Local NGOs fall into many categories - they can be welfare organizations designed to provide support to those who need it, such as victims of HIV/AIDS. They can be development agencies specializing in providing services of certain type, such as technical training. Or they can be organizations which are based in a particular community or sector, providing services and advocacy for their constituency - such as the Ethiopian Federation of Disabled People.

Local NGOs can provide gap filling and capacity building activities which are short-term in nature. However, they can also be long-term organizations with an open-ended mandate. Representing and advocating for disabled people is an ongoing concern, an organization doesn't complete its mission and close the doors.

Although there are many examples of NGOs which are representative of a constituency group, such as major rural NGOs such as ORAP in Southern Zimbabwe, there are not many examples of this type of NGO in Ethiopia. Most of the local NGOs are welfare or service oriented, many of them faith based.

One of the accusations against local NGOs is that they are income generating organizations for the people who founded them. The example of NGOs projected to the local community is highly resourced International NGOs. Little wonder that for many forming NGOs is considered to be a license to print money. NGOs started up by an individual are called 'MONGOs' - My own NGO. No doubt there are individuals who form NGOs in order to get resources and better their own income. However, most legitimate and successful NGOs are also started by strong individuals. Success comes from transcending the personality and building an organization that not only has strong leadership and capable staff, but also are responsive to their constituencies.

When I moved to newly independent Namibia in 1992 to be Director of Oxfam, we had three large programmes. One was to build the capacity of the Ministry of Agriculture to change from supporting rich white ranchers to supporting poor black subsistence farmers. We helped develop a very successful in-service training programme for agricultural extension officers, which was handed over to the Namibian government after five years, and they continued and financed the programme themselves.

Our second programme was to help set up a local rural development NGO in the Kavango region of the country, based on a partnership with the successful Zimbabwe NGO ORAP. This programme essentially failed. Although we were able to tap into some of the best local leadership available, and fully handed over the NGO and resources after 5 years, the organization foundered. I think the main reason is that the motivation for forming the NGO came from outside. Even though I still think the idea of the NGO was a good one, it convinced me that it was a mistake for a foreign agency to try to set up a local NGO - it had to be founded from within the society itself.

The third programme was to support the incipient NGO movement in the country through capacity building. Namibia was just emerging from Apartheid, so much like Ethiopia emerging from the Derg there were not many strong NGOs, but the new freedom had encouraged many new NGOs to begin. At independence in 1991 we started by supporting 24 NGOs. After 5 years, 11 of the NGOs were no longer effectively functioning, 7 were in existence but struggling, and 6 were successful.

For me the lesson from this is that it is good to let NGOs start up. It is difficult to predict which NGOs will succeed, so the best approach is to encourage or at least allow a lot of NGOs to start. After a few years, those that have the right qualities to survive will emerge, and you are left with a number of strong NGOs.

Although the Ministry of Justice has 1200 NGOs registered in Ethiopia, only about 220 of these are large and strong enough to be part of the CRDA, the umbrella group of NGOs in Ethiopia. This is a very small number. Kenya boasts over 5,000 NGOs and South Africa over 30,000. The atmosphere in Ethiopia is not encouraging for NGOs, particularly in rural areas. I would like to see at least 4,000 NGOs start in Ethiopia in the coming years, so that after the natural weeding out process there should be at least 1000 good NGOs which emerge. That would be a massive force for development.

Part of the reason that more local NGOs have not arisen in Ethiopia, in my opinion, is that the regulatory environment is too strict and the conditions for formation of NGOs are too hostile. It is much easier to form an NGO in Addis Ababa than in the countryside, where the role of local officials is much more pervasive. As a result, the limited number of NGOs which do exist have a strong urban bias and very limited geographic coverage. The exception are the large government related NGOs established in the regions, such as the Amhara Development Association. Frankly, these are not independent NGOs and although they may provide useful services they are not part of a vibrant civil society.

It seems as if NGOs have to prove themselves effective before they have a chance to start. As I said above, I don't think this is the best way to end up with a stronger and vibrant NGO sector. Let a thousand flowers bloom. The survivors will be good.

There is hope that the regulatory environment for NGOs will improve, and discussions on changes in the draft NGO legislation have been encouraging. However, there are worries. The underlying attitude behind the recent draft legislation on regulating the press appears to be that the state here sees their role as ensuring that the press is of a quality they approve of, and they decide what that quality is. The underlying attitude to NGOs may be the same - that they should be controlled and adapted to the model set by the state. This would be a mistake. In the case of NGOs, and the press, the important thing is to let them start and flourish, and let the strong survive because they have the support and capability.

