Who certifies the certifier? Who audits the NGOs?

[Ad van Tage]

On a different thread, in a long post we saw that

Not to mention the fact that surely their sponsors/funders will be checking up on their progress as well. I seriously doubt that that kind of money gets thrown around without any follow through and oversight.

Well Rover, we must hope that you speak from experience here! Direct experience with major funders that is.

Having actively been involved in a - till then land based - conservation NGO, I have seen the funding "game" first hand.***

Sadly, for all parties involved, starting with the funders, the recipients of the funding, as well as the intended targets of the funding largess, an awful lot of funds are piddled away without ever achieving the stated objective. And without a lot of accountability. How well NGO recipients can BS the funders often has more to do with the funding than "worthwhileness and honesty".

I am sure there are people around who can atest to funding going down the tube, not just because of incompetence, or overly optimistic and unrealistic goals, but by simple fraud and scams as well.

For some it is a rotating door policy. I have seen officers of NGOs go to work for funders, and vice versa. I have seen NGO officers vote to assign projects to spouses, kids, friends, et al.
All sorts of hanky-panky!

Executive directors who pull the wool over the eyes and ears of their own BoDs... Hasn't everybody heard about "misappropriation of funds"?
Hell even Lord Whatever His Nibs the media baron, is in trouble now.
And he didn't even get to retire to HAWAII yet!!!

Audits you said? Who is to do that? Do you really think a funder is gonna do an indepth study on an NGO, to see if they can sniff out some smoke?

Funding is often provided for terms that are really too long in a business sense. Try doing this sort of stuff in the hardnosed world of companies with shareholders. NO RESULTS FOR FIVE YEARS? AND EVER CHANGING OBJECTIVES? That just isn't on.

How many project officers of funding agencies do you know, who will be happy to step in and say: "Hey wait a minute, the project I signed off on, and need to ride herd on, IS A SCAM!"... ? It just aint "politic"...

Generally what happens is that the funding will run the agreed upon course. And then, "priorities" of the FUNDER change too!

That way not too much dirty linen gets aired!

Believe me, it aint pretty behind the various facades and boardfronts... not even in the "green" world!

To be sure, my remarks here are GENERIC. And are not aimed directly or indirectly at anyone.


Why does it get dark in the East so early??? G'nite ALL,
dream about where all yer donations to good causes go!


Ad van Tage, ecoworrier
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Steal a loaf, you are a thief; steal a country, you are a KING!"




Btw. a good clue to what is going on with funding is to check out WHO REALLY benefits of their involvement with an NGO...
Does freebie travel come to mind? Especially to exotic places?


***I hate to even bring up a "Public money - Private effort" project where the Federal government "lost" 2 million bucks to a project that was run out of a university... Phase one took two years; phase two didn't happen because two principle players refused to continue the scam, when it became clear it WAS A SCAM! Was there ever an audit? Hell, the University for one refused!!! Guess where the principled princples went... Making a living as "independents" , without the help of a "consortium" , or "funder/funny" money! LOL!

 

[jamesw]

The people who "audit" an NGO are ultimately it's very own customers.

Look at how ISO certification works. The reason people get ISO certified is that their industry demands it. If the industry deems the certification worthless, then no one pushes businesses they work with to become certified.

So ultimately, if the aquarium industry deems MAC certification worthless, then no one will pursue becoming certified.

But my gut feeling is that this will not be the case. I think that in coming years, there will be more and more pressure on businesses to get certified. Businesses DON'T like this because it costs them time and money, but that's life.

My company spent $2,000,000 last year to get ISO9001 certification - so you guys think you've got problems! lol. And literally NONE of that money actually goes to ISO. Our company is the one that spent the money - on training our engineers, developing quality control, and then to pay the auditing company.

Cheers
James

 

[JennM]

So ultimately, if the aquarium industry deems MAC certification worthless, then no one will pursue becoming certified.

Aye, there's the rub.

IMO most if not all industry types here have deemed MAC certification worthless. Still more won't care one way or the other, and if it's just another cost, why bother?

