One of the things that I came to Somaliland to work on was finalizing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the relevant ministry (health). This is something that this ministry recently decided was critical and required for all of its NGO partners. Unfortunately, they forgot to tell NGOs this until recently. Also, it's possible that they haven't entirely smoothed out the process. But they are serious about it, to the point that they actually told one major NGO's donors to cut their funding until that organization signed an MOU with the ministry.
There's a couple of things underlying this MOU business.
1. The government would like to know what NGOs are up to in Somaliland and to coordinate their activities to make sure that there isn't a lot of overlap and that priority needs are being met.
MYTH: A country's government knows what it is capable of and what its priorities are. NGOs work closely with the government to fill gaps according to the government's priorities.
REALITY: NGOs respond to needs they perceive, often without particularly caring what the government thinks or wants. Sometimes this is because the government doesn't know what it wants, sometimes it is because what the government wants isn't realistic or particularly related to the needs and wellbeing of its citizens (hellllllloooo South Sudan!), sometimes it's because the NGO thinks it knows better.
Somaliland is somewhere in the middle. There's a pretty solid government here, and it actually has a well thought out, if ambitious, national health policy. Certain things, like maternal health, and models of improvement, such as building up health posts in smaller communities to refer to larger regional hospitals, are clearly highlighted as priorities. But there's not necessarily a clear, or feasible, way of moving forward towards these things and still achieving short-term gains in health and nutrition. NGOs would need to be involved, and, through the things like the MOU, the ministry is pushing NGOs to do exactly that: be involved only in specific ways that fit in with their goals.
COMPLICATED QUESTION: If a government can't handle meeting the needs of its citizens and has to invite (or submit to the presence of, at least) NGOs, does it get to maintain the sole right to decide what the priorities and interventions should be?
2. A less noble reason. The ministry thinks that having MOUs will allow it to have more information about the funding going to NGOs. They want to make sure that the (international) NGO is providing some of its own funding and not entirely depending on UNICEF or World Food Program funds. Their argument is that if a NGO isn't providing some of its own funding, then what's the point of having that international NGO, that instead those UNICEF and WFP funds should go to local agencies to do the work.
In principle, I don't disagree. However, it fundamentally ignores a major point. Namely, it's about more than money: there's a big element of capacity involved. Believe me, if my organization thought that a local agency could handle the programs we are doing now, we would either be partnered with one of those organizations or wouldn't be there in the first place because there wouldn't be need. The sheer existence of an organization in no way guarantees its ability to actually do anything meaningful.
What's clear is that my organization has to have an MOU to keep working here, which we are committed to doing because we perceive continued unmet need, and that somebody needs to be here shepherding it through the ministry. It's an exercise in bureaucracy at this point, which is a bit tedious, but its intent is good, for the most part, and its a part of doing business..
In other news, here's the view of Hargeisa from out my hotel room window.
There's a couple of things underlying this MOU business.
1. The government would like to know what NGOs are up to in Somaliland and to coordinate their activities to make sure that there isn't a lot of overlap and that priority needs are being met.
MYTH: A country's government knows what it is capable of and what its priorities are. NGOs work closely with the government to fill gaps according to the government's priorities.
REALITY: NGOs respond to needs they perceive, often without particularly caring what the government thinks or wants. Sometimes this is because the government doesn't know what it wants, sometimes it is because what the government wants isn't realistic or particularly related to the needs and wellbeing of its citizens (hellllllloooo South Sudan!), sometimes it's because the NGO thinks it knows better.
Somaliland is somewhere in the middle. There's a pretty solid government here, and it actually has a well thought out, if ambitious, national health policy. Certain things, like maternal health, and models of improvement, such as building up health posts in smaller communities to refer to larger regional hospitals, are clearly highlighted as priorities. But there's not necessarily a clear, or feasible, way of moving forward towards these things and still achieving short-term gains in health and nutrition. NGOs would need to be involved, and, through the things like the MOU, the ministry is pushing NGOs to do exactly that: be involved only in specific ways that fit in with their goals.
COMPLICATED QUESTION: If a government can't handle meeting the needs of its citizens and has to invite (or submit to the presence of, at least) NGOs, does it get to maintain the sole right to decide what the priorities and interventions should be?
2. A less noble reason. The ministry thinks that having MOUs will allow it to have more information about the funding going to NGOs. They want to make sure that the (international) NGO is providing some of its own funding and not entirely depending on UNICEF or World Food Program funds. Their argument is that if a NGO isn't providing some of its own funding, then what's the point of having that international NGO, that instead those UNICEF and WFP funds should go to local agencies to do the work.
In principle, I don't disagree. However, it fundamentally ignores a major point. Namely, it's about more than money: there's a big element of capacity involved. Believe me, if my organization thought that a local agency could handle the programs we are doing now, we would either be partnered with one of those organizations or wouldn't be there in the first place because there wouldn't be need. The sheer existence of an organization in no way guarantees its ability to actually do anything meaningful.
What's clear is that my organization has to have an MOU to keep working here, which we are committed to doing because we perceive continued unmet need, and that somebody needs to be here shepherding it through the ministry. It's an exercise in bureaucracy at this point, which is a bit tedious, but its intent is good, for the most part, and its a part of doing business..
In other news, here's the view of Hargeisa from out my hotel room window.
No comments:
Post a Comment