So I got through 'the document', big fun!! Lots of fun 'legalese' to get through, but not actually very long...
So this is the gist of it, they don't make this easy. Imagine if in order to start a company in the US you had to sign a contract with the governement stating each parties responsibilities and obligations to the other? Granted this was a draft copy, but the document reinforced a reality all to familiarly described. In the US for profit business holds the power. Wall Street, the insurance companies, media, making money and companies that strive to maximize profits are given every opportunity to excel and limited involvement by the government. It may not seem like it to those debating the the financial regulation bill, but 'doing business' in the US is relatively easy, number 4 in the world. Sierra Leone seems to be trying to live up to its ranking of 148 with this NGO regulations document. Unlike in the US, the governments' involvement is virtually all-intrusive. In a country as underdeveloped as Sierra Leone the bulk of a economic involvement for most of the country comes from NGO's (non-profits). I suppose with such a large part of a country's economic and governmental resources rapped up in the non-profit sector it would be no wonder that the government would see it as a definte way to control a bit more of their national development.
The document opens by saying "The current review was carried through a consultative process with key stakeholders [my italics] in a series of workshops held in each province..." Who are these people or organizations? This could simply mean a couple of local power brokers trying to find a way to make a quick dollar, the government and some of their 'people', or an exhaustive all inclusive Jirga. But it seems to me that if they wanted everyone to know who was really involved they would have said it. What are the intentions here?
As for the complexity of the regulations themselves: A company must be "in conformity with GOSL (government of sierra leone) development policies", and have an easily identifiable office space, signage, local bank account, easily accessible postal address, etc. This isn't such a big deal, I'm sure there are companies that will register an office for you (at a high price), and the policies could simply mean you follow the laws. But the document continues to say an organization must have 5 full time employees. Could you imagine how many US or european companies would be done if they had to carry five employees all the time?. Full disclosure of all financial details - itemized down to each overhead cost, donor, outlay, whatever - and "be willing to share relevant activity related reports with GOSL... other NGO's, beneficiaries, and other relevant interested parties [i.e. anyone that asks for your company's details]." The Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED) is responsible for registration and monitoring of NGO relationships with the government, donors, NGOs and beneficiary communities, "bearing in mind the national priorities". In other words, they will monitor all the interactions of your company, and through how they fit into their national priorities/strategies/priorities. I thought NGO stood for NON-governmental organization?
All projects must also go through the relevant government ministries. It seems if you want to build a school, you have to get approval from the ministry of education, a farm, the ministry of agriculture. There is a government "NGO Unit" that (among other more straight forward things) is charged to "do site visits to applicants' premises and witness randomly selected activities of field operations without notice [my italics] to the NGO." In other words the NGO 'police' can show up at your business operation and go through it all and inspect it without any notice. Seems intrusive...?!?! But how about this... "All assets purchased or acquired with donor funds should be the property of the people of Sierra Leone who are the beneficiaries. When closing down its operations, no NGO shall dispose of such assets and keep the proceeds or transfer them out of the country. In the process of closure, all assets must be disposed of in collaboration with the GOSL." ?!!? What?!? Any assets coming via donors money (most NGO funding) is not the property of the NGO but of the country and the local beneficiaries? WOW!?! Tell me if I'm reading that wrong (section 2.7.4). The problem then gets a bit more complicated a bit later in the document (2.8.4) as they say "NGOs are created entities that serve as agents for both donors and beneficiaries. All funds released by donors for NGO operations are meant for the benefit of the target beneficiaries. This implies that even where funds are provided for capacity building/logistics support, items so acquired remain the property of the NGO for as long as it stays in operation." So I can only think that this just isn't well written as it is a 'draft'. Please tell me your thoughts on this interpretation. One says "all assets... should be the property of Sierra Leone..." the other says they are the NGO's property. If I'm thinking what are they trying to mean here, it is that an NGO should see there property as for the people, and that if they leave or close up that they must leave the assets for the locals. But this is not what is directly said here. Could it possibly be that the governmental could come in and say "hey, that's mine now!" I can't imagine that - but thats what it seems to say!!
The rest of the document is pretty straightforward and looks to be in the best interests of the people, employing them, and of the economy. Employ locals, use local goods and services, comply with tax laws, etc. Middle and junior staff positions have to employ Sierra Leoneans or people from ECOWAS (Economic Community of W. African States), and the company has to be able to operate if no foreign national is there for any time period. On the whole the regulations are a testament to the realities of doing business in a developing country. It is not the government that is developing the country, it is not private for-profit enterprises, it is non-profits and charities, and if the government wants to have any say in the development of its own country, it has to get its hands in the cookie jars. Understandable. Now granted, what is written is very likely not what is practiced down to the letter. How much oversight do they do? Is it just about paper formalities? I have the application and it is not so absurd at all. There should be oversight, regulations, and the such, but when you tell a company you have to have five employees, I think maybe you've gone to far. But again, what's to say this isn't five people on the books for a dollar a year?
As it is, it was a good document to read and will be for using as we move forward knowing that it is going to be bureaucratic and perhaps top heavy to set up an organization there (a long ways away). We will certainly need local advice - which will undoubtedly require a decent amount of cash - but I still have to get networked in and try to find locals to work with. This could alleviate all of these issues. But I will start planning my project template structures around this document. I am disappointed that it didn't say anything about the difference between what the ICNL described as an NGO (which this document talked about) and a Non-Profit Company (NPC) which "are allowed to engage in business activity, provided the profit is used to further the not-for-profit purposes of the organization." This is different from their definition of an NGO “any independent, not-for-profit making, non-political and charitable organisation, with the primary objective of enhancing the social, environmental, cultural and economic well being of communities.” More research will have to be done there...
No comments:
Post a Comment