The vast majority of customers don't even know who MAC is. The vast majority of customers only care about the cheapest price, and a few care about quality. If a store has to pay for a pricey certification, that's going to be passed along to the consumer, so the price factor becomes an issue for the consumer. The ones who care about quality, don't need to see a sticker or certificate to know what they are getting.

Jenn

 

[Anonymous]

IMO most if not all industry types here have deemed MAC certification worthless. Still more won't care one way or the other, and if it's just another cost, why bother?

The vast majority of customers don't even know who MAC is. The vast majority of customers only care about the cheapest price, and a few care about quality. If a store has to pay for a pricey certification, that's going to be passed along to the consumer, so the price factor becomes an issue for the consumer. The ones who care about quality, don't need to see a sticker or certificate to know what they are getting.

Then why are we so worried about them?

 

[MaryHM]

Here's the main reason why I'm so worried about them. Because if they make it appear to the world that they have reformed the industry (an illusion that has already convinced some people), then no one else will have the reason to try to do it RIGHT.

 

[JennM]

I'm not "worried" about them... but like Mary said, if the perception is that they are "saving the trade", then there is little hope for any real reform.

Jenn

 

[clarionreef]

If you two are right...
Then what we have here is a creation of a net negative for the coral reefs we treasure...[ yeah, treasure as a logger does trees].
If the alarm is off because its thought that the problem is already being taken care of, then the damage increases due to our lack of effective activity. Another year passes, MACNAs come and go, reefs get cashed in mile after mile...but shhh...give them a chance. And another and another.
To be upset at this, is I have been told, irresponsible . To act on this, even more so. I remember that in the days of FAMAs monthly exposes of the cyanide cartels activities that reformers were against the money grubbing businessmen killing the reefs, remember?
Now to go after them, you have to go thru their guard dog, MAC. How did they ever become the Johnny Cochran of the cyanide consortiums of Manila and Indonesia?
To protect the guilty to be sure pays better. The guilty need cleaning and absolution. The dirtier the better as we have seen in the rush to defend the Hong Kong food fish trade in live cyanide caught fish for human consumption. ECO-NGO types are in fact the defenders of choice for these very worst of offenders.
Representing the cleaner, already responsible dealers is not such good business. The clean and innocent would not need the "service".
So it is irresponsible now to expose the cyanide trade and equally so to expose its protector...and still years go by and then another.
"Give them a chance!" We hear..."They are still in their infancy....Rome wasn't built in a day...these things don't change overnite. " I do agree that all that is true. The more inept you are, the less experience you have...the more those things are true.
Tolerance we are told is a virtue. Patience, inner calm, politeness and forbearance. But confusing these social virtues with public apathy, collective irresponsibility and cowardice in the face of emergency is a recipe for disaster.
The damage done by destructive fishing methods in the last 10 years will soon be matched by double the population of more desperate fisherman...in half the time. The counsel for patience in the face of this is absurd and an insult to our intelligence.
RDO has I think a serious responsibility to remain a bastion of free expression and independance. It is read by far more than you might imagine now...especially when it flares up as it has this week. I used to think it was but a training ground for ideas but I know better now.
I will not 'out' anyone, but I am pleased to say that it is becoming must reading for many in government and academic positions in search of alternative views to the ones that were being fed.
Thank you RDO for allowing this to happen.

Steve

 

[PeterIMA]

As someone who is not tied to the industry and only loosely tied to several NGOs, I tend to agree with Steve and many others on this forum. The problem is that the industry used the MAC as a smokescreen to creat the illusion that it would "reform" collection, transport and holding practices (read greenwash) through "certification". The truth is they never intended to carry out reform, and nothing meaningful has been accomplished. The insiders in the trade are happy because they stopped the US Coral Reef Task Force (government regulation). A few "reformists" in the trade have created a black-eye for some NGOs. But, the trade has not funded hardly anything. It does not intend to change until laws are enforced to stop them from raping of the reefs and to reduce the excessive mortality in the trade. Nothing is being accomplished on Reefs.org, but it certainly is of interest to the government types who also are lurking here.

Peter