisations are still opponents of PPPs, but increasingly they are entering and enriching the debate with their perspective. Despite their caution, many have recognised that widespread improvements to urban living conditions can only be brought about through widespread replication of local initiatives, and the overall capacity of the bulk supply. Too many times they have installed taps to find there is no water to flow through them, or organised solid waste collection to find there is no effective city-wide disposal.
Local NGOs are usually involved in the direct implementation of projects and provide valuable, trusted links to poor neighbourhoods. Many will be part of a local civil society network. The linkage between levels, however, is highly variable.13 In urban areas, the mandates of many NGOs will be centred on one particular concern: advocacy, literacy, micro-credit, health or children's welfare, for instance. Many will have dedicated themselves to this issue and have established credibility and specialist expertise. A primary problem arising in relation to the delivery of services is that the NGOs best placed to work with particular communities may not always have the technical skills to work effectively in physical service provision. This issue of technical knowledge and the ability to communicate options to the poor is becoming increasingly important. Some NGOs expand their scope of work and develop this capacity, but this is not always successful or sustainable, because it is highly dependent on individual skills and attitudes.
Box 6.12 Key Issues for NGOs: The Experience of The Mvula Trust | |
The Mvula Trust has been involved in the institutional and social development component of BoTT for four years. During this time it has identified a number of important issues that jeopardise its ongoing involvement in PPP approaches to the delivery of water and sanitation services to the poor. Foremost among these are: • The lack of commensurate objectives and vision. One of the fundamental areas of conflict for an NGO working with private sector partners is the diverse nature of their goals. If the objectives, vision, and organisational mandates of the private sector and the government cannot converge, Mvula doubts that the arrangement will be sustainable or will meet its own policy objectives. Experience to date in the BoTT suggests that the main areas of disquiet are those that the NGO prioritises. These include, for instance, participatory methodologies, sustainability, handover and replicability. Mvula has found that these goals frequently conflict with the efficiency objectives of the private sector, but it asserts that this efficiency is short term, and needs to be reconsidered in terms of the long-term sustainability of the outputs. In the lead up to BoTT, the project preparation stage did not provide opportunity for partners to air their concerns and agree approaches at the outset. Mvula emphasises the importance of establishing non-negotiable items at the outset. In this situation it is possible to resolve problematic issues or withdraw from the arrangement. • The problem of transparency. One of the areas that Mvula finds untenable is that the project itself promotes transparency and accountability, but the private sector is unwilling to present arrangements in a transparent manner. The Mvula experience with communities in BoTT suggests that its own reputation is put at risk because the consortium is not willing to openly declare expenditure, income and profit, and is not willing to subject itself to transparent monitoring and performance evaluation. From the Mvula perspective, this is essential not only to ensure that the principle of transparency is equally applied to all aspects of the partnership and service, but to ensure that Mvula is not unknowingly involved in exploitative practice. • The issue of profit. A key policy question facing the Mvula Trust is how it should address profit, and how to determine an acceptable level of profit. It is widely accepted that the private sector brings with it a profit incentive, and that profit brings with it efficiency. Improved efficiencies are a key goal of the private sector to ensure that it is able to decrease costs and improve its profits. However, the lack of transparency with regard to profit places the NGO partner in a consortium in which the private sector partners may have increased their profit margin to a level that the NGO finds exploitative and unacceptable. Second, the NGO is carrying a large portion of the responsibility but the profit is being absorbed by the private sector organisations. (In the BoTT consortium, all other lead service providers are shareholders in the consortium, but Mvula Trust declined the opportunity to be a shareholder out of concern that it could negatively influence or compromise its role.) Mvula currently functions on a non-profit basis within the BoTT. It is currently considering whether such activities should subsidise the advocacy and policy work it undertakes as a core function and/or whether BoTT should be used as a source of finance to create an organisation that is sustainable for 5-10 years. • The learning and knowledge agenda. In order to meet the Mvula mandate for effective learning and dissemination of best practice, it is necessary for partners to subject the partnership arrangement to objective evaluation. Such a commitment has not been forthcoming and as a result there is no adequate monitoring of private sector partner performance, which would enable problems to be aired and resolved, and lessons to be learnt and disseminated. • Planned internal decision-making. It may be inevitable that opposing views will be formed within the NGO, especially where decision-making at the highest levels of management is overtaken by bidding processes at the local level. In Mvula, a division arose between those who adopted a purist approach aimed at maintaining the integrity of the community-based method of delivery, and the PPP camp, which adopted a practical approach aimed at improving services for large numbers by partnering others to provide services. While the advocates of the practical approach argue that they had a social responsibility to be involved, to influence the agenda and to bring about the best possible solutions, there is nevertheless an unhappy air about the association with the partnership consortium. • Acceptable company policy. Mvula Trust is concerned that its partners should uphold the same ethical work practices that it does. | |
Source: Interview with Jamie de Jager, Mvula Trust, March 2001 | |