Goal withdrawal dents Irish image

AMONG the 120 or so non governmental organisations (NGOs) (operating in Rwanda there are four Irish agencies - Concern, Goal, Trocaire and Refugee Trust.

They enjoy a good reputation. As in other developing countries, both local communities and government officials are wont to praise the Irish for their approach to the aid business.

Irish aid, it is said, is more people oriented, less ideological and less arrogant than some agencies from larger Western countries or the former colonial powers.

Yet the experience of Irish aid is not all rosy. The sudden withdrawal of Goal from Rwanda and many other developing countries raises important questions for future Irish aid policies and the aid organisations themselves.

Goal came to Rwanda to help in the refugee camps set up in 1994 to house Hutus fleeing the Tutsi dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front. The RPF won the war convincingly, but only after more than 500,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus had been hacked to death by Hutu extremists supporting the previous regime.

Goal assumed the major responsibility for the health of 250,000 refugees in three camps across the border in Zaire and Tanzania. In the Kibumba camp in Zaire, it also started a fostering and tracing service for the many child victims of the conflict.

By all accounts, Goal's volunteers carried out this work with great dedication and efficacy, in very difficult and sometimes dangerous conditions.

As time passed, Goal sought to diversify its operations in the country. The focus on emergency relief had to be supplemented by involvement in development projects, it was decided.

By its nature, development work is different emergencies come and go, but development aid requires a sustained, long term approach by an NGO. The intervention has to be sensitive to the local culture and appropriate to its level of technology.

This approach has not always been followed in the past. The developing world is littered with decaying factories with no electric power, and sophisticated machinery for which no spare parts are available, or affordable locally.

After a search, Goal identified several development projects to advance. These included the construction of 1,000 houses at Rukara, near the Tanzanian border; a water supply project in the north of the country; and the building and refurbishment of a school at Ntarama, south of the capital Kigali.

Funding was secured for each of the projects, either from individual donors or international agencies.

Preparatory work was undertaken over some months and, in some cases building started. Volunteers came from Ireland to provide specialist engineering and construction advice.

Then last month Goal decided to pull out of several developing countries, including the entire Great Lakes region of East Africa. Headquarters blamed funding difficulties and cash flow problems for what it termed the downsizing".

One by one, the development projects in Rwanda were dropped; the fax stopping work on the water supply project arrived from Dublin even as The Irish Times was visiting Goal's office in a villa in Kigali.

Now only the school at Ntarama will be completed before the organisation pulls out in September. Goal's health assistance work in the refugee camps is to be taken over by a Zairean NGO, while an American Seventh Day Adventist charity is to carrying on the fostering and tracing of orphans.

The frustration of the volunteer" staff in Kigali at this turn of events is evident.

Their projects were 100 per cent funded by third parties. Staff locally had been assured by the UNHCR that money would be paid in advance, so no cash flow difficulties would arise.

But in spite of this the office in Dublin included Rwanda in its retrenchment plans - though no one came out to the country to explain the reasons for this to the staff on the ground.

As a result, the volunteers feel their preparatory work has come to nothing. Rural communities have been let down - though the projects may yet be taken over by other agencies.

Irish volunteers are left with the choice of coming home early or seeking work with other NGOs. There is embarrassment in dealing with the UN agencies and a feeling that the reputation of all Irish agencies has suffered as a result.

The situation highlights the need for a consistent approach to development work, greater co ordination between the headquarters offices of NGOs and staff in the field, and a cautious approach to expansion.

And if Irish aid is to be marketed as a quality service, as the Government intends, surely there is a case for greater co ordination between the different Irish NGOs, and between State agencies and the NGOs.

Otherwise the Irish aid effort, in common with the Rwandan villagers who were hoping for a better water supply, could be left high and dry.