This week I received an article from the Washington Post – you can see it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/24/AR2010102403375.html – and I was asked for my opinion.

This particular project has proved to be somewhat controversial – here’s a link to one article about it: http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62241

Anyway, as it happens, I have long thought about writing an article about the benefits and drawbacks of receiving aid from the donor community, but I have never got round to it.  It’s not a straightforward issue and I haven’t had the right stimulus to give me the impetus to sit down and organize my thoughts.  This seemed to be the right moment, and so here are some thoughts on the topic that I put together in reply.

Of course, the author could be raising a different issue: Is this a good way to spend American Tax Dollars?  I can’t comment on that.  That’s an issue for the American government, the Aid agency and the American people.  But they do need to be aware of think of the complex of issues that are involved.

There has been a lot of discussion about “overseas aid” … and the BBC programme “From our own Correspondent” has a several reports devoted to the issue – mainly from Africa, but the principles are the same.

Personally, I am not sure how effective a lot of aid projects are … many seem to “fail” but there could be several reasons for this.  In some cases the aims and objectives are too “grand”, unrealistic and unreasonable.  Some of the “best” projects here in Kyrgyzstan have been small, limited and directly targeted … and not only achieved results, but have had a long lasting effectiveness, setting up self-sustaining mechanisms.

I am thinking in particular of two projects, one Swiss and another American.  The Swiss one supported the development of “Community Based Tourism” and the American supported local craftsmen and women.  Both have had a real benefit in identifying and developing a source of additional income for people in the poorer, remote regions – thus helping to improve standards of living; opened up areas of the country in ways that would have not have been possible without their work; brought several intangible benefits as a by-product of their work; trained the local people; established self-sustaining mechanisms so that when the project was over the development work could continue – although I don’t think that establishing an organization was actually one of the original aims; involved the locals as real; partners – instead of “dictating” activities, terms and conditions so that they identified with it and felt a sense of ownership; and has proved to be a model which has been copied elsewhere – both within the country and elsewhere, for example in the region.

As an aside: They also had little, if any, connection with the government.

Other projects run into problems – especially with some of the “local partners”.  Many have their own perspectives and interests and they don’t always coincide with each other, yet alone with the aims of the donor organization.

There is often a sense of injustice – especially in a country which remembers that it used to be part of a “superpower” – that they are being dictated to, by people who are paid huge sums (in local terms) to travel here (“parachuted in” – with little knowledge, experience and understanding of the country) and “tell” them what to do – apparently ignoring the knowledge, skills and experience which already exists in the country.  It doesn’t really matter whether this impression is accurate, whether it is true or not - it affects their reaction and commitment.

It is true that many of these ”highly paid” consultants do have a wide experience - it shows in the materials which they produce where they often refer to countries which have hosted similar projects on which they have worked.  This tends to raises questions about whether they really understand the country – the people and culture, the geography (the mountains play an awfully big role in so many aspects of life here) and history (I have mentioned the Soviet past – and in June we saw the result of something that goes back far further) – and how relevant and appropriate their “recommendations” are.

Being cynical – each of the donor agencies is a “business” in themselves – maybe on a non-commercial basis, but there are a host of commercial organizations that also work in this sphere.  They each have their own priorities and “agenda”.  Sometimes they even compete with one another – and I am often disappointed at the apparent lack of cooperation and liaison between them.

They have targets which are seen as “deliverables” – many people here (and probably elsewhere) call them “tick boxes”.  Something has been done – delivered – so tick the box.  That means that they can show that they have been doing something – it’s a “success”, no matter how small. It also means that some of the easier “deliverables”, (such as holding “roundtables” or seminars, printing a report …) get priority – and some of the more important aspects are relegated, and maybe overlooked.

What’s more, many projects are seen as providing work for the donor country/countries.  One recent project here was heralded as being worth about one and a quarter million dollars – however only something like 200,000 was to be spent on direct activities fulfilling what was seen locally as the aim of the project – and that was only available under strict conditions.  The balance was to be spent on support activities – some of which many locals didn’t see the relevance of, and others went in expenses provided by the donor country (consultants, administrative costs and fees, etc) .  In fact, it was a good project in that it aimed to do something which was targeted towards a real need – but was probably badly presented and ran into a host of problems.

As it happens, although a certain amount went back to the donor country in the form of contracts, administrative fees, etc., quite a lot is usually spent in the beneficiary country as well – providing employment, buying goods and services and so forth.  In this way the projects do help to sustain the economy of the beneficiary country as an indirect ”side benefit”.  This is often forgotten – although the author does hint at it at one point.  It also causes other problems.

