The relationship of NGOs to the state is critical and interesting. Inevitably, the relationship between NGOs and government is an ambiguous one. On the one hand you have the role of the government in coordinating aid programmes, and the interest and willingness on the part of most NGOs to work with government. Many international NGOs, and SC UK is a prime example, see our role as helping to work with and build capacity of government. On the other hand, NGOs have a grass-roots activist role as well, which means that part of our duty is to keep governments on their toes. This involves being critical of government when it is felt justifiable and necessary.

This is therefore a very delicate relationship. Governments like to have assistance, but don't like to be criticized. NGOs are often afraid to criticize because they don't want to harm their relationship with the government. On the other hand, if NGOs are to fulfill their commitment to their principles then inevitably they will come up against issues which should be challenged with the government. Having said that, there are some positive signs in the government/NGO relationship recently. The Poverty Reduction Strategy plan process was very inclusive of NGOs, and there have been positive discussions on the draft NGO legislation over the last few months. When Prime Minister Meles Zenawi was in London a few weeks ago he made a point of asking for meetings with Save the Children and OXFAM, and with our Director General he praised the efforts of Save the Children and asked us to do more. There does seem to be a generally positive effort to listen to NGOs.

A mentality which can be disturbing for NGOs, however, is the sense that government can have that it is their role to control and direct NGOs. This can be as simple as pressing NGOs to work in a particular geographic area, or as complicated as telling NGOs that they should do exactly as the government tells them or they will be de-regulated.

In this case, the role that NGOs should play in relationship with the state isn't how NGOs normally think of themselves. Although I'm sure all NGOs would agree that there is a coordination function of the state for NGOs, this would be considered by the NGOs to be a very light role. As NGOs work in many different sectors and many different areas, the right to undertake the type of work in the areas they choose is very important.

The optimal role for the state in regulating NGOs is therefore to provide a legal framework within which to work, which includes obeying the laws of the land, while providing the support and leeway needed for the NGOs to get on with working with local communities or government structures. Encouragement to work in geographic areas or sectors which are neglected is certainly justified by government, and NGOs should seek advice on gaps to fill.

Regulation, however, is often self-defeating. For example, government in one zone decided that they would take all the NGOs working in the area and assign them to different woredas. Pleas and protests by the affected NGOs were ignored. The result was that one woreda had an NGO which was working in health, another in education, and four others in food security. Woreda officials demanded that an NGO specializing in food security assist in health, something they had no capacity to do. The net result was more chaos and just as many gaps.

A more extreme example, which I haven't been able to observe first-hand myself, is the case of Eritrea. Eritrea has been extremely hostile to NGOs. After having received so much support from NGOs during their struggle, the EPLF turned against NGOs and virtually threw them all out of Eritrea in the mid-1990s. With the war and emergency of 1999-2000 NGOs were invited back in to assist, and many continue to operate. However, the environment remains very hostile and restrictive for NGOs. Why is this the case? Unless you accept the government explanation that they are striving for self-sufficiency, the best theory is probably that the government is very nervous of NGOs because of the active role of NGOs in supporting the EPLF, so that they are suspicious of NGOs supporting their overthrow as well. The result has been very problematic for Eritrea - as a result of the shortage of NGOs and the general crackdown of Eritrea on the media and civil society they are getting very little response to the humanitarian crisis under way there now, whereas Ethiopia has had a generous response.

A common perception of international NGOs is that they arrived in Ethiopia mainly to undertake emergency work. SC UK first assisted in Ethiopia in 1936, with Ethiopians displaced by the invasion of the Italians. In 1973 SC was established in Ethiopia totally unrelated to the famine which emerged later that year. Because of the famine of 1973-74, SC UK became involved in emergency response, but had become totally involved in long-term development activities afterwards until the famine of 1984-85, when we became heavily involved in the emergency again. Since that time, we have developed long-term development programmes in health, education, HIV/AIDs, food security and child rights and social protection while maintaining an ongoing capacity to respond to emergencies. The point is that Save the Children did not come to Ethiopia to deal with emergencies, it was the emergencies in Ethiopia which caused Save the Children to concentrate on that area. When people need food to avoid starvation, everything else is secondary.

