Peace projects

If you were to add up the total number of donor-funded projects in the DRC it would be in the thousands. Some of them are run directly by the donor concerned, some by consultant firms and some by international or local NGOs (non-government organisations).

Development aid these days is basically supported by fund raising. Everyone has to look over their shoulder to make sure that their work is being recognised, because if it isn’t who’s going to fund it next time round?

Whether it is USAID requiring funds from Congress, or Médecins sans Frontières, or Save the Children from charitable contributions made by little old women, they all need money and to get that money they have to look good. More than ever they rely on cleverly designed promotional material which shows the good work that they are doing. You know what I mean: on the one hand starving, sick, neglected and impoverished people, and on the other pictures of babies getting vaccinated, children getting water from a tap, and bright new classrooms filled with earnest children being well educated. “We make a difference” proclaims the pamphlet/web site/whatever.

There was an interesting case recently in the DRC. The British Ambassador, flanked by the head of the development agency DFID and others bigwigs addressed the National Assembly. He was careful to note that DFID had received a 42% increase for its programs in the Congo – the biggest increase of any country in the world, and in contrast to the cuts being made at home. When the time came for questions, he was revelling in the prospect of grateful speeches of thanks, possibly tinged with a little hint of asking for more. What he got was the opposite. “Why is Britain investing so much here? You want to take over all our mines.” “You are just here to exploit us.” “You are trying to turn us into an Anglophone country – just like you did to Rwanda.” “You are only here to spy.” DFID was established under the leadership of Claire Short. It’s clear that her good middle class Hampstead values under which DFID is basically prevented from advertising its role in projects (we mustn’t boast, that’s not British) is a complete flop.

DFID’s dilemma emphasises just how important it is to communicate what you’re doing, but it’s not enough to simply put out press releases etc. The big problem is always how to distinguish between what you are doing and what the other hundred or so others development groups are doing, so you have to invent a catchy name for your project. More importantly, for fund raising, you have to make it sound IMPORTANT.

But that’s not always so easy. So that while teaching the staff of the National Assembly to keep proper Hansard-type record of debates you can’t call it “The National Assembly Staff Basic Training Project”. That makes it sound unimportant and patronising, as if they don’t know what they’re doing, even though that is perfectly true. Who would give hard-earned money for that? Not cynical members of parliament or congress: they would, with some justification ask why they (the Congolese) need international aid for that. So, instead, you have to call it “The DRC Democracy Development Project”.

When you are running a project on street cleaning you call it the “Kinshasa Peace Project” (true) so that its truly pedestrian nature (giving funds to operate a service that the city authorities used to provide unaided) is given a transformative gloss: employment generation, recycling, etc etc leading to a reduction in the tension being experienced by the poor people of Kinshasa.

Your title has to include key words which will make sure it is picked up in a Google search. Favourite key words are, of course, peace, justice, democracy, participation, gender and development. You need at least two of those in your project title, but to do well you need more. To make it all look politically connect, you dress your unstinting donation to the poor in the language of a “partnership”, and reinforce the message by displaying the national flags of both countries neatly twinned at the top of project documents and business cards.

The problem is that there are only so many titles of this sort, so inevitably they sound incredibly similar which is where the second phase comes in: preparing the before and after video clips and photos, the sound bite from satisfied customers and so on. This doesn’t come cheap – many agencies employ top of the range photographers and cinematographers for their public relations material. UNICEF cleverly uses film stars as volunteer ambassadors, other use royalty and other celebrities. Just to attract these volunteer celebrities can require expensive lobbying and schmoozing.

We on the ground, of course, see it somewhat differently. “You’re on one of those democracy projects? Ha Ha. I hope your pay’s not linked to results . . .”