For example, the very size of the budget for many donor projects – often running into the millions – brings a host of problems of their own.  There are issues of good governance, audit and control.  means that there are considerable temptations for malpractice of one sort or another, (fraud, bribery and so forth).

If what I have written so far is mainly about issues “at this end”, in the “beneficiary country”, then there are also issues at “the other end”, in the “donor country”.  For example, misunderstandings: the criticism about little being achieved in one project “… because most of the first year was spent developing plans and building relationships” seems to me to make an assumption that the consultants should “hit the ground running” and start work on deliverables on day one.  That might be a bit strong and overstate the issue, but planning and good relationships are essential if a project is to be successful.

Then again, what counts as “success”?  The success of a project may not be total – it could be partial.  Events could occur to derail the project, either in all of its aims or in some of them.  I know of one project, for example, which cancelled one of its deliverables because another donor agency was commissioned to do exactly the same work – but on a wider scale.

How the locals will receive this particular project and how successful it will be, are good questions, and the author is right to raise them.

Please don’t misunderstand me.  If much of what I have written sounds as if I am opposed to, or sceptical about, aid projects, then that is only part of the picture as I see it.  It’s a very complex picture.  The aid provided by the donor community does do a lot of good, especially if it is provided as “grant aid” – loans have to be repaid and they place a burden on the finances of the “beneficiary country” for many years.   Some projects are extremely well run.  Some are successful in that they achieve much of what they set out to do.  Others, however, less so.

All in all, it’s a balancing act.

Is this project worth doing? … Yes, probably.  If it is done properly … and seen as making a contribution to the development of Kyrgyzstan, trying to encourage the country to develop along lines that are in keeping with the overall aims of the US at the same time – instead of being an attempt to forge a clone of the US, or a client state.

One of the problems the topic of with this particular project, (strengthening democracy), is that the results may not be in keeping with what the donor country intended.  The democratic will of the people may be at variance with what the pundits in the US and elsewhere assume it to be.  I know that there is a debate about whether Hitler rose to power as the result of the democratically expressed will of the German people – he never actually won an election, but he was catapulted to the Chancellorship in circumstances created by a “democratic” system.  The Palestinian elections in Gaza were hailed as “free and fair” but resulted in the election of an administration which both Israel and the US found difficult, if not impossible, to accept.  We’ve seen how the Kyrgyz elections have surprised everyone – both by being conducted ”peacefully” and by the results.  I have even seen some comment about how the Russians did not foresee, and might be regretting, the turn of events since April 7th.

It’s a complex situation – and, as I said, “a balancing act”.

Occasionally they feature an article from Kyrgyzstan: on Poverty and Pollution; on relationships between Kyrgyzstan and the US and Russia; on the effects of the demise of the Soviet Union on a small community and so on.  There aren’t that many articles from here, but there are over 180 countries and territories around the world, and the BBC have hundreds of foreign correspondents … many based in places where there are interesting events happening and lots of material competing for a place in the broadcast.

Now, Kyrgyzstan is not the best known country in the world, and I can imagine a correspondent being posted here asking: “Where? …”.  People are often confused about where Kyrgyzstan is, or what it is called, or how to say the name.  I think there used to be a clip on one of the video sharing sites featuring an American President’s difficulty in saying the name…. I wish I had saved it.  He’s not alone, however, there are several presenters on the television that have difficulty saying it.  Even some of the ex-pats here seem to have a variety of ways of pronouncing the name.  To be fair, however, the correspondents from the BBC never seem to have any difficulty.

On one occasion when I looked at a newspaper report on-line, (on the site of a very well-known and respected publication), about developments here in Central Asia.  There was a graphic which claimed to be a map of the region.  I say “claimed to be a map” because the artist had created a very pretty schematic, but had somehow forgotten about Kyrgyzstan.  It just wasn’t there.  There was Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, but no Kyrgyzstan.   I wish I had saved a copy, as I did with the travel guide, because people often don’t believe me when I tell them about it.

On another occasion I was filling in an on-line form and when I got to the “Country” box I was presented with a drop down menu which listed all the countries of the world … bar one, at least, that is: Kyrgyzstan.

A few years ago I was browsing a travel encyclopedia website and got a bit of a surprise when I looked up Kyrgyzstan.  There in the centre of each country page was a map – but I was faced with not of Kyrgyzstan, but of Kenya.

Although I felt a mix of emotions ranging from confused to outraged, I confess that I was also slightly amused and saved a screen dump for future reference … if you see the original, (not the reduced version here), then you can clearly see the address of the page.

