|
Editorial, volume 1, number 3, 1991
War and its aftermath of suffering and destruction have often led to the creation of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) ; many of the oldest of them can trace their roots back to a response to human suffering in areas of conflict. Until recently, however, conflict-related NGO work has gone almost unrecognised, and many 'emergency appeals' highlighted everything affecting those suffering, except the crucial fact that they were living in a situation of civil war. The unhealthy distinction made between 'relief' and 'development' agencies has further reduced the recognition given to the impact of conflict upon the work of NGOs in an increasing number of countries.
In the present issue of Development In Practice we have not sought to provide a comprehensive review of NGO work in conflict areas, because we hope to return to this theme in future issues. The articles presented here consider some of the broad issues influencing NGO work in conflict zones. Linda Agerbak starts by reviewing some of the general dilemmas confronting NGOs. Her article makes a contribution to very real and often unresolved debates within the NGO community: is development possible in conflict areas? Has the NGO community really taken seriously the need for a longer-term perspective in conflict zones? Is it helpful for agencies to treat conflict in the same way as natural disasters, with a limited `humanitarian' response?
NGOs also face important moral dilemmas, especially pertinent for those which have grown out of early relief-based charitable work. Do the basic humanitarian needs of ordinary people always justify maintaining programmes, regardless of the overall political context? It is often argued that by doing so, NGOs are enabling governments to concentrate even more resources on the means of repressing civilian populations, through ever-greater expenditure on arms and abuses of human rights. Indeed, it sometimes appears that the present failure of the development and human rights agencies to work together reflects the earlier lack of collaboration between the developmental and environmental agencies. Alex de Waal's article in the previous issue of this journal, about the relationship between famine and human rights, also argues the direct relationship between abuses of human rights and extreme economic and social hardship .
We who work in NGOs must be more honest, and recognise that we are not always consistent in our choices of where to operate. International NGOs often decide to run programmes of considerable size (for both relief and development) in countries with a very poor record of governmental abuse of human rights, whereas in other countries with equally adverse records, NGOs may decide against intervention, although the humanitarian needs may be just as great. It is not always clear how far such choices are purely historical and ad hoc, how much they are driven by donors, and how much they are determined by the political views of NGO staff. Why were so many more agencies operating with refugees in Thailand than inside Cambodia? Why were agencies willing to work under the controls imposed by the since-overthrown Ethiopian regime, but not those of a similar regime in Burma?
The contributions by Erica Egan (on Mozambique) and Jim Fitzpatrick and Andy Storey (on Ethiopia) in this issue consider the effectiveness of NGO assistance in conflict areas. The article on Ethiopia discusses in detail the delivery of short-term food aid, and proposes a system for measuring its effectiveness. The article on Mozambique takes a longer-term view by surveying the impact of NGOs' decision to create parallel delivery structures (rather than reinforcing local government capacity to administer local services and relief deliveries). In developmental terms it finds agencies lacking in longer-term perspectives, because of their prime interest in ensuring short-term success in guaranteeing the delivery of relief inputs. Derek Summerfield's article is a reflective survey of the hidden aspects of human suffering caused by conflict, and considers the psychosocial impact of traumatic events, and its implications for NGOs.
It is clear that in the future NGOs will be obliged to review these and other issues far more closely when they become involved in programmes in conflict zones. It is to be hoped that there will also be a greater level of communication between agencies involved in relief, development, and human rights work on behalf of the victims of conflict.
On a completely different theme, Naila Kabeer's witty and provocative article exposes what she calls 'some of the well-tried and tested ways of keeping women invisible in development planning'. We would welcome responses from readers to this or any other article in the journal.
Brian Pratt
Oxfam (United Kingdom and Ireland)
 Previous Abstract |
Next Abstract 
|
