[Comment] NGOs and Poverty Reduction in Malawi

from The Nyasa Times

by David Mkwambisi

While most of development aid in Malawi is directed to the Central Government, aid received by Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) has been increasing over the part decades. This increase has not only expanded the activities of existing international NGOs, but has also allowed several new NGOs to undertake their work in Malawi with the aim of reducing poverty. However, as a nation and development experts we have a question to respond; does the growth of development aid and the NGO sector a good sign for development?

Answering this question requires balanced views and important concepts to avoid biting the hand that has been feeding the Malawi nation. We don’t need statistical proof that international NGOs have and are still playing an important role in poverty reduction. Several areas are now accessing safe and clean water because of NGOs, we have children accessing education because of support from NGOs, communities are now accessing medical and health facilities because of aid through NGOs, several farmers have improved their production skills because of timely extension services provided by NGOs.

However, on the other side statistical figures at the National Statistical Office (NSO) in Zomba and those at International agencies such as UN and World Bank, still rank Malawi among the poorest nation in the world. So what are the problems with NGOs? Why have we failed to be self-sustainable after being involved with NGOs for over 3 decades? Is development aid through NGOs reaching the targeted beneficiaries? What are the implications associated with this situation to a country like Malawi?

On average most of the NGOs have been working in Malawi for almost three decades now. In an ideal situation the work of NGOs, community empowerment, and poverty reduction were all supposed to follow a normal growth curve. In this case the budgets of NGOs for community development in Malawi was supposed to be small in the first phase (for example 1980-1990); during this phase, the percentage of community empowerment (economic growth was also supposed to start showing signs of growth). This was the phase to instil confidence in poor communities that they can achieve economic growth without external aid.

n the second phase (e.g. 1990-2000), the budgets of most NGOs were supposed to increase as more communities were becoming involved in development work, creating a self-sustaining country. This is the phase when almost fifty percent of rural development work was supposed to be initiated by the communities. In actual fact, as country we were almost at this level whereby during the youth week, communities were able to contribute three quarters of developments work through labour as well as materials. It is unfortunate that politics of power and hate dominated this phase fighting the same policies of self-sustainace.

In the last phase (e.g. 2000-2010), budgets for NGOs were supposed to be scaling down with more communities supporting their own programmes and creating economic opportunities for other areas. In this period, NGOs were supposed to either pack or extend their work to virgin areas both in scale and space. But what is the situation today. The budget and activities of almost all NGOs have been growing exponentially (positive) while at the same time poverty in rural areas has also been increasing and becoming worse than before. This trend has resulted in more communities’ dependency on aid; creating economic gaps that will not only stretch the resources of NGOs, but will now overload the economic policies advocated by the government and donors. NGOs themselves have the chance to defend to this opinion, especially those that have been in the field for over two decades.

Increasing development aid through NGOs, expanding the activities of NGOs and continuous presence of NGOs in rural areas has resulted in many communities relying on aid and charities.

Today, the self-help elements advocated in the 70s and 80s in no longer among poor communities. Even though it is argued that self mobilization is an effective tool for development, NGOs have failed to capture this concept and have themselves promoted communities to depend on aid. Is there something that as a country we’re failing to understand in this case? A very good example should be given here based on Malawi’s political regions. Most NGOs have been working in Southern and Central Region as compared to those in the northern region.

In the last decades, the southern region has benefited more in terms of NGO activities with more development aid allocated to the region followed by Central and then the north. The resultant outcome is that people in the south have developed a dependency syndrome, waiting for aid than people in the northern region. In actual fact, several national economic growth indicators have been improving in the north and getting worse in the south because of the scale advocated by NGOs.

At global level, countries in Latin America have surpassed those in Africa when it comes to development because the communities are in the forefront initiating programmes. They only approach the government or development agencies for materials that they cannot afford. Why then in Malawi we have been promoting free resources and donations for years even when we are not faced by natural calamities? Are NGOs themselves benefiting from this approach to fighting poverty? Why is development aid coming through NGOs failing to relieve poverty in Malawi? Why do we see more resources accumulated by workers in these NGOs than their clients? What is so special with Programme Managers driving 4 wheel cars leaving the local man still cycling to the health centre?

In conclusion, many different activities are needed to combat poverty; some are better suited to aid agencies and governments. Commentators believe that the poor can be reached only by small-scale activities and local participation, and that governments cannot promote such things therefore more aid should therefore be channelled via non-government organisations (NGOs). NGOs are more competent because they are non-bureaucratic, low manpower costs, they penetrate directly and quickly into local conditions and they are able to identify local needs and constraints. There’s need for NGOs to refrain from promoting communities to depend on charities. These people have hands and brains, don’t under estimate their capabilities.