Well, I cynically thought to myself, I suppose that both countries begin with the letter K … To be fair, however, it was probably just a simple programmer’s error … the files containing the two maps were probably stored close to one another … and the mistake has now been corrected.

So, you can imagine how my interest is piqued every time they mention Kyrgyzstan.

It’s not just the art6icles on Kyrgyzstan that are interesting, however, which is quite good, because there aren’t that many of them.  Many of the other articles are interesting and provide insights.  Sometimes they are about places I have visited, on others they give a background to items which are in the news, and yet others  provide insights of a more general nature.  This week, for example, I was intrigued by an article about Zambia.  Their reporter, Jo Fidgen, (based in Lusaka) posed the question about “how much good does the plethora of NGOs do in Zambia?”.

As I sat listening to it, it all sounded so familiar.  I couldn’t help thinking that in many places she could have replaced the Zambia with Kyrgyzstan and so much of what she said would apply.

Of course, the two countries are far apart – and not just in distance: Zambia is a lot larger than Kyrgyzstan, it is in Africa not Central Asia, was part of the British Empire not the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union … but there are many similarities as well.  It is one of the least developed countries in the world, facing many challenges and as such attracts a large number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) trying to help the local population in one or another.   Transport can be difficult and few tourist or other outsiders make it to the more areas.  The four pillars of the economy are: mining; agriculture; tourism and industry.

There is also a growth in the number of hotels in both countries.  Jo Fidgen wondered how all these new hotels kept going in Zambia, where did they get their clients from?  The answer, she suggested, was provided by the plethora of NGOs in the country, who needed to accommodate their international consultants and venues to conduct their workshops.  The same is true to a certain extent here in Kyrgyzstan and, obviously I have a vested interest in this … as we have two hotels and the recent increase in the number of hotels opening in both Bishkek and Naryn means greater competition and keeps us on our toes.

She went on to review the vocabulary of NGO-ese; how their mission was often to “sensitize, empower and build capacity”; and the often chosen method of workshops, (here they are often called Forums, Seminars or Round Tables), and commented how they were often well attended for the first session, but with fewer participants staying after the coffee break.  I have often commented how few people stay after the coffee break which follows the initial presentations, when the Minister and the press have left.  This is usually the time when most of the real work gets done, and it always strikes me as a shame that important people – often major players in the topic under consideration – just “melt into the woodwork” and disappear when they really could make a difference.

She went on to give some examples of projects in Zambia – some good … some not so good … some involving inappropriate interventions such as recommending some foreign experience which is not suited to the local circumstances … and I thought of similar examples from Kyrgyzstan.  Although the role of the International Consultant is to bring their wider experience and expertise to bear, to inform decisions, it can be frustrating when they appear to have been simply “parachuted” into the country, knowing little or nothing about the local circumstances and simply repeat a presentation which they have made before … sometimes not even changing the name of the country in the obligatory Power Point presentation.

That’s not to say that NGO’s aren’t effective.  Here in Kyrgyzstan there are a number of particular examples that make a real difference and are worthy of respect, such as: CACSA – The Central Asian Craft Support Association; KCBTA – the Kyrgyz Community Based Tourism Association and Babushka Adoption.

Jo Fidgen’s conclusion was that Zambia was a bit like her car, that keeps breaking down and needing repair: it’s not in great shape … with plenty of people willing and trying to help fix its problems … with some, despite their good intentions, doing more “damage” than good, although the odd one making a real difference …

As I said, it all sounded so familiar! – even if it was about a country far, far away which I have never visited …

I look forward to listening to the next broadcast, and will keep a special watch for more of Jo Fidgen’s contributions.

• Tourism Services;
• Hotel Services;
• Business Consultations;
• Attraction of Foreign Investment and
• Any activity not forbidden under Kyrgyz law.

The majority of our work is involved with with the first two: tourism – organising tours – and with our hotels, (The Silk Road Lodge in Bishkek and the guesthouse in Naryn). Our staff have also, however, undertaken a number of development projects which have included:

• consulting businesses involved in tourism in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Moscow;
• assisting consultants on projects in Kyrgyzstan, including arranging translations, arranging meetings, finding legislation;
• contributing to national and international surveys concerning the business environment;
• assisting students preparing dissertations and theses on the development of tourism in Kyrgyzstan;
• participating in the planning mission for the vocational training of hotel staff;
• participating in the delivery training courses.

Visiting dignitaries, businessmen interested in investing in Kyrgyzstan, students preparing reports for their postgraduate studies, journalists visiting the region and consultants working on various projects often seek the opinions of existing investors in Kyrgyzstan and Celestial Mountains, with our knowledge of the region and years of experience, are often sought out as potential sources of information and partners.