I have personally worked with or observed closely NGO activities in more than 20 countries, 15 in Africa. I frankly have never seen a place where NGOs are more afraid to speak out than here in Ethiopia. When issues come up, most NGOs - both international and local - are very reluctant to voice any criticism of government publicly. I worry that a lot of this is self-censorship, but I think the real reason is that they are worried about administrative sanctions. NGOs are very closely regulated in Ethiopia, and the potential for bureaucratic delays which can inhibit your operations are enormous. NGOs are eager to maintain as positive a relationship as possible so that they can avoid the administrative harassment which is so easy for Ethiopian officials to undertake

Other international NGOs are generally similar in maintaining long-term development programmes while responding to emergencies when needed, although some concentrate only on long-term development in specialized areas, such as primary health care, or just on emergency response.

I think the important principles guiding international NGOs should be some combination of the following:

<![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>to respond to emergency or development needs as identified and planned with local partners or government

<![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>to provide capacity building to support local institutions to handle emergencies or development in the future

<![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>to bring specialized experience, knowledge or skills to the country worked in

<![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>to undertake experimental and innovative programmes to learn and thoroughly document lessons, with a view to developing successful approaches which can be scaled up through partners.

Ultimately this means that International NGOs are working themselves out of a job. I do not believe that international NGOs should duplicate or parallel services which should be the responsibility of the state, unless they are temporarily filling a gap which can be filled once the partner has had the capacity built.

What this means is that NGOs explicitly recognize that it is the responsibility of the state to provide basic services such as health and education, and that our role is to help strengthen the state to fulfill that role. In the mid-1990s in Mozambique, the role of NGOs and UN agencies in providing the bulk of education and health facilities outside of the state sector was questioned by responsible NGOs. These NGOs advocated that the state had to be held accountable to provide basic services and supported to do so. Although outside agencies could move more quickly in the war devastated country with a weak government, in the long run these services were only sustainable if they became part of the state system. This has since been done.

No one should think international NGOs will solve the development problems of a country. This relies on the determination and ability of the people of the country itself. NGOs can provide support to help people through emergencies, and provide assistance for development activities from the very simple to the highly complex. But the success of development ultimately lies with the people and the government of the host country. The international NGO has the responsibility to actively work to building the capacity in country, and knowing when it is time for them to step back. This is not easy, and of course is part of an ongoing debate amongst and about NGOs.

Another major role for NGOs is advocacy work. This is both national and international. One of the most active areas for advocacy work for international NGOs is to put pressure on their home governments in the West to understand and provide support for the poor people in Ethiopia, both emergency and long-term development. At a higher stage are the campaigns that seek to address broad international issues, such as overall donor policy or trade issues. Examples of these campaigns include Save the Children's Beat Poverty campaign, which has drawn experience from many countries, including health care in Ethiopia, to mobilize public pressure in the UK and other countries to support better donor policies. Oxfam's recent trade campaign on coffee is another example, where an NGO seeks to challenge the trade patterns which punish the poor.

A more sensitive piece of advocacy is to review and challenge policies of local governments, in this case Ethiopia. International NGOs are often reluctant to challenge government policies, on the positive side because they don't want to be patronising or offensive to local sensitivities, or on the negative side because they don't care enough or they are "non-political" or they are afraid of administrative problems. In Save the Children we try to take a sensitive approach to policy input, providing input when asked, and when implementing programmes which test policy to undertake this with government so we are both learning at the same time. When there are concerns, particularly about the impact on poor people of a particular policy or practice, we tend to seek private opportunities to make our concerns known. We are very reluctant to criticize publicly, perhaps too reluctant.

Ed.'s Note: John Graham is the Programme Director of Save the Children (UK) in Ethiopia, and author of the book "Ethiopia: Off the Beaten Trail"