Conclusions

NGOs - not all that big and not all that rich. We don't even have our own cars - they are owned by the government and have to be turned over at the end of projects. Don't confuse us with UN and bilaterals - they're the really rich ones. NGOs clearly don't succeed in getting across awareness of our goals and don't build enough of a sense of partnership with society as a whole. This is something we must continue to strive to do better.

International NGOs - the role of INGOs should be to build local capacity while bringing resources and expertise to bear on particular problems. We must continue to challenge ourselves and our partners pilot and test approaches, which are then handed over to government or non-government partners. INGOs are likely to be around still for a long time, they are still very active in countries much more well off than Ethiopia, but their role is different. In Ethiopia one of the primary roles of INGOs is emergencies, and this role is still very relevant as evidenced by the situation in the country today. Let us hope that over time the role of INGOs can evolve away from emergencies into specialized support for long term development. In many countries, including the UK, the role of Save the Children is simply to advocate for the higher rights of children, such as participation and against corporal punishment. In Ethiopia we are still fighting for the most basic of children's rights, the right to have enough food and access to basic services. INGOs have to challenge themselves to do even more analysis, learn from experience and study, and have the courage to not only capacity build but to challenge policy and practice where it needs to be challenged.

Local NGOs - there is a strong need for more NGOs across wider geographic and sectoral areas. There has to be a willingness to let NGOs start and let them fail. The regulatory environment needs to be loosened up. INGOs should support capacity building of local NGOs, but should avoid forming them. Where it is not already strong, here has to be empowerment of the people and communities benefiting from NGOs, so that they are not passive receivers, but actively control the direction of their future.

Government - the state must be held responsible for providing services to the population and supported in this. They must also foster an environment which is conducive to the initiation and effective functioning of NGOs.

The tendency in Ethiopia is to have a controlling attitude and approach. NGOs or other bodies must prove that they are good and effective, constantly and under heavy scrutiny. This is not an easy position. Of course there have to be effective controls against corruption and illegal practices. Ironically it is often NGOs which root out corruption within their organization, something that will inevitably occur when there are large amounts of funds being used, which are the victims of gossip and rumours put out by the corrupt officials dismissed. Too often good organizations are besmirched by these types of rumours. There has to be some confidence that good organizations will prove themselves through the appreciation of the beneficiaries, and the ongoing support of their funders.

Donors - there is a big challenge for NGOs these days, as donors move increasingly to providing aid through Direct Budget Support with the Government. This is naturally encouraged by the Ethiopian government - they say give us the money and we'll do the job. In principle providing funds directly to the government is something that I support. This gives the government both the funds and the accountability for delivering on plans such as the PRSP. However, putting all of the funding into the hands of the government at the expense of the NGOs would, in my opinion, be a mistake. Ethiopia needs a vibrant civil society that questions and challenges and tries different things, all of which should inform and improve government performance. This requires funding. The recent experience of HIV/AIDS money is instructive. Many NGOs such as Save the Children worked on AIDS in Ethiopia for over 10 years, with very little recognition or support. Three years ago AIDS was discovered in Ethiopia, and the World Bank announced $50 million for AIDS work to be channeled through the government. Most of the money is still there. Evaluations point out the complete lack of capacity to set up structures to even fund AIDS initiatives, let alone undertake them directly through government. The initial decision by the donor and the government not to provide funds directly to NGOs has cost a lot of time. Although that decision has been partially reversed, how many lives have been lost as a result of the delays?? How many more people will continue to suffer if large amounts of funds are stuck in bureaucracy, when there are NGOs which are capable and willing to help with capacity building, piloting, testing and scaling up?

When my Director General met in the UK with Prime Minister Meles a couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister told him the role of NGOs was to pilot initiatives and scale up through government. My Director agreed, but pointed out that the British officials who were with them were channeling all of their funds through the Government - apart from emergencies nothing was set aside for INGOs. If organizations like Save the Children are expected to continue our role, then we will need the donor support to do it. Let's hope that both the donor and the government have heeded the warning and ensure that some funds are available for the ongoing work of NGOs.

Otherwise the answer to this article's question will be that NGOs will wither.

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"