Almost four
months into my time at Gobabeb, I’ve realized that I’m learning a lot about the
inner mechanisms of an NGO. I first
learned about the workings of non-governmental organizations in my Global
Development class at Grinnell with Professor Roper. I specifically remember the term “briefcase
NGO”, referring to an organization that creates a platform based on funding
rather than the other way around. Often
times these NGOs hire employees who can write attractive funding proposals and
progress reports rather than those who can complete the work on the
ground. Rich Western funders look for
causes that appeal to Western ideas of what changes need to be made in the
world with no regard for what people actual need and would rather see big plans
than realistic strategies.
When I
first learned of these NGOs, I imagined a few well-educated people with no
cultural understanding sitting in an office writing flowery grant proposals
while raking in the dough. On the other
side of the spectrum I imagined individuals connecting with people in remote
areas with nothing more than coins in their pockets. In reality, I have realized that most NGOs
fall somewhere in the middle. While
there may be the occasional immoral organization bringing in money without
providing real results, I am certain there are no surviving NGOs on the other
side of the spectrum. Gobabeb falls
right in the middle of this range. I see
Gobabeb struggle on a day-to-day basis to maintain the delicate balancing act
of catering to funders while staying true to our values. If we fall to either side, Gobabeb will cease
to function successfully. Without
funding, nothing will progress regardless of how virtuous our platform may
be. On the other hand, if we do not hold
true to our values, no amount of money can produce a worthwhile product. This leaves me, and Gobabeb, in a rough
position. I know that we must cater to
funding to an extent, but I constantly worry about how this is affecting our
core values. I worry that our values are
changing based on available funding rather than community needs.
For
example, I am currently writing up the final report for the Finnish Embassy
evaluating the Youth Environmental Summits funded by the Finnish Fund for Local
Cooperation. I was impressed as I read
through previous progress reports discussing how important contemporary issues
in Namibia determined the topics of each YES.
For example, the May 2014 YES was on the topic of the Namib Sand Sea due
to its recent inscription as a World Heritage Site. The YES before that focused on biodiversity
in honor of world biodiversity week, which was going on at the same time. As I wrote up the report, I found myself
stuck when trying to justify the choice of topic for the August 2014 YES. We focused on climate change and plant
genetic resources for food and agriculture.
I initially wondered why we chose this topic seeing as we are in the
middle of an extremely arid desert, and therefore are not the ideal location to
study crops. I quickly realized that we
chose this topic to gain funding from the Benefit Sharing Fund, which was
holding a simultaneous course interviewing farmers in the Northern regions
about farming practices to come up with a Strategic Action Plan. How do I justify our choice to study crops in
the middle of the Namib Desert?
 |
| YES learners studying agriculture in our tiny garden |
I also see buzzwords
thrown into grant proposals to draw the eyes of donors without contemplation of
the implications this may have on our on the groundwork. Recently one of our staff created a
presentation for an international conference on a topic she is passionate
about. In order to encourage the
conference to accept her presentation, she also threw in a side presentation
she thought would be attractive, but that she was not interested in. Low and behold, the presentation she really
wanted was not accepted, but the other was.
Now she is stuck attending an international conference to give a
presentation she does not have prepared about a topic she really does not care
about.
Maybe it is
the opposite effect that has me the most frustrated. We throw in buzz-words like “climate change”,
“women empowerment”, and “indigenous” solely to encourage funders to open their
pocketbooks. Our newest project focuses
on an especially at-risk indigenous group called the Topnaar who live along the
Kuiseb River. After reading the proposal
for the project I was especially excited about plans to create a sewing circle
meant to empower women. I met with some
of the staff to finalize the proposal.
After voicing my excitement about the sewing circle, I found that this
section was added simply to cater to our funder who is especially ‘into’
empowering women. In fact, I was told
(with a large eye roll) that our funders particularly liked the sewing circle
idea and wanted us to build more on the idea.
After forcing a smile onto my face, I described my ideas to incorporate
talks and activities that would foster confidence and independence. I also proposed the addition of a financial
management course to help women gain financial independence with the money from
their crafts. To my dismay, my ideas
were seen as great ways to placate the donor rather than methods to improve the
status of women within the Topnaar community, which is apparently not one of
our values.
 |
| Topnaar home |
I find it equally
frustrating to see worthwhile projects fall by the wayside due to a lack of
funding. One of the first research
projects Gobabeb undertook was the monitoring of Tenebrionid beetles. There are over 200 species of these
beetles. The little guys have
fascinating adaptations to desert life, from crazy methods to collect fog like
head-standing and trench building, to a diet of detritus (dead plant material)
to take advantage of strong winds and little new growth in the dry environment. The Tenebrionid beetles are an indicator
species, meaning the population density of different species can be connected
to greater environmental changes. For
example, fog dependent species are more populous nearer to the coast, while
rain dependent species only pop up in great numbers after heavy rain
events. This is one of the longest
running research projects in the Namib Desert, let alone in a dry environment
anywhere. This has a great advantage, as
we can compare more data and see clearer patterns over the course of a longer
period of time. Long term research is
especially essential when looking at topics like climate change, which depend
on long-term data to see changes. However,
recently the funding for this project dried up.
Rather than seek out new funding, Gobabeb was ready to drop the beetle
monitoring entirely. Mary Seely, who,
more than anyone, understands the importance of this project, came to our
rescue by providing the funding herself.
 |
| Waxy Darkling Tenebrionid Beetle |
 |
| Setting pitfall traps to monitor Tenebrionid populations |
In the end,
I cannot fault Gobabeb for catering to donors.
Without funding, our projects would come to a standstill, and I really
do believe that Gobabeb does a lot of good for Namibia. Rather, I have come to appreciate the
difficult balancing act Gobabeb, and I’m sure every successful NGO, must
perform every day. Given this huge
challenge, I’m not sure I could work in, let alone run, a non-governmental
organization as a career. But I think it
is absolutely essential for anyone who is interested in development to
understand the tough job done by every good NGO to fully appreciate what must
be done to foster positive change on the ground.
